this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
80 points (96.5% liked)
Slop.
781 readers
887 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 federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aren't you banned here? And you have me blocked on your other account too.
I fucking liked you, I don't know what the hell happened to you but you went completely the wrong direction. If you think splitting with communists while people are getting shot in the face in the streets and communists are literally the only people organising an effective opposition(the strike was PSL) you are out of your fucking mind.
Not banned here. Never blocked you iirc. Don't have any other accounts.
I haven't ever changed direction (well since I became an anarchist at least) , so not sure where you saw that (or what it has to do with my comment above).
I'm not "splitting" with communists. I've always maintained that we can work together so long as they follow anarchist praxis. Same as with libs.
Left unity is when anarchists obey MLs, and when anarchists ask for MLs to compromise they are called counter revolutionary and banned.
But I guess one random user said "oh I used to like you" before insulting you for being consistent in your beliefs, what a loss of an ally. Someone who doesn't like being told something differently and then insults others.
And if we did the same...
Out of idle curiosity, is this:
Not the same? "Just behave as anarchists and we can work together"?
You definitely were banned here. The modlog says that was removed 27 days ago. I clearly don't know what has gone down to change that. I feel like I vaguely remember it being to do with defending mods with very obviously reactionary positions but I'm pretty fuzzy about it other than knowing things went down to make me see you as on the shitlist.
You defended and supported a neonazi, I can only assume you were unbanned by accident. You certainly don't belong anywhere near any left-wing space.
Lol, nah it's actually worse than that, I'm actually Hitler
You wish. Follow your leader.
No gods, no masters! Now your turn to follow your leader and shit yourself ;)
Literally one fucking comment ago you just told me you weren't splitting.
I am dead serious about this, if you still reject left unity you are a fucking idiot. Fascists will be dragging you out of the house to be shot in the street and there will still be dipshits screaming about the awful tankies, it's fucking ridiculous, you know as well as I do that whatever gripes you have with communists we're still markedly better than the capitalists and failure to ally with us when the alternative is literal barbarism will be a death sentence.
Not being "united" with Marxists (or libs) doesn't mean we can't work with them to bash the fash. You're conflating two different things. Rejecting left unity simply means we don't accept your narrative about geopolitics nor do we accept your blanket leadership.
In other words, you're welcome to bash the fash with us, so long as you don't expect us to do unreasonable things like praise "aes" in the process or vote for you.
When you say you reject left unity but want to temporarily ally the way that comes across is "we view you as enemies, but the lesser evil".
The problem here is that you are setting us all up for some sort of failure with this approach. I see the following as the only possible scenarios:
1. No left unity, only temporary alliance. Capitalism is overthrown.
Post-revolution communists will look on the anarchists with deep suspicion because your line will have always been this clear "we are enemies but temporarily allied" thing you're pushing. The result of this will be communists and anarchists fighting and killing each other afterwards, the result of this will be anarchists getting wiped out by superior organisation as has historically occurred. Not a result I want.
2. No left unity, only temporary alliance. Fascists win.
We fuck around and find out. We all die to fascists.
3. Left unity. Fascists win.
Welp at least we tried.
4a. Left unity. Capitalism is overthrown.
Everything goes great but something strains unity afterwards and a breakdown happens anyway. We kill each other. Anarchists get wiped out by superior organisation as has historically occurred. Not a result I want but I acknowledge it is still a possibility.
4b. Left unity. Capitalism is overthrown.
Everything goes great, it all works out. Anarchists get their autonomous zone and communists construct socialist state. Communists leave the anarchists alone because they are sincere friends and there is actual trust. Anarchists don't fuck around and make themselves distrusted by the communists so the socialist state has no reason to delete their autonomous zone as it does not make itself appear as a potential threat. This works out best for everyone.
What I'm trying to get into your head is that your lack of sincere friendship, your lack of real unity, it has no positive outcomes at all. The best possible outcome if we examine the potential scenarios is unity and sincere friendship. That is the outcome I want most.
"fall in line or be purged after the revolution" is not the convincing argument you think it is. Even if I were to accept your revisionist takes, it would still lead back to capitalism, which is also what has historically occurred. No, I'd rather forge the anarchist way and try doing prefiguration instead. MLs are free to join us and build the new world in the shell of the old. I have no problem offering sincere friendship through that.
Also note that I've never been hostile to y'all, but I can't say the opposite is true given the incredible amounts of bad faith and attempted bullying I have to tolerate whenever I interact here. Hell, just now I just came to point out a literal fact, and you turned it into a condescending scolding
This is a disingenuous way to read what I've said and highlights the point I'm making, YOU are the one making us into enemies.
At no point did I say this. What I said was that if two sides distrust one another, particularly because one side is declaring the other only temporary alliance but ultimately an enemy, then the other side is left with literally no choice but to see that as a threat. It's a sincere combative stance. One that forces the other side to react appropriately to being regarded as an enemy.
I don't want that position at all. I've clearly stated that. I want left unity. I want sincere completely and total friendship.
You are the one calling the other side the enemy and then complaining when I point out that doing this will cause the other side to take an appropriate position to you when you are openly declaring yourself as a threat.
The appropriate position to foster the best outcome is complete and total commitment to friendship, trust and love. Any misguided attempt to foster combativeness will result in elements (of both sides) becoming combative, and that combativeness will fester into real world actions, and those real world actions will fester into real world reactions.
You are being hostile by declaring us an enemy in this way. Either we make real and concrete commitments to friendship and go forwards with a real and sincere attempt to make it work or it is guaranteed to end in horrible failure in one way or another. The only outcome that has a good possibility is fully committing to making things work together for all of us, and I completely acknowledge that might still fail, but it's still the only one that has a possible good outcome for all.
I disagree, I'm not making you the enemy. I just won't follow your tactics or your rhetoric. If you think that not doing what you think I should be doing, makes me your enemy, that's on you.
We can certainly do make clearly friendly attempt to make it work. Y'all join us in doing anarchist prefiguration and it's all gravy.
As strange as it may be, I didn't come to lemmy predisposed against hexbears, but it was y'all direct actions over the last 3 years that have made me suspicious and cautious against y'all. This should tell you something. You're not winning hearts and minds with your overall behaviour which is of course counter productive for revolutionary purposes.
Honestly it really all just sounds terribly vague. "we should all just be friends" can't be forced. What are the steps you're taking to nurture such friendship with anarchists like me? Because let me tell you, revisionism about the lessons anarchists learned when allying with MLs and bullying when we speaks against "AES" ain't it.
You can't be serious.
If I told you that we're only temporary allies but I'm not allowing you to have any kind of leadership and I do not regard this as 'unity', you would interpret that as me saying when the conditions of our alliance are over that I intend to kill you, you would melodramatically say "like the bolsheviks" or something like that.
You would interpret it that way for me. I don't see why you think I shouldn't interpret it that way when you say it.
Actions like?
We're anarchists. We don't look for "leadership" in that way. For me only the actions matter. If you performed anarchist praxis and build prefigurative structures I wouldn't have a reason not to see you as an ally. If you put your effort into capturing state power to wield it over others hierarchically, It would make me suspicious and eventually bring us in direct opposition.
Actions such as constant bad faith, 1000-comment pile ons, misrepresentation and last but not least, ableism. Hell, in the comment alone, other hexbears can't help themselves but barge in and leave snarky or malicious comments.
This reply is stretching the limitations of good faith engagement, and my belief that you're engaging in good faith.
I'm not sure if you're talking about my full reply or my 4 word short reply which I sent by mistake because of a misclick
You edited the post 28 minutes after posting and 24 minutes after my reply. It did not take you 28 minutes to write 5 sentences.
I edited immediately actually, it took me like 10 minutes to finish writing the reply on the phone. There might be federation delays. FFS the comment I posted originally was even clearly cut off in the middle. How can you be so uncharitable?
I would encourage you not to overgeneralize from your own feelings. One of could rightly apply that first sentence to you, and surely you would see how asinine it would be. There are a number of leftists, including on your instance, who received a hostile introduction to us but who do in fact like us, and many more who at least don't bear your very obvious animosity (and the same is also held by most of HB regarding most of your users).
Hexbears constantly make such statements, based in uncharitable interpretations, particularly in places like slop and get highly upvoted for it. But my greater point is that if one's plan is a large leftist umbrella, it's counter-productive to follow strategies which alienate a lot of anarchists who do in fact share my anti-"left-unity" thoughts.
And sure, there's m@tes who don't get on hexbear shitlist.Typically those tend to be the ones who don't take as dim view of "left unity" as other anarchists, or who know to keep their thoughts to themselves at least. I just don't see this inter-instance relationship as overall healthy however.
This now appears to be a different and much worse argument. The criticism is now that we aren't winning the hearts and minds of anarchists who specifically reject taking a cooperative approach with MLs prima facie anyway. The only thing for someone like me to do in that position is argue against their position rather than cater to it, there's no "appealing to the anti-left unity anarchist demographic".
It probably isn't something you find encouraging, but I, like lots of HBs, do think the inter-instance relationship is a good thing. We've got lots of people who are comrades on your instance and the others can just block us, so it's not too big a deal.
As I wrote elsewhere in here, anarchists like me don't reject cooperation, we reject being co-opted or used to further ML tactics. That being said, if the plan is to strengthen left unity and/or to convert more people into Marxism, the bullying and "dirtbag left" behaviour typical in hexbear is not conductive. And surely, even people like me who are cautious about ML betrayals, could be led to change their mind through good interactions, no? However in my case at least, the opposite has been the case, I was actually more positive towards MLs, before hexbears attempted to bully me.
Could you provide me a definition of cooperation? Because in my definition, acting in mutual benefit, MLs being helped in their goals by anarchists is a perfectly cooperative thing so long as it is reciprocal.
In general, I agree with this and so do some other HBs, and I have been very vocal about this matter (you can go to search, filter for my account and the word "bullying" and see most of it).
However,
I think that this is an unserious complaint because I've seen you a) do shit-stirring and b) take indefensible actions in the name of being contrarian to MLs (not just being an anarchist, which is fine, but actually protecting heinous shit) that makes this "I was bullied" routine transparently not reflective of the current reality. Perhaps you were unfairly mistreated years ago, I think that's very plausible, but at this point you are a participant in shit-flinging and portraying yourself as a perpetual victim is just embarrassing.
I was an ML (of a different persuasion than most HB MLs) and I've been dogpiled by them a few times over the years for various reasons. Do you know what my response was? Was it to throw out everything they had to say on any subject and change my ideological alignment as though political ideology is downstream of personal drama? No, I reflected on this specific issue, "bullying works," and came to the conclusion that it was a socially backwards approach from an ML standpoint and argued on that basis, and many people ultimately agreed with me! I haven't been beating that drum as much recently, though I've been arguing for rehabilitative justice on basically the same grounds, but perhaps I should continue.
For the record, if you ever turned over a new leaf, as strongly as I objected to your actions in the past, I would defend you and just as strongly advocate against my fellows holding a grudge against you. I genuinely believe it's not impossible to repair things, and it should be perfectly possible to have a better truce than the current one even if it might take a bit of time to get enough of the HBs in line. I think everyone would be better off in that circumstance. I don't follow your instance that much, but if you ever wanted to renegotiate for better relations and demonstrated a reasonable level of sincerity (or wanted to figure out how you could do so), just let me know.
I'd love to see evidence of this. The most "shit-stirring" I've done in hexbear comms is call "On Authority" a piece of drivel.
Likewise, I'd love to see what you consider "heinous shit".
OTOH, what has happened multiple times is having a 1000+ hexbear pile-on in my own comms for posting anarchist memes. And yes, it started years ago, soon after I joined the threadiverse. My impression of MLs was lowered, and naturally I started acting accordingly for my own mental health. Since that pressure never let up, neither did my defenses.
While I'm glad for you and applaud your patience, it's an unserious demand to expect this from everyone.
Turned a new leaf from what. What of my behaviour exactly do you find problematic? Even in this thread, I came simply to post a fact, and this is what it turned out. What part of my online behavior is so problematic for you? Because if it's simply being cautious against MLs, well you realize that leaf cannot be turned on its own.
