▲ 1441 ▼ Zelenskyy fires recruitment officials for accepting $10,000 bribes to help Ukrainian men dodge the draft: 'bribery during war is treason' (www.businessinsider.com) submitted 3 years ago by alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 268 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago* (2 children) I’d rather have universal health care than spend a trillion dollars every year policing ten other countries The US spends more per-capita on healthcare than almost every other country. Making sure a free nation isn't overrun by Russian invaders is not the reason the US healthcare system sucks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world 16 points 3 years ago (1 child) Correction: The US spends more per-capita lining the pockets of health insurance execs than every other country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Exactly The idea we should allow a free nation to fall to Russian invaders, just so we can throw extra money at health insurance executives, is laughable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -17 points 3 years ago* (2 children) What's 'tanky' is arguing for your own impoverishment, which is what you're doing when you try to defend our country spending a trillion a year on war in ten other countries. And then another 100+ billion on another country's war, that we're not even fighting in. That 100 billion could keep people cool in a heat wave, or fix a state's broken power grid, or put clean water in Flint, Michigan. But no, you'd rather we neglect our own people instead. War spending is 100% why we don't have universal health care in this country, and we are the only country dropping a trillion-plus a year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artisanrox@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago War spending is 100% why we don’t have universal health care in this country, Rurals that worship misogynist inheritor orange blobs that like Putin and Kim Jong Un are why we don't have universal healthcare. I want my universal healthcare, AND, in this particular case, I want overseas Nazis blown to smithereens with nice expen$ive Patriot missles. permalink fedilink source parent [+] hark@lemmy.world -15 points 3 years ago (1 child) It is kind of funny that people throw around the word "tankie" so meaninglessly when the US has the largest military spending in the world by far and is thus literally the most "tankie" i.e. enforcing their will with military might. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don't even know what it means Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state. The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn't happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] hark@lemmy.world -9 points 3 years ago (1 child) I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie. Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hark@lemmy.world 16 points 3 years ago (1 child) Correction: The US spends more per-capita lining the pockets of health insurance execs than every other country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Exactly The idea we should allow a free nation to fall to Russian invaders, just so we can throw extra money at health insurance executives, is laughable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Exactly The idea we should allow a free nation to fall to Russian invaders, just so we can throw extra money at health insurance executives, is laughable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world -17 points 3 years ago* (2 children) What's 'tanky' is arguing for your own impoverishment, which is what you're doing when you try to defend our country spending a trillion a year on war in ten other countries. And then another 100+ billion on another country's war, that we're not even fighting in. That 100 billion could keep people cool in a heat wave, or fix a state's broken power grid, or put clean water in Flint, Michigan. But no, you'd rather we neglect our own people instead. War spending is 100% why we don't have universal health care in this country, and we are the only country dropping a trillion-plus a year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artisanrox@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago War spending is 100% why we don’t have universal health care in this country, Rurals that worship misogynist inheritor orange blobs that like Putin and Kim Jong Un are why we don't have universal healthcare. I want my universal healthcare, AND, in this particular case, I want overseas Nazis blown to smithereens with nice expen$ive Patriot missles. permalink fedilink source parent [+] hark@lemmy.world -15 points 3 years ago (1 child) It is kind of funny that people throw around the word "tankie" so meaninglessly when the US has the largest military spending in the world by far and is thus literally the most "tankie" i.e. enforcing their will with military might. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don't even know what it means Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state. The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn't happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] hark@lemmy.world -9 points 3 years ago (1 child) I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie. Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artisanrox@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago War spending is 100% why we don’t have universal health care in this country, Rurals that worship misogynist inheritor orange blobs that like Putin and Kim Jong Un are why we don't have universal healthcare. I want my universal healthcare, AND, in this particular case, I want overseas Nazis blown to smithereens with nice expen$ive Patriot missles. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] hark@lemmy.world -15 points 3 years ago (1 child) It is kind of funny that people throw around the word "tankie" so meaninglessly when the US has the largest military spending in the world by far and is thus literally the most "tankie" i.e. enforcing their will with military might. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don't even know what it means Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state. The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn't happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] hark@lemmy.world -9 points 3 years ago (1 child) I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie. Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don't even know what it means Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state. The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn't happen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] hark@lemmy.world -9 points 3 years ago (1 child) I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie. Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] hark@lemmy.world -9 points 3 years ago (1 child) I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie. Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie. Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hark@lemmy.world -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheBigMike@lemm.ee 5 points 3 years ago But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly. Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong. permalink fedilink source parent