Frankie: “This thing russia is doing is bad"
Tankie: “US did bad too!"
Frankie: “Yes. So you agree both bad?”
It fascinates me that the tankie argument usually hinges on the belief that acknowledging one side as bad automatically means the opposing side must be good.
“Campism”, it’s often called. There is “bad camp”, and anything against “bad camp” is good, or at least less bad. Even if it’s the same thing, just in opposition to “bad camp”.
“Russia invading Ukraine may not be great, but it’s hurting the Amerikkkan Empire, so it’s not nearly as bad as what America does!”
Except they don’t say “US did bad too” but “whatsbout USA did ‘thing’ " which moves the discussion away from russia, and onto another thing making the rebuttal more complicated (and they won’t listen).
Jemmy
PugJesus
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Frankie: “This thing russia is doing is bad"
Tankie: “US did bad too!"
Frankie: “Yes. So you agree both bad?”
It fascinates me that the tankie argument usually hinges on the belief that acknowledging one side as bad automatically means the opposing side must be good.
“Campism”, it’s often called. There is “bad camp”, and anything against “bad camp” is good, or at least less bad. Even if it’s the same thing, just in opposition to “bad camp”.
“Russia invading Ukraine may not be great, but it’s hurting the Amerikkkan Empire, so it’s not nearly as bad as what America does!”
Except they don’t say “US did bad too” but “whatsbout USA did ‘thing’ " which moves the discussion away from russia, and onto another thing making the rebuttal more complicated (and they won’t listen).