On HB itself, I mostly agree with your characterization of your own conduct. I don't have an index of your every interaction committed to memory, but for the handful that I do know I think the worst I really remember you proactively doing on hexbear is whinging about persecution and accusing us of wanting to murder you, etc. What I was actually referring to -- to the best of my limited memory -- was about the drivel you have been known to occasionally post on your own instance about how we by proxy all want to murder you and the other people on your instance. However, I think this might be the least important thing.
That shit with _crypt. Genocide denial, saying the Red Army soliders had it coming and should have surrendered when, for most of them, the only opposing armies they could have "surrendered" to would be literal fascists, etc. Granted, I think _crypt is probably just an ignorant child since he showed many times over that he didn't have even a tenuous grasp on the topic, but I also think it reasonably falls under your responsibility as an admin that when people whoopsie daisy into saying things with horrible implications in the direction of the murder of millions of noncombatants, some action be taken against platforming such a message. As I've said elsewhere, that's something that even many liberals (outside of reddit) would concede is a monstrous position if the person saying it actually understood what he was saying.
Well, two things here:
My point wasn't that you should do everything that I did. My point was that you are basically being a contrarian throwing a fit for years on end, letting personal drama dictate your political ideology. There are lots of alternatives that don't involve taking up the project that I did, mainly centered on simply moving on with your life instead of concerning yourself with a community that you've decided isn't worth engaging with, and understanding that hexbear does not (thank god) possess a monopoly on ML ideology.
I put the above first because I think it's the more important message, but I also just don't like your argument here and I'd like to address it. It is true that expecting everyone to respond as I did would be silly, that's completely contrary to systemic solutions (and what I was actually talking about was my own effort to produce more of a systemic solution by changing the policy of the site, which I have had a little bit of success in), but I didn't "demand" anything, and this framing is doing one of my least favorite sleight-of-hand tricks, not that I think you were dishonest there, but it's a sleight-of-hand nonetheless. I'm not asking about what someone must do, I'm talking about what someone should do. I hate when people take criticism that they should do X and then characterize as though I am trying to say that they are only allowed to do X, as though what I am saying is an attempt to exert authority over them rather than have a discussion on the basis that we both agree that seeking some things we can do are better to do than others. No, you can do whatever the fuck you want, I'm just saying you made a poor choice and have continuously recommitted yourself to that poor choice.
Furthermore, while 1) still applies and I don't think you necessarily should take up the project that I did, you shouldn't be conflating yourself with "everyone" when you have posed yourself as being serious about revolutionary politics. Why would I talk to you like Joe Schmoe liberal? Wouldn't that be me being a mean old ML bully who is condescendingly bullying you for being an anarchist? You should have some standards for yourself, and shit-flinging about le tankies is not enough to say you have a serious political attitude. What I am talking about here is how people can, based on being more consistent with their own political ideologies (and not just personal drama contrarianism) seek a better outcome for everyone involved, even if what you should do is not exactly what I did. If that's too much for you, why are you talking about revolutionary organizing?
"Caution" and "antagonism" are not the same thing, but you're glossing over where I pointed out that it would need to be mutual with HB laying off you and that I would advocate to them on your behalf in the interest of normalizing relations. I'm literally already acknowledging that there is a side here attacking you and they also would need to stop, so it's silly to just pretend that I'm telling you to unilaterally get in line and take it on the chin. I'm completely serious about this and I'm confident that I could enlist a few other people (who are more respected on HB than I am) to help me make the case to the community. In fact, I think an important element would be discussing with you what you think fair terms are and what other parties think fair terms are and trying to come to an agreement on that basis.
Well first of all, I think that characterizing what someone else said as me saying "heinous shit" is showing bad faith. I won't get into an argument on what someone else said and meant, but I'll only say that 1. you're mischaracterizing their position to make it sound much worse and 2. this is about shit that happened ~100 years ago. You keep telling anarchists to get over the betrayals and purges that anarchists went through at the hands of MLs, ~100 years ago, and trivialize those away as well, but then get all upset when an anarchist doesn't show the right amount of respect to USSR soldiers. You can't have it both ways.
