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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YUP