Even if you disagree with them, Trotskyists are not tankies, simple Marxists aren’t tankies, leftists curious and exploring different theories aren’t tankies, and ffs anarchists like myself are not tankies.

I feel like “tankie” indicated a very specific worldview at one time, but it’s been used lately a lot to mean things like “doesn’t agree with nations supporting oppression and inequity up to and including genocide” – which is drastically at odds with how I’ve seen the term used in the past, no?

  • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
    11·
    6 months ago

    https://lemmy.ml/comment/11454789

    That might not work, here’s the thread: https://lemmy.zip/post/16774498

    Here’s the comment:

    Taliban is a very admirable group in their fight against a foreing invader. If you want people there to have a mentality that no longer condems individuals for their sexuality, they need to develop economically first. I think its naive to belive that an agricultural country set back in development many years by a foreing invasion will have any kind of progressive mindset. And no ecomic development will occur under invasion and war. So if theres any chance for a progressive mindset to come for the people there in the future, its path starts with the fight taliban did, even if they are against it themselves.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      5·
      6 months ago

      Thank you. While I get their point, saying “Taliban is a very admirable group” is definitely taking it too far, especially in that context. Reported it fwiw.