167
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
167 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
605 readers
445 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Have you considered just calling them racist instead?
The decision to avoid such terms was made after getting input from our neurodivergent community: In order to make this a more welcoming environment for them.
I hope you’re not suggesting that we ignore the advice of marginalized groups in our community.
The problem is that this person is proud to be a racist. He literally calls these tweets 'expert racism'
You mean its not a joke? Comparing rice farming to chip manufacture on the first one made me think it must be satire
No, look at his profile, he's a full on calipers kind of guy.
This comes off nearly as bait. No one is saying that we must silence the voices of marginalized groups in this community, they are simply acting like there is space between "ignore" and "obey" where we can actually discuss what is correct or incorrect in a way that people can actually engage with rather than receive dictates.
I'm absolutely revolted by the idea of needing to say "I'm ND btw" to not immediately get written off as a neurotypical chauvinist, but I guess I need to because only people in that category get to say something about this topic by your logic. I'm ND btw.
We should consider their feelings, and it may well be that that's the deciding factor (I expect that to be the case), but this idea that someone suggests that we take a different approach and, instead of being properly refuted or referred to a refutation is simply told "You don't want to be a bad ally, do you? You aren't trying to oppress people, are you?" is gross and thought-terminating.
Something as simple as "There isn't much intrinsic value in the rhetorical affectation that you're attached to, but there is value in 'making this a more welcoming environment for' ND comrades" actually engages with them while still substantively being what I assume you were trying to say (which is why I phrased it quoting you).
And it is actually my opinion that, if it is a big deal to them, then whatever, it doesn't matter so go ahead I guess. Just put it in the language filter with the hundred thousand other words that mean "unintelligent" along with, I must assume, the word "unintelligent," so that people don't need to keep the list in their head of what common words aren't allowed here. I feel like there's probably a healthier way to deal with this, but I don't have the motivation to try to work through that with people, so I have no grounds for asserting that it must be the route the board takes. So yeah, I guess I have contempt for the decision, but I don't disagree on a practical level, if that makes sense.
Complete aside: I fucking love how people have sniped at me endlessly for being a "debate bro" or whatever phrasing they prefer to say "autist who is annoying me" but here is the place where we have Manichean language policy. Maybe that was updated, since I do see the term less now, but I likewise don't have the motivation to follow what the admins adjudicate.
Is "debate bro" used in relation to neurodivrrgent/autistic tendencies? I always thought it related to using tactics for debates in a situation which is absolutely not a debate. Like on this forum, where the goal isn't to win an argument but to completely understand the other side and come to a correct conclusion. I've been called it a couple of times, but I'm neurotypical so I wouldn't have made the connection near as well
"Debate bro" has legitimate uses because "debate bros" as a subculture do exist and deserve ridicule, but it means things like using "gotchas" and other underhanded rhetoric or arguing purely to posture, rather than just vocally disagreeing or being -- in their view -- overly concerned with minor details without necessarily deriving false implications from them (which would be a "gotcha"). Overwhelmingly, I get the latter and over time it started to be clear to me for reasons that I find kind of difficult to articulate that this sort of talk is, aside from being lazy, oriented around the caricaturing and disparaging of ASD traits that are a large part of our image of what a "nerd" is, which this site has a long history of enjoying the abuse of, as seen by the sordid emotes that were removed over time. I totally believe there need to be rules for communication, but part of the issue with the site's approach to PC reforms is that it doesn't actually change anyone's attitudes or sentiments, it just changes how they communicate them. Something something "euphemism treadmill."
No, I'm not advocating for banning the term "debate bro" or "nerd," I'm just tired of people being lazy, ignorant assholes. I think a lot of it comes from the people on this site wanting to get a chance to strike at "cishet white males" but being such fucking cowards that they just punch down at ND people of that description who were often already shat on and physically abused for their whole fucking lives, not that I'm bitter about it or anything. That's just the vibe I get though, since I'm not a mind reader. It could all be in my head, though I've seen two or three other autistic comrades say the same thing.
I'd love to know where "this forum" is, because I've been here since the subreddit and don't recognize that description.
To be clear on that last part, I'm saying that is the ideal usage of hexbear, and so I've seen "debate bro" trotted out in a way that seemed to be calling out a deviation from that. Hexbear does not always meet that ideal lol. I agree with that for sure!
And to the rest, interesting! I think I missed some history because I'm not sure which emojis this is about. I recognize definitely the points you are making! It's definitely a difficult problem to solve with a process or rule, because there are so many ways to meander around those sorts of issues and cause the same problems without Walking over any specific line. I also have no better recommendations though.
Regarding emojis, we don't have them anymore, but they were of scrawny, chinless, bespectacled white boys who were taken as sort of the avatar of channers. They were later removed for the obvious bodyshaming issue, but the broader portrait has never been challenged.
I think the problem is immensely easy to solve, because the problem is 100% people being lazy assholes. You don't need to argue with people, but when someone voices disagreement, the appropriate thing to do is not write them off with insipid name-calling, but to either disengage, discuss the issue, or have an actual meta-conversation that isn't predicated on immediately treating them like bad actors because you feel uncomfortable with someone saying that you're wrong.
