The biggest one for me is when I see people glazing Bush, like either you’re a teenager or you weren’t paying attention.

And he’s snuggling with pigs on pig farms. I think there are some people who would say that such actions are only possible on exploited pigs who are headed for the slaughterhouse, and therefore, because he has made himself part of the meat system, he wouldn’t be a vegan, either.

What on earth? That’s like saying that activists who give water to pigs in slaughterhouse trucks aren’t vegan because “they’ve made themselves part of the meat system.”

You can snuggle pigs that aren’t headed to the slaughterhouse, so in no way does such an action necessitate or expedite harm to animals.

All the bourgeoisie see us as cattle, not all Jews do.

If you’re a socialist then you should understand that it’s more about class rather than race.

Blocked.

Honestly not even reading your comments anymore, don’t care.

And if you engaged with my actual arguments and points instead of blandly asserting “I’m right and you’re wrong,” you’d understand why.

Yes, only in practice and common use.

Again, blandly asserting “I’m right and you’re wrong.” I don’t know if you’re just stubborn, or if you lack the capacity to engage beyond that. Either way, you obviously have nothing to contribute.

How many times are you going to blandly assert that your definition is correct while ignoring all my points? Like talking to a brick wall.

No, it’s actually about people who support peace. I already explained why, in a point that you most certainly, 100% failed to address, directly or otherwise.

You claimed that you had “directly” addressed all my points, and not just blandly repeated “this is how I use it.” Then you referenced yourself not addressing my point and instead blandly repeating “this is how I use it.”

I addressed your argument re “definition”, what the definition was, and what makes a definition.

That’s not what I said at all. That’s just repeatedly asserting “this is how I use it” while completely ignoring my point.

No accusations have been made, it’s all here for anyone else to see (as long as they don’t share your cognitive dissonance, that is).

What is? What have I said that demonstrates I fit your definition of “tankie?”

Really? You addressed the argument that opposing war can be used to accuse the person of supporting the other side? The thing that you’re doing right now? Where? Apparently you even addressed it “directly!” I don’t see that anywhere. All I see is, “No, I use it to mean this” over and over.

It doesn’t matter what you call me or accuse me of. It’s based on nothing. How did you come to the conclusion that I’m an “authoritarian” who “wants to crush dissent with tanks or any other means?” Was is because I said we should build fewer tanks?

You didn’t address a single one.

I wear the label tankie with pride. I do indeed oppose the use of tanks in the vast majority of cases, so I am a tankie.

I’ve already made my arguments and you failed to address any of them. You’re just asserting your definition over and over again. Not interested.

OK have a nice day. Obviously no point in talking to you.

They’re obviously correlated, and the number of members is obviously the more important stat.

I’m trying to explain our conditions to you but you’re just choosing to be stubborn and refusing to listen.