A faschist with a red flag.
The term origenaly referred to lefties that supported the Soviet Union rolling tanks into nations protesting for democracy.
Modern tankies defend historical "communist" states and their successer states like Russia. They can often be seen glorifying dictators and denying genocides.
Well described, actually. And most of the tankies can be fought with actual knowledge of Marxism and socialism, since they try to pass themselves as all-so-knowledgeable of them and then spew the worst kind of misunderstandings of the socialist theories. Pseudo-intellectual edgy teenage-minded dumb-dumbs, in a nutshell
I discovered you can score extra points where you deconstruct their argument to the point where they'll call you a "debate pervert" and ragequit the fediverse
Thing is, they'll have so much unread communist literature around their home they're bound to come back. Much easier to jump back into the bearbubble than read those big, big books
You don't even need the big big books. All you need is both Marx and Engels to knock their bad understanding out of them.
My favorite cope that they invoke is that Lenin and Stalin's communism wasn't real communism. My tankie, according to Engels, they actually followed the "state capitalism" scenario to the letter, by having the state hold monopoly over the means of production, planning themselves like a corporation and owning the markets, the only difference being that the soviet states did not run on profit. Engels
I love getting fashsplained that I would surely understand Lenin's points more clearly if I only read more Chomsky.
Not really, cause any comment you make towards them, they just deflect and focus on something else.
Like typical conservative agents.. There is no debating with them, because you will never convince them that you are right. that they are wrong, or that there is any middle ground (and even if you did concede a middle ground, it would be their victory) They will just amuse themselves exhausting you, and declare themselves a victor when you give up.
Its literally no different than trying to wrestle pigs in shit.
Only the pig is wearing a red shirt with hammer and sickle on it, while saying Putin is saving the world from Ukraine.
Well put. They're another online cult where you just have to scratch your head and wonder how the hell they came to certain conclusions.
I was on a ChapoTrapHouse post that was saying how it's US's fault that Putin decided to do a genocide in Ukraine.
and then I was told Ukraine should be destroyed at all costs.
They are not the same indeed, they are just fascists too, but in denial about it.
Seriously lemmygrad is bull of people just saying that bullies like Russia would just be happy if we let them take Ukraine cause they clearly want it more than the people lving there. And a few million deaths is just the price to pay for "better" government.
Those people are such scared authoritarian dick suckers who would throw anyone else under the bus if they thought it would make their lives better
Authoritarian leftists. Stalinists, basically. The kind of people who look at protests being crushed by tanks and say "Good, those reactionary civilian pigs deserved it!"
Authoritarian Leftists seems to be an oxymoron
Edit: I meant sounds like; I'm super dumb lol. Thanks for educating me on what it actually means :)
Liberalism and authoritarianism are opposites just like progressivism and conservatism are.
For historical (and arguably nefarious) reasons Western society has largely lumped liberalism and progressivism into "Left" and authoritarianism and conservatism into "Right".
But this ignores the reality that you can have progressive authoritarians (Stalinists/Maoists), and liberal conservatives (Libertarians).
Either you’re using a definition of “progressive” that doesn’t relate to progressivism, or we’re looking at some very different definitions of Stalinism.
Stalinism was never about improvement of human societies. One could argue that Trotskyism was at least pretending to (it’s incredibly hard to attribute real humanitarian intent to anything bolsheviks did, once you look closer at their methods), but Stalinism was unabashedly explicit about seizing control and shutting down dissent. It embraced Russian Empire’s secret police approach and was closer to early Muscovite monarchism, with a despot deciding who gets to enjoy privileges and control, than to anything progressive.
What you're talking about is the "authoritarian" part of the progressive authoritarian equation.
As the opposite of conservatism, progressivism is about societal advancement, elevating the average well being in the country, which on it's face Communism is explicitly about. Or are you arguing that Stalinist Communism was conservative, trying to uphold the values of the historical ruling power structures?
Authoritarianism explicitly opposes political action, attempting to eradicate it entirely. Progressivism is rooted in it.
Conservatism is not defined by “upholding the values of the historical ruling power structures”. A dog being wet doesn’t make everything that’s wet a dog.