Sure, I agree mostly, but do we require the same for responding to, to take the extreme case, fascists then? The difficulty is in enforcing what you're proposing, unfortunately, because I think we all shouldn't be expected to respond seriously every time a Lemmy fascist shows up, but should respond seriously to comrades instead of dismissals and name-calling. But that line is super difficult to implement in practical terms. We could just always require full engagement, but unfortunately fascists know how to use such principles to waste our time and recruit others with sealioning and shit. How should we deal with that?
As I said, there are three options: Conversation (for where you believe there is something productive to discuss), meta-conversation (for when you believe there is a more fundamental problem with their mindset), and disengagement (for when talking to them is useless). I think that the vast, vast majority of the time, you can summarize it with these three. You absolutely don't need to sit their and talk to someone just because they disagreed with you, but that isn't the same as a license to devolve into name-calling and other childish behaviors like that. If someone is so hopelessly bad faith and persistent that none of these are appropriate, then just ban them (which may involve letting mods handle meta-conversation in cases where they aren't just throwing out gamer words or something).
I agree with these in cases of good faith, but the bad faith case is exactly where I think it's more difficult. And that because I think there is some real value in getting to mock someone who is sealioning or being a reactionary. It's kinda why this place first populated (as a subreddit), because it's genuinely relieving to have a place where you do that. Not just a perfect safe space where nobody ever comes with shitty opinions, but one where you send a PPB to someone who deserves it instead of having it deleted. I think it's also valuable to the person being mocked to see that they just aren't taken seriously. It makes some people investigate for themselves when they are just dismissed and laughed at openly instead of having their opinion hidden behind a ban. But maybe this is what you see as asshole behavior that you want gone too?
So, if we take that as something we should be able to do, we create a contradiction at the border between comrades disagreeing and someone deserving the dunk. It becomes ver difficult to handle.
If we intend on not doing the dunking, then I'm fully in agreement that your proposed model works!
I have no real strong opinion on this, just trying to discuss with you how it works and learn from your position
Again, I think it's pretty simple: The schoolyard behavior of the subreddit was always a coping mechanism and maybe a means of advertising. Like most coping mechanisms, it can get you a certain result, but it ultimately is not a way to fix a problem, and the advertising angle is irrelevant because we're a very insular group now.
The PPB-philia is just wishful thinking. People mostly don't respond to schoolyard taunts with "gee, maybe I should care what these children think of me," they write you off as children and understandably so. I've been the object of derision in this community many times, and never once has it positively changed my opinion on something, it's just further convinced me that a huge portion of the community are philistines. The only times my mind has been changed by this community were from looking at actual discussions and expositions, though even then it can be pretty weak (see my original comment that you replied to).*
If there is rhetorical merit in combating something, refute it (this can be as simple as linking to an FAQ entry). If there is not, ban them and move on. The schoolyard rituals are a useless affectation from people desperate to live in a little power fantasy.
Totally sympathetic, I think we mostly agree and I feel very similarly about hexbear now how it affects me and how I relate to it. I'm glad you feel more at home here than elsewhere, and improving that is maybe a goal we should have for the site. Have you thought of making a bigger post for this? I think maybe you'll get the conversation started and maybe result in some changes, there are at least a good amount of hexbear users that would definitely support it. I'd even argue for it with you, despite my points against it named here. That because I don't think we really have any influence on many people outside of hexbear, so the positive effect I name below is lessened.
But I do know that for me, a cis-white-neurotypical-man, the dunking was part of the reason that I started searching on my own for "what the fuck do these ignorant people believe to be so convinced of their dunks?". And that led to me researching with a very different goal than just "looking for arguments". Arguments were something I understood as only for the goal of winning a debate and nothing to do with truth, so the dunks got me to start thinking about what the truth was and looking on my own. That comes from my history growing up in a very reactionary environment, where any argument didn't have to be correct as long as you got to hold you position at the end. It felt like a game. Meanwhile, dunking seemed to be like "you're not just gonna lose an argument, you're wrong and we don't care to argue it", which is interested me because it felt like a truth claim.
Yeah, Hexbear is frustrating about this stuff sometimes. Overall I don't find this place to be too alike leftist twitter spaces, but alongside policing there's that same weird smug dunk culture. It really doesn't happen too much but I've seen it a couple times in the last few days and it's just way too online.
I agree, must I declare my neuro or physical ability, sexuality, and more, every time I post? Only when it's controversial? Do I need to prove it?
It's frustrating because, if I want to talk about my own experience with being ND, then yeah me mentioning it is relevant (and then these fuckers don't do anything about it (except Carcosa, who is cool)), but neurotypical people should be allowed to talk about it too because ultimately what we are concerned with is a truth that is broader than my own personal experience. If we really do live in the same reality, then I have special access to my own experiences, but that's it. If something is true (and not just a matter of individual sensation), people should be able to engage with it and understand it rather than just be told what is true and accept it.
