Not to mention that this sub is unapologetically pro LGBT while practically every authoritarian government (including particularly those that tankies support) has been anti LGBT. eg, China prohibits same sex marriage and adoption, while forcing trans people to get permission from their family to transition (spoiler alert: they ain't progressive).

Democratic socialism with actual equality for all (which goes hand in hand with the root issue socialism is supposed to solve) makes sense and is reasonable. But that's not what tankies support. They're defined by support for authoritarian states that have nothing to do with equality except pretending that they care about it.

[–] LaLiLuLuCo@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or how LGBT relationships and "sissy-men" get censored out the wazzoo in popular Chinese Media and on social media.

Fun fact my mainland Chinese friends started saying "this humiliates China" without any other context on their social media because they weren't even allowed to say they were lonely during lock downs due to censors.

[–] ChestRockwell@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone's missed the boat on Cuba's new constitution.

AES literally more based than the United States.

I'll leave my emojis below:

spoiler

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That's great. Good for them. Personally, I'm a lot more amenable to supporting Cuba. While certainly still deeply imperfect, I see Cuba as largely the victim of American bullshit sanctions.

But the fact that Cuba is better doesn't change the fact that tankies regularly support China specifically. If you support two things, with one being good and one being bad, you're still supporting a bad thing. So I don't think your comment justifies support for China.

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your distinction really has no meaning when there are places in China where people can be openly LGBTQ same as America with the US being more actively hostile to people in most places.

I'm fine with the use of the term authoritarian if it has actual meaning, but the way it's used here it's totally context less unless you just assume whoever is saying it is saying it as a stand in for "not a Western liberal democracy".

A thing which actually cheapens a term which was meant primarily to refer to fascist dictatorships and feudal dictatorships.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 3 points 1 year ago

So should we who practice anarchism not be allowed because we don’t believe in Demsoc rhetoric? To me, most proposed demsoc systems would still be inherently authoritarian, as all states are. Especially by so empowering a state by giving it ownership of property instead of collective and direct control by the population.

Am I not allowed because I think electoral politics are inherently anti-democratic and states serve primarily to create and protect the rich from the poor?

Your appeal to democratic socialism as if it were common sense is concerning, because it reflects a lack of will to even entertain other perspectives.