Stalinism in practice was extremely backwards, ironically anti-communist, and conservative with its strict vertical power structure (traditional for Russian empire) and promotion of Russian nationalism (Stalin explicitly names Russians as “elder brothers of soviet people”). Stalin’s authoritarian approach also agrees with conservatives’ preference for strict social order models. Political activism was persecuted under Stalin in the same manner - and often by the same people - it was persecuted in Russian empire.
The founding myth of the empire - “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities and Russia is the Rus” was not only preserved, but actively maintained through any means possible. Can’t get more conservative than that.
I'm too tired and busy tonight to make a case here, but I would just point out that lemmy.world has defederated from anyone who can explain to you what a tankie believes and why, and you are only getting one side of the story in this thread.
I think most Americans who lived through the Iraq war are aware that America lies, but still not aware of the extent of it. The main targets of those lies are socialist states. When the intent of the lies is to make socialist states look monstrous, anyone who claims otherwise gets smeared with the same brush: a defender of monstrous states. It's a rhetorical firewall.
If you want to know what tankies believe and why, you should ask them. Whether you find them persuasive or not, you'll at least have learned what a subset of the human population believes and it will round out your perspective on the world.
The two main lemmy instances where you can find tankies are hexbear.net and lemmygrad.ml. Hexbear is larger and more active, and their range of perspectives is a little broader because they include anarchists. Hexbear's list of federated instances is here https://hexbear.net/instances, and lemmygrad's is here https://lemmygrad.ml/instances.
just say you don't know what imperialism is (it's not when countries resist the largest imperial sphere in the history of earth), i can recommend some reading material
Another thing they share in common: gaslighting queer people into forgetting their history.
What is their history? I am gay, that is just a random trait about me, it doesn't make me connected to or part of the same group as other gender/sexual minorities- including other gay people. I oppose attacks on gay people, but I also oppose attacks on other minorities, I'm not somehow connected to them just because I happen to share an arbitrary trait that was the motive of the attack. My history is my life, not the life of my parents, or grandparents, and definitely not the life of some random person who happens to also be gay. Also no this is not an "LGB(no T) type thing", even though it will be attacked as that. I support trans rights just as much as I support gay rights. Instead I'm saying I don't identify with other LGBs inherently either.
You can choose to not identify as part of the queer community, I feel a similar way about my ethnic heritage. However, you will be prescribed as a member of that group by not only members of the group, but by bigots who hate those people. Even if you don't feel connected to gay or queer people, people in those communities and bigots who hate those people will both consider you as part of the community because you like people of the same gender. When looking at people in aggregate, others will group you based on traits like that whether you like it or not.
This matters to your well being because political groups tend to act in accordance with how other people in that group have acted. In the case of tankies and TERFs, both groups use arguments that appeal to queer identities, claiming that it is in the best interests of gay people to side with them and that gay people have always sided with them in positive ways. The recent history directly contradicts these claims as terfs openly ally with self described fascists. Tankies are defined by their unwillingness to question the authority and leadership self described communist states, most of whom openly discriminate against minorititized groups, like gay people.
Going back to my feelings about my ethnic heritage, I don't identify strongly as a Latina, but racists don't care what I think. They'll discriminate against me based on what they think of me. Thus, for my own well being, I am incentivized to know about the history of discrimination against Latinos.
Those people are tribalists/sexists/homophobes/racists/whatever and I will criticize them just as I did now. I won't accept their premise just because they treat me like it.
Terf: trans exclusionary radical feminist (self explanatory)
Tankie: left wing extremists and authoritarian apologists
Look at how much they care about worker enfranchisement in the totalitarian regimes they idolise.
They're just red fascists.
Fascist =/= authoritarian.
People use the words interchangeably but they mean specific things. North Korea for example is authoritarian but not facist.
Tankies tend to point to the USSR, China, and DPRK - I'd argue all of them fit Umberto Eco's widely used definition of fascism pretty well.
In this context, it's a distinction without a difference. What difference does this even make?
They use left wing populism to hide their authoritarianism (right wing). The literal Nazis did the exact same thing. We even see it in their names.
If you are simping for Putin/Russia or China, you don't care nor know what communism is.
Your political ideology can use whatever leftist symbolism it wants to, but if the system you enact is an authoritarian, top down hierarchy that supresses the will of the masses in favor of a privileged elite, then you aren't on the Left.
