No. That’s not what happened. I rejected the idea that having a violent revolution makes a regime violent by definition. This whole time I’ve been talking about regimes and you’ve been talking about revolutions. It’s really that simple of a miscommunication.
No. I explicitly rejected that interpretation in the very comment you are responding to. Can you read?
It’s not relevant to this thread. Why doesn’t anyone here know their basic vocabulary?
Who cares? I’m not talking about how they get solidified. I’m talking about what they do when they have power. If someone supports violent left wing regimes, then they are a Tankie. If you don’t think that the regimes are violent beyond their revolutions, then that wouldn’t imply one way or another whether you are a Tankie.
No one said anything about revolution.
A tankie is anyone who supports violent left wing regimes. It requires support of violence and doesn’t require that the regime still exists.
You don’t get to tell me what I mean when I speak. Regimes, revolutions, and states are all different things and I would never use one of those terms to mean another. There’s no point in arguing with people lacking even the most basic understanding of politics.