Update:
The comments from this post will not be removed as to preserve the discussion around the announcement. Any continued discussions outside of this thread that violate server rules will be removed. We feel that everyone that has an opinion, and wanted to vent, has been heard.
————-
Original post:
Yesterday, we received information about the planned federation by Hexbear. The announcement thread can be found here: https://www.hexbear.net/post/280770. After reviewing the thread and the comments, it became evident that allowing Hexbear to federate would violate our rules.
Our code of conduct and server rules can be found here.
The announcement included several concerning statements, as highlighted below:
- “Please try to keep the dirtbag lib-dunking to hexbear itself. Do not follow the Chapo Rules of Posting, instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda. Posting the western atrocity propaganda and pig poop balls is hilarious but will pretty quickly get you banned and if enough of us do it defederated.”
- “The West's role in the world, through organizations such as NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank - among many others - are deeply harmful to the billions of people living both inside and outside of their imperial core.”
- “These organizations constitute the modern imperial order, with the United States at its heart - we are not fooled by the term "rules-based international order." It is in the Left's interest for these organizations to be demolished. When and how this will occur, and what precisely comes after, is the cause of great debate and discussion on this site, but it is necessary for a better world.”
The rhetoric and goal of Hexbar are clear based on their announcement: to "dismantle western propaganda" and "demolish organizations such as NATO” shows that Hexbar has no intention of "respecting the rules of the community instance in which they are posting/commenting.” It’s to push their beliefs and ideology.
In addition, several comments from a Hexbear admin, demonstrate that instance rules will not be respected.
Here are some examples:
“I can assure you there will be no lemmygrad brigades, that energy would be better funneled into the current war against liberalism on the wider fediverse.”
“All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.”
- https://lemmy.world/comment/121850
- https://lemmy.world/comment/1487168
- https://lemmy.world/comment/1476084
- https://lemmy.world/comment/171595
- https://www.hexbear.net/comment/3648500
Overall community comments:
- https://www.hexbear.net/comment/3526128
- https://www.hexbear.net/comment/3526086
- https://www.hexbear.net/comment/3652828
To clarify, for those who have inquired about why Hexbear versus Lemmygrad, it should be noted that we are currently exploring the possibility of defederating from Lemmygrad as well based on similar comments Hexbear has made.
- https://lemmygrad.ml/post/158656
- https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/882559
- https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/540170
- https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/446529
Defederation should only be considered as a last resort. However, based on their comments and behavior, no positive outcomes can be expected.
We made the decision to preemptively defederate from Hexbear for these reasons. While we understand that not everyone may agree with our decision, we believe it is important to prioritize the best interests of our community.
It does matter. this is a common thing on the far left. we view neoliberals as largely responsible for the state of the world, and people express their anger in crazy ways sometimes. I have a friend who threatens to bomb my house, he's threatened to drive his car through my living room window, and he's done this in the middle of yelling screaming arguments. I have never for 1 second thought he was serious, it's a way for him to express anger in a jokey manner. The reason I don't care about advocating for violence is because ultimately the only way for communists to come to power will be through some level of violence, the state won't allow us to take power peacefully. what the hell is someone making some hyperbolic statement compared to actually having to use violence in the real world if the need somehow ever arises (I don't have a lot of faith in the western left). This is normally where tankie accusations get thrown around I doubt you want to hear why I'm a marxist blahblahblah
I don't view violence as fundamentally wrong. I abhor that it's necessary, but advocating pure non-violence in the face of a state that has shown it will murder you with no remorse is both foolish and also ignores the violence that the status quo inflicts on the poor and minorities every single day.
Also, I'm not sure what exactly sure what you mean about you saying something negative about the far-left. I called you an anticommunist because by and large anticommunists are always pushing for lemmygrad to be defederated. The only other thing was the "im just joking" example which was just me trying to come up with an example on the spot
Sure, and some Nazi blames the Jewish people for all the wrongs in the world. Does that mean that it's justified if a Nazi says all Jewish people should be shot in the head?
And this doesn't start your spider sense tingling that maybe you're on the wrong side of things? Holy shit, do you do even half a minute of introspection? I'm sure fascists would say the same thing. Are they also justified in violence?
Do you think it's wrong that the ""status quo"" uses violence? After all, you don't view it as fundamentally wrong, right? So it's not fundamentally wrong when it's used against you, either?
You set up a straw man about so called "ebil tankies" that I never said or even implied, to justify advocating for violence.
Here's the kicker. Take everything you said, and then look at it and tell me if I personally deserve violence. I'm generally capitalist (democratic socialist is just capitalism light). You seem to imply you have no choice but violence against me. Is this truly how feel, or is all this simply to justify some stranger getting upvoted when they advocate violence, so you don't have to admit your instance is toxic?
please for the love of god stop equating political ideology and ethnicity, absolutely baffling behavior. I would ask you something about Nazi's but I'm going to tiptoe around the .world rules here
More than you would think I bet. do you think I just stumbled onto these beliefs happily? I've never even been in anything as violent as even a fucking fist fight in my life, I wish more than anything that it didn't have to be this way. Here's a quote from the Jakarta Method that sums up why I believe this quite nicely:
Please read long quote below (emphasis mine)
I don't oppose the status quo because it uses violence, I oppose it because it uses it against the working class, communists, minorities, really anybody who threatens the status quo. I would support the status quo if it was using that violence to protect the working class, communists, minorities, so that we will one day achieve a communist society where the state no longer even exists to use this violence. As long as the state exists, someone is going to use the violence it holds, and I want that violence to serve the interests of the working class, not the likes of billionaires who are currently hurtling us towards manman climate change disaster, if not extinction.
I threw in the part about evil tankies because you seemed to be taking that comment as them seriously 100% wanting every single neoliberal to die and that there's no hyperbole there, which is very consistent with what people who throw around the term tankie say, they say we're the scum of the Earth who just find joy in murdering puppies or something. Seemed like where the conversation was going, forgive me, I've seen way too many people from .world head down that path so I had my guard up, it's annoying to have a conversation derailed by it
I have no clue if you "personally deserve violence". I don't really like playing the hypothetical game, and tbh even if I wanted to say so I wouldn't be able to because of the rules of this instance. If you're really truly interested in that part of the conversation we could take it somewhere else. I wouldn't be any more mean than I am now, I reserve that for people who come in to troll on lemmygrad and nazis
Explain to me the difference between advocating to murder one group and not the other. From where I'm standing, your stance lines up perfectly with a fascist's, just on the other end of the spectrum.
No, I think you were radicalized.
The person you are defending wasn't talking about any government or world power; they said "anti-tankies" who couldn't be re-educated should be killed. Who does that sound like? Next you'll be advocating for rounding up all the "anti-tankies" and putting them into "reeducation camps". Right?
So? You don't have an issue with using violence to get what you want, why is it wrong for the ""status quo"" to do the same thing? Your sophomoric stance is "violence is okay when it's used against the bad people" but who the "bad people" are is entirely subjective. Do you not see how this fails even at a conceptual level? What would you advocate someone who thinks tankies are the "bad people" do? Should they resort to violence? Is that the appropriate action? If not, why?
Let's take a slightly longer view of this. Let's say your dream comes true and "anti-tankies" are "reeducated" or killed, and the big bad ""status quo"" is finally defeated. What happens if a group of "anti-tankies" grows in your new utopia, when you're the ""status quo""? Do you resort to violence?
You are what you claim to abhor.
You have spent several comments over several hours defending murdering people; your stance has long since moved from "it was just a joke, bro" to "I agree that murdering people is the solution". Do you really not understand how that makes you appear? All this comment chain required was you to say "yeah, man, that's messed up-- calls for violence are wrong". Yet, here we are.
What?? This was a softball question to help you redeem yourself. The only acceptable answer is "No". Holy shit.
@lwadmin@lemmy.world
Well you really weren't having a conversation in good faith, dumb of me to expect better I guess, I'm a tankie after all
I'm not going to keep talking to someone who refuses to admit that people use extreme hyperbole. I'm not going to sit here and fucking tell you another 30 times that is obviously not a fucking plan of action that user wants to commit.
You also totally sidestepped my quote, which wasn't really about his little comment. it was to explain why I believe violence will be necessary to take power, my belief in which this quote was your response
I'm not going to keep talking in hypotheticals. this is debate pervertry of the worst kind, I'm a marxist we believe in keeping things grounded in the real world, which is why I linked you that quote. I have actual hard fucking evidence (of which that quote is literally just the smallest part, we could sit here for fucking days going over everything the United States alone has done to maintain power) that the capitalist world order will resort to extreme violence greater than any socialist state has ever dreamed of using to kill all who stand in their way of profit.
I dont give a shit about redeeming myself, I didn't advocate violence against you in the slightest, but I'm saying how could you believe I'm telling the truth? I'm trying to follow the rules of this instance, so if I were to answer that you do deserve violence I would be breaking the rules, why do you keep concern trolling like this
Anyways I'll let you have the last word, done engaging after this