And this again, shows bad faith on your end. Me being "a contrarian" is just being being consistent for the past 20 years. Me "throwing a fit" is me pointing out the bad faith and attempts at bullying directed at me whenever they happen. I literally avoid going out of my way to interact with hexbears, especially politically, because I've found it impossible to have a good faith discussion. You can't plead for a good faith interaction, and then just paint me so uncharitably while you're doing it.
By doing this, you are making an ethical statement. When something is ethical and one should do it, there's an unspoken implication that someone is less ethical by not doing it. I don't think you're trying to deliberately do a "sleight-of-hand" either, but you also can't bristle at someone reacting defensively to you implying they're acting less ethically than you are. The point of my statement was to dismiss you ethical statement. No, someone shouldn't always do what you did, because material reality prohibits most people from doing it. It's just as valid however to completely block all interaction with people one considers toxic, just as it is valid for someone to ridicule people for being toxic. Your chosen course-of-action, as successful as it has been for you, does not assert an ethical superiority to all others.
Does that only apply to MLs, or to all other political positions as well? (i.e. can I shit-fling at libs without being labeled unserious?) If the former, who determines which political position deserves unconditional respect in order to signify a "serious political attitude"?
First of all, I think that if you're seriously committed in having a good faith discussion you need to get out of the condescending frame-of-mind where you constantly belittle me as a "drama contrarian". It is not conductive to your stated reason for interacting with me.
That being said, I reject the idea that the right course of action is always to reach across, like a new Jesus, regardless of how many times you get slapped in the face while doing so. I also reject that it is stepping stone for revolutionary organizing. Like most other anarchists I believe in plurality of action. Some of us will be better at mending bridges and converting others. Some of us won't, but will be good at other things. I happen to be able to do both, but only when in the right frame of mind and material situation. I personally don't put a lot of weight in online discourse for achieving "revolutionary organizing" as I find that the true radicalization happens in real life experiences. I.e. people get radicalized through direct action for mutual aid, not online arguments.
That is to say, I don't feel guilty for trolling people when they're trying to act like dicks online, even when people like you claim I should have risen above this. You may disagree with me on that, but I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise.
I think you and other MLs seriously need to take a step back and realize that not everything is about you. Me posting a meme in an anarchist comm about historical grievances isn't trying to "antagonize" you. MLs don't actually need to go on into anarchist spaces to start flamewars due to memes, nor do they need to take everything so fucking seriously. I guarantee the impact of that meme on people's opinion of MLs will be much lower than a 1000-comment bullying pile-on.
From my perspective, posting a meme about historical grievances, or about the failings of state-socialism is a form of caution. I am trying to caution people to criticize ML ideology and its results. Sure it can be seen as antagonizing, but only if one always assumes they're the main char and that a meme inside an anarchist comm is directed at them directly.
Which leads me to the following:
You're conflating two very different things. There's a very large difference between attacking a person and attacking an ideology. Hexbears have a habit of taking criticism of ML ideology or practice, as a personal affront to themselves, therefore seeing criticism of their ideology, as a personal attack. To date (iirc), I've never personally attacked a single ML person for their ML takes, in all my posts. Likewise, hexbears never criticize anarchism itself, they only attack people directly for expressing takes they don't like.
You can't conflate these two things as being equal! You can't say: "I agree we should stop attacking you as a person, but you also need to stop critizing ML theory. By extension, if you do continue to criticize ML theory, you can't complain about being attacked personally." These are not the same thing. It brings to mind that saying about the two meaning of respect; respect of a person and respect of authority, and how people in authority conflate these two deliberately.
I applaud your aims even if I am disbelieving about your potential to herd these cats. I appreciate being able to discuss in what appears to be good faith, because until now such attempts have been thrown back in my face (which is why I permanently have "shields up" when discussing with hexbears.)
I think it's silly to "discuss terms". We're not warring nations. I think y'all being able to distinguish between criticism of an ideology and personal attacks would go a long way towards normalizing relations. Personally I'm not someone who holds grudges, but I'm also not one to "turn the other cheek" either, that is to say, I can easily adjust to whatever vibes come from hexbears whether good or bad.