But instead we have this radlib-style idpol standpoint epistemology where we just assume things are incomprehensible to people and there's nothing they can do but listen and follow the conclusions they are instructed on, because the premises and inferences that lead to those conclusions just can't be accessed by them.
I don't want to need to "justify" myself by fucking tokenizing myself into being "person who is ND" so that these radlibs say that I'm allowed to speak; it's revolting. Why can't we just talk about things and try to come to common understanding? Why do I need to check some box for these people? Aren't we all humans who can -- to an incomplete but still substantial extent -- understand each other?
I'd like to point out once again that there's a certain kind of term that has its origins in an old ableist word and 4chan culture that's used constantly on Hexbear.
Never seen someone use m****loid in my entire 5 years on Hexbear
I never said people used that word on here, I said people use terms derived from it such as westo*d.
I seeeee
Yes, although I don't think that comes from m----loid as a disability term. I think it comes from the step before that - the angle of scientific racism, when different races were referred to as 'oids' - N-groid, and of course m----loid for Asian features, which then racistly became a term for people with down syndrome and similarly facial featured intellectual disabilities.
But, as for westoid I think that's more linked to the general race science side of things, as in the modern internet context the obsolete racial grouping 'oid' was used by white supremacists on 4chan and such, which then led to femoid (derogatory incel term for a woman), and also led to westoid - westoid as a deliberate inversion to show the level of disdain and sort of for highlighting race science hypocrisy by using it on westerners and Americans.
But yes, when you look at the roots I do see how westoid is a contentious term. Within the context I think given that it's probably used and invented by white online leftists it's probably not a good one to keep. But then again, it does illustrate that particular point well (the Inversion of racial science).
edit: accidental italics/bold due to using the star for censoring
I personally don't like the whole logic of ”I'm going to start using the bad word because the other people used it”, that gives me the same vibes as people who started using words like conservat**d and calling people cucks when that word was fully co-opted by chuds and has questionable racial implications.
I feel the same way about people using ”soy” as a derogatory term when it originates from a fascist conspiracy theory and has misogynistic connotations.
Autist?
No, because that'd actually get deleted for ableism. I'm talking about the terms ending in -oid.
What’s the older ableist origin word it’s derived from? Asking in good faith since my English vocabulary is not great.
M*****loid. I'm sure someone will ”well ackhually” me on this, but to me those terms don't pass the vibe check.
I'm sorry but where exactly is the call to remove words like 'dumb' and 'stupid' in these threads?
Original: https://hexbear.net/post/5500406?sort=Top Follow Up: https://hexbear.net/post/5702644?sort=Top
Just seems like another ham fisted attempt by the leadership of this site to implement things nobody asked for.
Glad you asked, it’s right here:
“Stupid and dumb” would fall under “etc.”
I get bipolar, psychotic, and schizo, although I do also believe within far right circles like QAnon and such that there are people who are having legitimate psychotic and schizophrenic thoughts (which is very sad). I know Hasan uses psychotic as a bit of an umbrella term which I've found annoying in the past, so I get why there's some sort of action being taken there.
But, we're running cover for narcissists now? What about narcissistic as an adjective? It's a well established term deriving from Narcissus, used to describe self centered behaviour. What about calling someone 'a narcissus' as one might call someone 'a cassandra'. Medically diagnosed narcissists practically don't exist in the first place. Are we going to ban calling things socio/psychopathic too?
I think that needs to be rethought.
Would they?
I'm neurodivergent and trans and I'm perfectly comfortable calling stupid shit stupid
And I’m capable of changing my perspective, are you? I’ve since realized that there these terms serve no real purpose but to be dismissive, and that there are more accurate ways to describe people’s behavior.
Moreover, I am capable of enforcing site policy without agreeing with things 100%, especially when I understand the reason for the policy being put in place. The messages you just shared are from a discussion where various mods were providing their perspectives in order to come to a consensus for site policy.
Side note; it’s wrecker behavior to sift through someone else’s comments from a private conversation in order to nitpick a quick “gotcha.” I would refrain from such behavior in the future if you value your checks notes 2 month old account.
Continuing to share stuff from other people’s private messages establishes a doxxing risk as it encourages other people to seek out these conversations, of which can include private and sensitive information.
We are continuing to be extremely lenient in this regard, despite it establishing a double standard.
apologies if this violates the disengage, but you're right that was wrecker shit. deleted the comments and will return to anonymous browsing until i have something positive to contribute. thanks for your work
I appreciate that. And while my initial commentary may been a bit snarky, there’s just been a lot of bullshit going on.
We’re all on edge, and none of us are perfect. But we try to improve as we go along. Struggle sessions are a chance to improve the community, not to attack each other. The recent one was particularly draining for everyone and led to some missteps and shitty behavior/comments from a lot of people.
I perceived the initial comment in the thread as an attempt to litigate further drama in the community by attacking previous decisions by the mod team and further sapping us of our energy.
I’m done with this conversation, I suggest you disengage.
Well that's just silly