I think it's reasonable to want to have a space that's free from people that defend authoritarian regimes. From my perspective, at least, 196 has always been a more anarchist-oriented space, and I think it makes sense to try to preserve that.

I'd also make the distinction that they are not banned from this forum, in the same way that libs are not banned from posting on their instance -- but those that post there are generally met with hostility, and that preserves the character of their space. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] 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.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)