Even Marx and Engels at their most statist wouldn't be in the same zipcode as Lenin et. al.
To be on the left means being for democracy from the bottom up and being agaisnt the concentration of money and power in the hands of a few.
In the real world, authoritarians exist across the political spectrum.
Not actually true if we mean left as in ownership by the people and the right means ownership by capital.
Authoritarian or totalitarian are not the same as right.
There is an argument that tankies aren't exactly ownership by the people.
Like you don't look at the USSR and think "oh yeah the people really had ownership over their means of production*.
Ownership by the people implies the people have a say.
They are revolution fetishists. That's why orthodox MLs repeatedly fail at actual statecraft - because they study revolution, and often get angry when that fan service gets interrupted by conversation about policy.
It's not "right wing"
It's just totalitarian fascism.
We need to let go of this stupid idea that only right wing politics ends up in totalitarian fascism.
ANY FORM OF IDEOLOGY OR BELIEF CAN LEAD TO FASCISM.
"Love thy neighbour as thyself" can lead to totalitarian fascism.
No matter how benign the belief, someone can turn it into fascism.
As far as I can tell, your intended meaning is absolutely correct, but you have some of the terminology wrong: fascism is an explicitly right wing form of oppressive authoritarianism. The extreme left can be authoritarian and oppressive, but never fascist.
Stalinism and the ideology of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge are notorious examples of tankies: left wing fanatics who engage in oppressive authoritarianism and violent persecution of anyone different from their narrow definition of the ideal citizen, often using arbitrary metrics just like fascists do.
Is the end result the same for an LGBTQ+ person, a pacifist or anyone else demonised by all forms of oppressive authoritarianism? Yes.
But that does not make the ideologies identical and the distinction is important because the differences mean that different tools are more effective in combating one than the other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarian_personality
I see where some confusion lies. There is a discrepancy between the psychological and political definitions. I’m largely interested in why people think x and is they make it make sense, discard/set it aside until it does. I didn’t account for that and it’s on me.
If someone claims leftist standings and then says anyone who disagrees should die that is by definition right wing.
What definition is that? Authoritarianism is independent of right and left
From Wikipedia: in psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.[2]
The right-wing authoritarian personality was defined by Bob Altemeyer as a refinement of the research of Theodor Adorno. Adorno was the first to propose the existence of an authoritarian personality as part of an attempt to explain the rise of fascism and the Holocaust, but his theory fell into disfavor because it was associated with Freudian psychoanalysis. Altemeyer nonetheless felt that Adorno was on to something, and so developed a more scientifically rigorous theory.
The RWA scale was designed to measure authoritarianism in North America. It has proven to be similarly reliable in English-speaking countries such as Australia, but less effective in other countries such as France due to cultural differences and translation issues.[3]
Hey! You learned how to use a search engine! I mean, you probably just clicked the letmegooglethatforyou link that I gave you, but still! I'm super proud of you!
Yeah but you can be called a TERF for literally anything.
For example, not believing that one year of testosterone makes it fair that trans women compete in the woman's sports category.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that it's not fair.
You'll be labelled as a TERF.
There's also lots of rhetoric about how it's OK to be violent to TERFs.
So just be aware that "TERF" is a term online bullies use to dogwhistle violence against women who's goal is to ensure the protection of women.
For example, you would be labeled a TERF for not agreeing with "self ID" laws that mean any male prisoner could self identify as a woman and be placed in a woman's prison - with zero confirmation or oversight.
You'd also be labelled als a TERF if you pointed out that in multiple countries, 48%, of the men who are claimed to be women in order to be placed in a woman's prison have a criminal record for sexual offenses.
Since this Labels you a TERF. It would be also mean that you should be physically attacked.
See, many progressives love to chat about "dog whistles" and "fascism" all day - except they conveniently ignore it when they are doing it.
For example, not believing that one year of testosterone makes it fair that trans women compete in the woman’s sports category.
Well you seem to know what you're talking about...
You can be a communist without being a tankie, just can’t simp so hard for Putin is all!
