Has anyone else noticed how prevalent Hexbear posters have suddenly become? Maybe sometime last week I noticed nearly every political post had at least one long thread of Hexbear users that do nothing but repeat CCP talking points while waving anyway anything even remotely reliable as Western propaganda. That or getting all excited about trolled libs. The way they tell it, you'd think everything from DW, to Fox, to Propublica, to straight up AP News articles, are all written by the same people.

Not to mention, their info on the Fediverse observer is either straight up wrong or there's some serious botting going on. According to that, the instance is less than a month old, yet somehow they already have one of the largest, most active userbases, along with far and away the most comments of any instance.

Seems to me like Lemmygrad on steroids. Considering we defederated from them, seems like a no-brainer to block Hexbear as well.

So glad this thread could become such a perfect microcosm of why we need to defederate.

    • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      name your favourite anti-authoritarian system. you wanna have a revolution to create it? whoopsie doopsie, you're literally forcing people (maybe at gunpoint!!!) to do something that they don't want to do, you fucking authoritarian tankie monster. next you'll be saying you want to get rid of corporations (extremely authoritarian over those business owners)

      • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        No I don't want a revolution, I want people to try to work together instead of fighting.

        • Zoift [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, us too. Unfortuntely society is currently managed by a bunch of literal sociopaths who are more than willing to throw their stolen wealth into militarized police, private deathsquads, and good ol' normal armies.

          We dont get to dictate the escalation of force, the bourgeoisie have and will do that for us.

        • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          That'd be nice. