this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
105 points (99.1% liked)
emoji
1373 readers
5 users here now
A workshop for the memes of production.
Submit new emoji here.
A good submission is:
- Visually clear at a small size (120 pixel width) [This does not mean upload the small image, this means upload the source image or full size cutout but test prior.]
- Have a transparent background to the greatest degree possible. This online tool can remove many backgrounds.
- Display a clear emotion or purpose
- If including text, should be properly sized to be readable
- "Evergreen" and not something that will be irrelevant after the next news cycle
- Formatted in PNG, GIF, or SVG to make our file optimization cycles easier. If svg initially, send svg in a seperately hosted link to WhyEssEff. Same with gif, as we render them as mp4 IIRC.
- Have proposed title as the title of the post, nothing more, nothing less.
- Post body should include a suggested category and keywords.
- Max height of 3 times the width.
Rules:
- No reactionary or reactionary-adjacent expressions. The purpose of an image is what it expresses. Some clear examples for this rule:
- Allowed: Broken fasces, burning stars-and-bars, rotated Mussolini
- Disallowed: Body-shaming, Pepes, gay-shaming the enemy (e.g. those pictures of Putin and Trump that libs love to post), certain hateful wojaks (even if recontextualized)
- If you think you have touched on a grey area, see rule 7 for how to litigate this.
- ~~Nothing Vaush-related is allowed~~
- To be honest, I broke this rule, so it's pretty much moot. Just run it by me first in DMs or matrix. Vaush is a bit of a dead horse, so to speak, so they're still generally discouraged. The qualification for a viable emote referencing his existence is more a matter of execution
-- @WhyEssEff
- To be honest, I broke this rule, so it's pretty much moot. Just run it by me first in DMs or matrix. Vaush is a bit of a dead horse, so to speak, so they're still generally discouraged. The qualification for a viable emote referencing his existence is more a matter of execution
- No desecration of religious imagery. This includes things like burning Israeli/Saudi flag emojis. If you can modify the flags while still accurately representing countries without including said imagery, it is much preferred.
- A grey area can be argued around whether the symbol has colloquially evolved past its religious origins (one example of this that can be relatively agreed upon is the Union Jack, which is more a symbol of colonialism if anything). See rule 7 for how to litigate this.
- Nothing sexually explicit or overtly horny is allowed
- :hentai-free:
- No sectarianism in submissions. Pro-tendency content is fine, but we will not accept content degrading specific tendencies.
- No gore, no SA, no sui-bait. Nothing that could reasonably trigger a comrade.
- If you think you're touching on a grey area with a submission, message @whyesseff:matrix.org to clear it before you post.
- DISCLAIMER: Clearing does not necessarily mean that I'll add it, just that it's alright to submit and the rules will not be the barrier to its addition
-- @WhyEssEff
- DISCLAIMER: Clearing does not necessarily mean that I'll add it, just that it's alright to submit and the rules will not be the barrier to its addition
- No content that breaks the Hexbear Code Of Conduct.
Emoji are added to the codebase periodically. Emoji may or may not be accepted and the dev team has final decision.
All images submitted must be ones you have the right to share with the project. By posting images in this comm, you are agreeing that you have permission to share this image with the project.
Hexbear Code Of Conduct, ToS, Privacy Policy, etc all still apply.
Emote repository, periodically updated on the Hexbear Code-Op.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Hey all. I'd like to open an official discussion regarding the upturning of the prior Hexbear party line on an :israel-cool: emote proper with the unambiguous Zionist flag.
I want to preface this by saying this is not in a 'ceding the issue' way. Over the past year I've been trying to engage in self-crit w/rt the chauvinism I've internalized growing up in a Liberal Zionist household, and my personal viewpoint on it did a 180 some months back, so I want to reopen this discussion proper in my personal capacities as Self-Appointed Emote Czar.
The reason it's taken long enough beyond that is prior to July, I was essentially half-engaged with the site in order to finish out my degree. After that, it’s been mostly inertia of confirming with the admins and other /c/Judaism mods, as well as having to be rigorous about my job search personally giving me little free time to coordinate this.
I do not want to center myself in this conversation more than I inadvertently already have, so I will leave my own opinion on the issue as a comment rather than explaining further here.
The consensus we've roughly come to is to open up the discussion in an official manner for a day or so. After that, I'll weigh the discussion in an entirely vibes-based manner (sorry Dean Norris enjoyers) and we'll alter Hexbear party line on it accordingly.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
we need an israeli flag burning emoji, and z_poster should be unbanned because they were entirely correct
Yeah, I have no idea what z_poster was up to before that post, but it seemed like mods already didn't like them and treated them unfairly on this topic as a result
ZPoster is legitimately an asshole sometimes, but is also often correct in ZPoster's own way. I find myself defending ZPosters takes too often, not out of agreement, but because I feel like nobody ever understands the arguments ZP is trying to make. But yes, it seems mods were just pissy about other stuff and banned ZP for that more than for this. I'd just like the mods to confront that and either say it's because of bad behavior and ban evasion and replace this specific ban for supporting burning this flag, or do some CRIT about actually banning for arguing for this burning flag emoji.
The emoji doesn't really matter, but the inherent zionist ideology hiding behind it that was accepted is
But I would also accept evidence that some of the ban evasion accounts that did some real bad actual anti-Semitism were actually ZP. I've seen some links that just seemed like possibly a different person to me, and those were referenced as "clear ZP alts"
I dont think that hexbear collects identifying data about its users. So yes I wonder how admins/mods figured that those accounts were zposters alts. One admin said that certain user was zposters alt because both talked about same stuff so i guess thats a clear cut case bring on the guillotine
Wel I know personally of at least 2 that were legit ZPoster, used for site evasion, because ZP admitted it lol
Maybe I'm not into online forum admin enough, but I just don't see the big problem if the original ban was unfounded anyways. For this topic, I think it was justified to make a new account and plead the case further. I can imagine it's sometime bad though, but I think we should just take seriously each argument/position/racist take for what it is and treat it as a new individual account. That holds the risk of someone making harmful statements and getting caught too slowly, but that's not what ZP does. ZP isn't going around throwing slurs at people and avoiding the ban to do so (as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll correct that)
Just seems like 2 very different kinds of bans between being grating and throwing slurs around. For one van evasion is acceptable and the other it's not.
I've seen, in the last several hours alone, zposter openly arguing with an admin, outing the alt as zposter, while arguing to another poster referring to zposter in the third person as if the alt wasn't zposter, defending zposter. To me, that reads as odd behavior, especially if you have a serious grievance to address. Is the situation so dire that one needs to astroturf on their own behalf?
Okay but... now that we've laid it out in the open with a referendum from YSF, it seems like the supermajority opinion of the site actually agrees with Z's position on this one. It seems most people agree that radical Anti-Zionism is the correct position here. Shouldn't that be taken into account?
EDIT: Sometimes it takes one particularly loud and persistent person to agitate until they get clobbered for the majority to speak up to change the state of things. Shouldn't there be reconciliation when that happens?
I don't care what Zs position is on the flag. I'm a fucking cracker in the imperial core, my take is moot and I'll listen comrades in closer proximity to the Zionist entity's opinion on the matter. Burning that flag isn't for me, so its shouldn't matter what I think about it.
However, the grievance I'm talking about is the accusations of death threats targeting zposter. I won't fault anyone for wanting that air cleared, but it isnt a good look to also be actively pretending to be unaffiliated people trying to weave sympathy into threads for your original account at the same time. Why behave that way if youre just going to cave right away when talking directly to an admin? Be up front about your alt(s), demand to have that grievance resolved. Otherwise you just look like a wrecker doing wrecker shit. The behavior hasn't convinced me they're not doing wrecker shit, even if my views align on the flag issue.
What else are they supposed to do? There's no user union and the rules say if you get banned, then create another account, so banning them for "ban evasion alts" actually doesn't make sense. And if they get death threats / death wishes from one aggressive user who likes to verbally abuse people in arguments, then I can't fault them for wanting to come back and argue for themselves, especially when other people wouldn't want to wade into that personal shitstorm to defend them for fear of catching that verbal abuse or bans.
Also, burning that flag is for you because it's for humanity, and besides, a lot of our future actually pivots around Palestine, it's not just a regional issue.
The site has no means of permabanning a user because the IP of users is scrambled when created. Which is fine, vpns would make IP bans worthless anyway. So I agree that "ban evasion" holds very little water. (I wish there was a "by referral only" option for allowing account creation, but that's another topic). This, it would seem, is an issue z is happy to exploit.
But is it really that hard to see how deceptive it would look if you had an alt and used it to comment "T34_69 was right and should never have been banned"? That interaction I linked doesn't seem deceptive to you? The other user clearly didn't appreciate the deception. Another user just told me z DM'd them pretending to not be zposter. It's just strange behavior.
My understanding is z and nik have been beefing for a long time. It's probably worth it to read their back and forth history to get the full picture of their engagement with each other.
The mod log is public.
Yeah I hear that, but a white boy from mayo city posting on a niche web form from his couch isn't exactly the vanguard. There are more deserved voices then mine in this space, so I yield to them. I'll use my voice offline where it has more material impact.
The only reason I'm bringing up Zs deceptive use of alts is to try and separate their long history of being agro from their alignment on this specific issue. They were not banned for their take, they have a history of being agro and have been banned in the past for a variety of things.
But they'll keep making alts, and we should just be OK with that because they "have good takes" or are "ahead of the curve" or whatever.
If we want to keep them honest, just press them on COVID
Ha, yeah. Or just ask them how they feel about nik.
These two definitely have some well seasoned beef.
Fair points, I'll look into those when I have time / attention span again. I've probably only seen like 5% of their entire posting here. For the time being though,
Yeah I do agree with that actually, it sounds reasonable unless and until I find something concrete that changes that.
If the reason for hesitation is that they went about bringing the issue of mod abuse in the wrong way, I disagree with your hesitation. Half the reason I'm even in this thread as much as I am is because Zposter (or some other banned Arab user) messaged me from an alt this morning pretending they weren't Z. That was disingenuous, but it also was a fairly effective way to get my attention, and when I uncovered the old incident with Nakoichi I figured their behavior made sense.
I mean, look at it this way: if you had a mod tell you to die, then other mods covered it up or gaslit you into thinking it didn't happen, what tools do you have available to make this issue known? You'd probably do some irrational things.
Regardless, I still am skeptical that they should be unbanned. They may have done or said a lot of heinous things. That ought to be cleared up first IMO.
It just reads as manipulative to me, and it does seem to be effective.
Is that actual the case? How is it a cover up if you can just view the mod log publicly?
Take a look
Also note that the comment where Nakoichi tells Z to touch grass 6 feet under got "chill" as its removal reason.
and the mods should have to post a self-crit, inexcusable conduct
I think the mod who banned them, who also has a history of threatening z_poster and other users as well as having their own comments removed by moderators for breaking the rules, should have their mod privileges revoked. I don't think they should be banned, but they've proven they're not moderating in good faith.