85 points

In b4 I’m called a tankie

permalink
report
reply
99 points

Nothing tankie about this. Do conservatives just use it as a kind of slur because they heard progressives using it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points
*

It’s (basically) used to describe communists that still support authoritarian regimes such as the ussr, China, and north korea

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Yeah, basically

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I’ve not really heard conservatives use it, mostly lefties who want to distance themselves as far as they can from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Why do all the 40 year old boomer Lemmy users call anything to the left of the most moderate Democrat “tankie”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*

I do not see it using for leftists in general. Just the ones that for some reason support Russia and China

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Exactly. Those boomer posters just call you a communist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Millennial, thank you very much. And, no, as an Anarchist I can definitely say that tankies are to the right of me. By like twenty parsecs.

Also, this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Also, this

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

40 year old boomer

Wrong age class. Boomers are 60+

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

“OK, boomer” attacks a mindset, not a generation

Another example is a pretty big meme from 5 years ago, the 30 year old boomer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

A bit like how anybody further right of Biden is often branded a Nazi by the left, regardless of whether their policies actually resemble Fascism.

Politics has turned heavily toxic and partisan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Moderates are still a large demographic in the US but completely unrepresented in the media and in government.

Edit: so yeah I agree. I’m personally not likely to label a moderate a Nazi, but I’ll stay vigilant about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Why would you be called a tankie? I don’t see any leftist authoritarianism here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points
*

Tankie: Cuts the legs off of tall people to not let them watch anything, while party authorities take the cut off legs to step on.

permalink
report
reply
43 points

My guy, you’re just describing capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

shitting on tankies ≠ shilling capitalism

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Unfortunately that depends on the circle you’re in. A lot of dumbass libs think that all leftist ideologies are strictly authoritarian.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Right, just like China’s government

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

lenin literally described the USSR under his rule as “State Capitalism” so yes!

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Naw, I don’t see this as being tanky. The middle one I don’t really get tho.

permalink
report
reply
84 points

the middle one explains that equity unlike equality does not give everyoune the same resources, but distributes resources so every one has the same experience/chance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need…

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

But isn’t equity often used for “we keep the oppressive system but we allow few women and black people on the compressor side”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

I would advise fighting for equity to mean “distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity” rather than “capitalism with a diversity coating”

If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you’re allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you’re trying to describe.

So with all that said, to respond to your question: Perhaps you’ve seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Not if done right, no. Affirmative action is an example of equity - in an equality scenario anyone can go for a job. Great concept in theory but in reality we end up with existing systems bias taking over and corrupting it. So you jam a fork into that bias by saying ‘well dipshit, ya gotta hire x of this and x of that as part of your build’

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Lmao yes actually. Never trust a black cop. Diversity hires, if in a powerful position at all, are… Theoretically just minorities who buy into the system, serve shareholders just the same.

Equity on the left is usually about progressivism and social mobility for children and students in public schools. Or that 10% low income houskng in apartment buildings so poor people can live near the well-off. We struggle to control for people’s outcomes. One example of trying to fix outcomes was college admission Affirmative Action. That was, I believe, an imperfect bandaid solution. And it became unpopular enough to be removed. Even unions are open up to failure to create equity. Unions can go wrong and support racial or gendered policies, or tiered employee benefits. So I believe the sentiment you bring up is something to keep in mind always.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

It’s the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Even given the same opportunity some have no chance of reaching the desired outcome. So you create a system that provides supports that brings all to the same outcome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Sounds like a very, very fast way to disincentivize anyone working any harder, smarter, or taking any more risks than anyone else.

I get there are HUGE problems with unregulated capitalism, but what you describe (equalizing everyone’s outcomes) also comes with catastrophic consequences.

There’s just not a good clean answer – it’s a fuckin rats nest and difficult to untangle. But we certainly shouldn’t stop trying. Some things have got to change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

Nah, they described it weirdly if that’s how you took it. Equity is equal oportunity: they can all watch the game. Equality is everyone gets the same reward.

Besides, both concepts can have room for extra reward for extra work in any actual implementation, so bringing it up as an absolute negative is weak logic.

permalink
report
parent
reply

His description of giving everyone the same outcome is wrong, anyway. Equality is giving everyone the same exact assistance; even if that assistance is not adequate enough or not needed by some.

Equity gives everyone the right tools so that everyone has the same starting chance. Those who do not need assistance do not get any. Those who need a little get a little. And those who need a bit more, get a bit more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Why do I have to “take risks” to “succeed”? I just wanna live a healthy life. My motivations don’t come all that much from power or a paycheck, but rather love from others. Capital doesn’t often create incentives or opportunity. A lot of our greastest innovations were made open-sourced, without copyright. And it’s capitals job to figure out how to monetize the free resources society provides ourselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

It means that people are given different amounts of resources to receive the same quality of life. Because not everyone’s circumstances are the same, everyone needs different amounts of resources to maintain an equal quality of life.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

For example, a person born with certain medical needs will need more at the base level than someone born those needs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yep, and a person born with a sense of ineptitude or laziness will need more given to them than someone who has more drive and aptitude.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

In capitalism, they pay the owner of the stadium for the price of a ticket and watch from the benches. The rich watch from a VIP section.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

That’s a pretty flawed way of describing equality, it’s almost like the original image was made in bad faith

Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/secondary-education-resources/useful-information/understanding-equality

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

permalink
report
reply
16 points

It’s almost like the original image is trying to describe equity and not equality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s the way some people think of equality, and contrasted with what equity looks like, it demonstrates the flaw in that line of thinking.

Also, there is a version of this image where the fence is completely removed and the subtitle is “justice” or something like that, which is also a good contrast to both equality and equity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You might be right, but in political rhetoric equality is often used in bad faith. Because the right knows equality doesn’t solve most of the problems it’s aimed at.

permalink
report
parent
reply