On the other hand what part of the anarchist flotilla do you think is problematic and should stop?
If you look at the context of the statement, you'll see that this was in the "protecting heinous shit" conversational thread, I never conflated it with what you said and in fact don't think that you would say it. Obviously, I think you're just getting confused here rather than deliberately misrepresenting me. I was furthermore very careful about my claim because I was there for when that fight happened and saw the attitude that you and the other admin took, but what I just said is very concretely and undeniably true when you look at some of the various remarks the person made at the time, though of course this is colored by the fact that the user very obviously also just wasn't familiar with the historical subject and therefore didn't understand the real meaning of what he was saying.
Was it even 1 year ago? I guess it might have been.
I (thank god) am not Stalin, and I have plenty of practical and ideological differences with Stalin and you (thank god) are not Makhno and presumably have many differences with him. I don't think it's useful to project things this way instead of looking at people's actual professed beliefs unless they demonstrate having the same attitude (as, for example, when liberals respond to rising fascism by punching left). You can hate Stalin all you want, I don't care, I'm not arguing to pantomime his policies and lines and I would oppose someone who did.
I also just think that it's counterproductive to say "Why are you still blaming me for something that I did maybe a year ago while not taking personal responsibility for what someone who you never met and who would have hated you did a century ago? Pretty hypocritical." These just aren't comparable and I'm trying to talk to you mostly on the level of a human being. Blame me for my own actions.
By the time you said this, it wasn't unspoken:
But that's taking the very broad definition of "ethical," when I think what you're suggesting is that I'm making a moral claim (since the two commonly mean the same thing). To be clear, I don't believe in morality and I'm not assigning immorality to you. When I say "should," I mean it in the more banal prescriptive sense of "If you want the plant to grow, you should water it regularly." What I am saying is that if you're interested in a better state of affairs for yourself and others, then a different course of action makes more sense. So again, yes, I am saying you made a poor choice many times, that's why I'm arguing for changing course. That's not me claiming some sort of obligation on your part, because what I'm counting on is that theoretically you also want for things to be better for yourself and others. There is no duty or imposition here, again I am trying to talk to you on the level of a human being.
Nor did I say they should always do so.
This is sometimes true, but it is less true than you think it is. People are too used to falling into antagonistic behaviors when they really don't need to do such a thing and it makes things worse for themselves compared to alternative courses of action.
I really don't know what I need to tell you for you to internalize that I'm not saying everyone should respond just as I did, because I listed other responses and indicated that there were yet others that I think would also be reasonable. That said, I think people cling to the idea of "validity" to avoid considering what the best thing to do really is. Obviously all people are imperfect (and I'm a wreck of a person, I just have this one specific interest) and we can say that things are going well if they consistently choose "pretty okay" courses of action, but we shouldn't fail to acknowledge that there are frequently better courses of action, which is why when we aren't talking about people in general but ourselves specifically we need to give the subject substantially more scrutiny than what we suppose is fine for what the general population does on average. Basically I think it's an excuse to avoid making choices that are more strenuous. I'm not talking about people in aggregate, I'm talking about you and myself.
And for completeness, I will say that online especially there is probably the least real excuse for treating someone abusively, whatever they might have done that makes one want to treat them that way, because one can just block them. Generally, shit-flinging makes the problem worse, people just do it to feel righteous or to lash out in frustration, but it's generally detrimental to themselves and others, so I don't think it's "valid." Here I will again remind you of my own efforts to argue against the "bullying works" culture on HB, because my stance is precisely that in aggregate it does not.
Also, obviously, I reject the Christ comparison for countless reasons, but we don't need to discuss that.
You've made it very clear that it actually is about us. The first comment that I was responding to said so.
And here I will say again that this seems like your response, talking about how you used to be more positive toward MLs until Hexbear bullied you. You can split hairs about how that's attacking a very broad historical group of people defined by adherence to an ideological category rather than attacking the ideological category, but I don't think that's a very useful distinction.
I'm a little confused by this distinction based on what else you've said.
