Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as "The Adjuster."
In the day or so since the alleged shooter's identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a "typical" American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society 
, but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as "nothing malicious," by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We're going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to "propaganda of the deed" may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
Not really. It's much more difficult to judge how good a post is when it's a reply to another post that no one can see. But more than that, right off the bat, demeaning the previous (now banned) commenter by referring to her principled and theory-based position as a "celebrity crush" is childish and needlessly adversarial. No, the Actually good post was removed and is now relegated to the modlog. Those who have to sift through the modlog to even see what she did say, they'll see that Awoo did not "casually brush aside and ignore" the reactionary views, she clearly addressed them.
we obviously just fundamentally disagree here on whether awoo was doing vulgar marxism or actually offering insight. there's no point in me and you arguing about it. for what it's worth, awoo was carrying on being spiteful and insulting about this topic to users disagreeing with her before the "celebrity crush" comment. she caught a ban for it (which she then used her power user status to get overturned, then immediately started DM harassing another user who had asked her to disengage, resulting in a well deserved 7 day ban). so i find it hard to sympathise there and think a bit of derision is frankly deserved. zeroing in on the one very minor insult kinda brushes aside how acidsmiley's comment also contained valid criticism. and for my part i'm glad i don't have to see awoo's takes for the next week.
It isn't even something I was arguing about with you, so if there is no point in doing that, why did you start?
My point was that it is now impossible for people to tell whether Acidsmiley's comment did in fact contain valid criticism since we can't see what the comment is criticizing. It looks to me like there is some valid arguments and counters to what Awoo said, but it's mixed in with invalid criticism, but no one can tell which is which unless they go check the modlog. I don't know what Awoo did or said elsewhere, but having read and enjoyed her posts for years, it must have been extremely uncharacteristic of her if it was in fact deserving of a ban. But that is completely beside the point that her comment here that was removed contained nothing of the sort, and its removal supposedly was only because a mod thought it was "inappropriately dismissive of concerns" which is clearly a minority view, considering the upvotes and responses (including from some who disagree with her position).
That's great for you that you're glad you won't "have" to see Awoo's takes for the next week, but you didn't have to wait for her to be banned to accomplish that, there is a block feature you know. I personally will miss Awoo's takes but look forward to seeing them again, as one of a number of the major staples of the hexbear community.
disengaging!