It's funny you mention neoliberalism as a argument for being a Tankie, even though most ML states have adopted neoliberal policies. The market based reforms of China following the death of Mao were based around neoliberal principles to gain power in the system of global capitalism. It was a more nationalist approach, but neoliberalism has its tendrils all over many modern ML states.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. The only coherent complaint fascists have about China is that they're the enemy nation. I don't give a fuck what they think, because most fascists don't realize they want a ton of the same shit as current China.
It's confusing that you claim to be a Tankie, yet don't defend China. What do you actually think a Tankie is? A Marxist-Leninist?
Tankies don't oppose. Then they wouldn't be tankies, just edgy MLs. If you support the government crushing attempts to fight against the system, you're effectively just the liberals who denounce anything beyond peaceful protest.
Actually, now that I think about it, you'd be worse than liberals, because voting is more useful in liberal democracies and legally protesting isn't even allowed in ML states.
The nets are a wasteful expense. Just let people jump if they want to, it's their own life.
But it hasn't been a failure.
When was the last time you actually read anything pro capitalism?
I bet you never haven't.
So you read some 50 year old books and then you've heard some conservative TV hosts?
Shit man, then I'm more than happy for you to turn the entire global financial system on its head.
I'm seriously considering setting up my own instance so I can defederate hexbear and *.ml instead of manually banning each community
I see way more posts complaining about these groups than content from the groups themselves.
Lemmy.world defederated from hexbear which is filled with tankies. That is why you do not really see them.
Hexbear has only been federated for a couple months. Lemmy.world was pretty quick to defederate from them. Their posts took up quite a bit of my feed on Lemm.ee before I started blocking their subs when I saw them.
They very genuinely hate men and thus can't understand why anyone would "want" to be one, nor do they accept anyone who "once was a man." Once you see shit like "political lesbianism" thrown around, you understand that there's just no hope.
It's like a horseshoe from TERF to toxic masculinity, as both groups are terrified of seeing beauty in men (and all people) and have a very narrow definition of what a man can be.
It's tribalism, sexists, they have decided an enemy who they feel has somehow collectively acted to wrong them.
Yep, and women are praised for being "tribe builders".
Toxic, no other word for it. Directly opposed to society, effectively.
Where I live its like everyone is pro MTF but against FTM. So you have all these transwomen and nonbinary people who claim they hate terfs but at the same time, they'll act like FTM isn't a real thing and they'll give it a different name and just say "genderqueer" even if you're talking about someone who is FTM and they refuse to acknowledge the term "Transman" but love Transwomen.
Like it really feels like there is so much in-fighting in the LGBTQ+ community. They often talk about acceptance but I rarely see them put that into practice outside of Pride events.
As a queer person myself I've not yet seen something like this at least not something common or popular. The mainstream LGBTQ+ community is clearly accepting of trans men and most of the "in-fighting" in queer communities is made up by conservatives.
And btw you should use trans man instead of transman because the latter implies trans men are somewhat different from "regular" men.
And btw you should use trans man instead of transman because the latter implies trans men are somewhat different from “regular” men.
Can you explain how a space between the words does that?
When you write "trans man" you're using trans as an adjective and as a description of a man. When you use "transman" it's a new noun and this means it's a different thing other than just "men".
but men is just plural? Like I was referring to a group of people. That doesn't mean they aren't men.
This was not about singular or plural it's about writing "trans man" and "trans men" with a space or not
the mainstream LGBTQ+ community is clearly accepting of trans men and most of the “in-fighting” in queer communities is made up by conservatives.
I am NOT a conservative and I am NOT making this up.
And I really do not fucking appreciate how you have been talking to me this entire time.
Sure... You're just using the language that conservatives use and making the same points conservatives do.
just stop trolling or if you're serious... think about why you do the things conservatives do
Pretty straightforwardly. If the goal is for gender differences to not exist, then having someone so strongly identify with a gender is pretty counter to the point. It just tries to ignore the current reality that there are social differences between men and women.
That’s part of what I don’t understand about the whole ‘women and men are equal, there are no real differences’, held up next to ‘call me a [wo]man not a [wo]man.’
It looks like one side is saying a persons behavior/likes/dislikes is tied to expression of genitalia, and the other is saying it isn’t. And these are often the same person saying both in different circumstances.
They can have differences and still be treated equally. I don't think that's too hard to grasp.
I.e. Women are more likely to wear make up but they should still be allowed to vote.
It's also not tied to their genitalia. It's tied to their brain chemistry/structure, which in the majority of people matches their genitalia.
The brains of transgender women ranged between cisgender men and cisgender women (albeit still closer to cisgender men), and the differences to both cisgender men and to cisgender women were significant (p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively). These findings add support to the notion that the underlying brain anatomy in transgender people is shifted away from their biological sex towards their gender identity.
But, the ‘they have (non-marginal) differences but should be treated equally’ is the problem.
If there are differences that matter, those should be considered.
If there aren’t differences that matter, it doesn’t make sense to ‘care’ what gender you are.
The two categories of people covered by ‘TERF’ for instance would seem to interpret your referenced study as supporting and opposing their views.
(In practice, I understand that it basically never matters if someone is a man or a woman but upside of specific situations, mostly involving physical attraction. But I also just don’t ‘get’ why people try to create a ‘he’ or ‘she’ identity. I don’t really care if they do… it just seems like a contradiction.)
Equality doesn't necessarily mean treating the exact same. For example equality for somebody in a wheelchair might mean giving them equal access to a place by installing a ramp, not giving them the same access via the stairs as those who don't need a wheelchair use.
You can acknowledge differences and do different things with those in mind to attain equality.
I think what you're describing is equity of opportunity, not strictly equality, but that's semantics.
The problem isn't that there's differences between genders, but the assumption that 1) all people of a certain gender will think or act in accordance with the trends of their gender and 2) that the differences between genders means that one is better suited to certain tasks than the others.
For 1, while the behavior of men and women follows certain trends on a large scale, if you pick a random individual from each gender, they're likely to be as similar or different from each other as if you had selected two people of the same gender. So when you're doing something on an individual basis, like hiring for a position or electing someone to office, the average differences between the genders really doesn't matter and should not inform your decision more than the person's individual characteristics.
For 2, there's an assumption that there's exactly one type of person suited to a particular role, and that type of person is more likely to be of one particular gender. This assumption is false, though, as true innovation is not spurred by having a group of like-minded people, but by bringing a variety of viewpoints and personalities together so that problems can examined from every angle. Diversity in general ensures better coverage of an issue's potential pitfalls and a larger pool of knowledge and experience, so hiring from one gender because they're "naturally good at this kind of thing" is really only limiting the potential of the group.
I think your post makes my point well, actually. If the differences between people of a gender is so wide spread as to not matter in a personal level, it seems silly to be highly offended if you are referenced as the wrong gender. If someone calls one of us a brunette or blonde, I don’t think anyone would take great offense because it just doesn’t matter… gender seems like the same rule should apply.
Humans aren't logical machines. What makes sense is rarely the key to how we work. We have a whole unconscious mind that decides a lot of how we behave.
How we externalise gender is mostly down to how we are raised, society and the media. How we feel about it is down to our brain.
If we weren't raised with such a big divide between boys and girls these problems wouldn't be anywhere near as big of a deal.
If people didn't receive hate and judgment based on how they expressed it I doubt many people would care as much.
But you would still have things like gender body dysmorphia where the brain can't deal with the physical body.
Well that depends on who dishes out the definition. For example: should a physically male criminal be put in a female prison if he says he feels he's a woman? Should prisons, sports etc. be mixed to make sure no-one is excluded? For many TERF-whisperers even suggesting that these things should be up for debate makes you the biggest TERF of them all
Hell yeah. And can someone tell me how to remove the hexbear postings? that stuff is garbage but I'm not seeing how to block their shit besides individual posters
Whats ironic is liberals opposed to TERFs while supporting politicians that havnt done shit to extend protections to the trans community.
Is this what Lemmy is now?
Someone doesn't know something, so we shit on them and make personal attacks?
Everyone in existence doesn't know everything everyone else does, that's how it works.
No, we were shitting on his unwillingness to learn as evidenced by his saying he couldn't be arsed to. Meaning a quick google search was beyond him.
Well for anyone who does want to learn:
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, ie people who claim to be using their energy for the betterment of women but spend all day dwelling on their hatred of trans people.
Tankie: Everyone on Hexbear and Lemmygrad. People who love China for the sake of being contrarian but wouldn't last a week in China.
People who live China for the sake of being contrarian but wouldn't last a week in China.