This, however, I can say is not true. There are subcategories of anarchism that do receive direct criticism. Here's me and another user doing that, as an example. Hexbears also criticize chauvinist "ML" ideologies like whatever the ACP is going on about, and various other takes that at least you'd put in that umbrella if not us ourselves that we disagree with. I readily admit that "internet anarchists" are overrepresented compared to chauvinist MLs in our discussions, but I think part of it is that the ACP types tend to just be nauseating to wade through with their nasty statements about various marginalized groups, the same as we don't just endlessly repost groyper memes, while the internet anarchists are more fun because they're attacking ML-ism directly in a very frivolous manner or making silly philosophical claims. I still think there's some further bias though.
You are right, but this is part of why I said we (as in the communities, or at least you and HB) would need to have a discussion about if what we view as reasonable.
My point in talking about my own experiences before was not to boast but to demonstrate that herding cats is doable, because I have historically seen that it mostly is.
Personally, I think "normalizing relations" is the way sillier "forum slapfight as warring nations" turn of phrase on my part.
Look, if we can't agree on the aforementioned "heinous shit," not for the sake of litigating the ban of some silly kid or removing a year-old post, but as a baseline standard for the future, then I think you and I aren't going to personally get anywhere.
However, should you ever decide that you want to change things with Hexbear even if it requires some sort of compromise or re-evaluation on your part, you can ping/dm me and I'll try to help you. I'm not going to pretend that I think it's very likely, but I am completely sincere and hope that you do take the offer sometime. I expect you'll see such a thing as vacuous, but my view remains that this is a situation where compromise is needed because both parties have failed to take the best course of action.
Actually that's in fact the salient point: The argument anarchists like me are making is that hierarchical power (i.e. a state) is simply going to breed the next Stalin, regardless of originating good intentions. From where we stand, history bears this out.
I mean, so was I. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "heinousness" or the statement and what was really meant by the author. But the fact that your interpretation is repeated and misquoted like a broken telephone is why relations can't improve. In fact it reaches the point where you have members of your instance literally call me a neo-nazi. It boggles my mind that you can't see how removing all nuance in this way breeds hostility. When you reach the point where members of you community start calling anarchists "neo-nazis" and the rest go "mhm, uh-huh, this checks out", I think all expectation of compromise are out the window.
I mean, "poor choice" in relation to what? Poor in being conducive to Hexbears like me? Perhaps. But it is not an imperative for me for Hexbers to like me. In fact it's Hexbears who request that I take steps to make them like me in the name of "left unity". And I think that's ass-backwards.
I think this is ultimately the sticking point. From where I stand, I am not opposed to improving relations, but I do deny the idea that it falls on is on me to make an effort to be nicer than what I get back. Rather it's the ones who actually believe in left unity who should be making such an effort.
It's a welcome sight to see this play out like this, instead of the /c/slop reaction which is usually the case. Unfortunately 90% of the time, I see the slop approach.
Honestly I don't understand what kind of discussion you expect. There's no way I would censor myself from criticising authcom ideologies from the left, in the spirit of improving relations, nevermind convincing others to do so likewise.
What is there to agree on? If you're seriously entertaining the idea that the person is a neo-nazi for having a spicy take, or that I'm a neo-nazi for interpreting them charitably, then yes, we're not going to get anywhere.
I am still yet to hear what form this compromise or re-evaluation could possibly take.
I never said that and have multiple times in this exchange expressed my disbelief of both claims. I don't see why you insist on misrepresenting me this way when I have been very explicit that a) you would not say what that other person said and b) even that other person did not really understand what he was saying because he has no grasp of the history he is making claims about.
I am not the other people you have grievances with.
I didn't have anything in mind for the purpose of this conversation. As I said, I don't think you and I can make progress on this issue personally. Basically what I meant is that at a later time your perspective on things might change and that if that should ever happen and you would like to investigate having a better relationship with Hexbear in any respect, I am willing to advocate on your behalf to the community and I believe I can get other people to help me. As I said, I don't think it's terribly likely that you will make such a choice, but I am completely sincere and hope that some other circumstance leads you to do so.