I'm not a tankie or even a leftist, but life in China is not that hard in most cities for foreigners. Or that much harder from most other places. Yes there are a lot of problems but you dilute the real criticism when you act like it wouldn't be feasible for most people to live there. Just like how most people can live in the US(assuming they have legal residence)
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to communists who express support for one-party communist regimes that are associated with Marxism-Leninism, whether contemporary or historical.
Tankies vs every other leftist is just the modern internet version of the Bolsheviks vs the various anti-Bolshevik leftists during and after the Russian civil war.
I oppose both but reactionary is a meaningless term, it doesn't describe an ideology or belief it is just prejorative used when people want to sound too smart to say "dummy"
Something that is reactionary is archaic or outdated. A reactionary is someone who wants to return to the past in some form or function, to turn back progress. TERFs pretty unambiguously are reactionary, specifically on the issue of trans rights. Tankies spew authoritarian apologia more at home in the mouths of mid-19th century nationalists than in modern democracies.
Reactionary is used to attack people like a belief system, but it is not. It is acted like an ideology when it is just an insult, that's not to say I can't think the insult fits. But you can pretty clearly tell when something is an insult based on if anyone would reasonably describe themself as it. Just own up to it and insult someone if you want to rather than use tankie pseudoscientific slanders that justified killing and imprisoning "counter-revolutionaries".
The tankie belief system is that someone either ally or reactionary- don't accept their rules.
What's normal about telling someone else what gender they are?
I can't randomly assign you a gender, can I?
“Oh my god, that person questioned my narrative about “x” they must be whomever I’m othering because I’m insecure and it’s easier to take trash than deeply reflect why. I’m going to label them that, that’ll teach them.” Please. 🥱
Or, OR, if you believe that trans people shouldn't exist, or should stop being trans, you're an asshole. If you support dictators (even ones who ride horses shirtless in publicity photos), you're an asshole. If you fall into either of those categories, your opinion is completely worthless, and should be ignored by everybody.
If you're so busy defending your abhorrent beliefs to take the time to self reflect and figure out why other people find them abhorrent, then you're not just part of the problem, you're the whole thing. As I said before: bye, Tankie. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
I love it when they burst into a rant about how easily offended others are when you call them out on 'banning' (blocking) a sub for having a meme they didn't like, lmao.
It's even more hilarious 'cause I got banned from one of the tankie subs for asking the idiot I was arguing with if he got dropped on his head as a baby. They flagged that as "ableism" and kicked me out. LOL. Hypocritical, crybaby bitches.
I remember that post. You just started insulting everyone who refuted the stuff you said and then they banned you.
That's the thing, though. Nobody actually refuted anything that I said. They all just made smug, nonsensical retorts that didn't have any basis in reality, and then they got butthurt when I called them delusional because of it. And yeah - insults were warranted. Because y'all are dumb as hell.
I knew that would be twisted but left it. I’ll be more precise: authoritarianism is authoritarianism, but I don’t know enough about their other perspectives to say they’re no good. Perhaps an exchange of ideas may bring two or more perspectives closer. Maybe not.
Well, then. Maybe you should spend some time on Tankie spaces and learn what they're about before just assuming that anybody who doesn't like them is just being a close-minded asshole.
You think you're entitled to our attention?
There's only so much time and effort people are willing to spend failing to educate willfully moronic reactionaries.
If you morons won't learn, add nothing of value, and insist on polluting lemmy with your nonsense, why would we not just block or defederate you?
And yet you’re willing to give attention to hurl epithets.
Block or defederate me? Rofl. Or communists who checks notes gave us the platform? “You morons” ah yes, thanks for reminding me I’m part of the group you’re insulting, maybe they put their viewpoints on the platform they created? I don’t see you signing up for truth social and doing the same thing; perhaps they’re not as authoritarian in some ways as say… you
Absolute word salad.
Tankies aren't communists - they're red-fascist dogs that don't care about worker enfranchisement.
You can fuck off now.
Depends. If a government is oppressive to civil rights and punishes dissent, but they're a rival/adversary of the US, do they get a pass for that?
A tankie would say yes, because they're too blinded by anti American sentiment to think objectively. Generally speaking, a tankie will defend the Chinese government's censorship, for instance.
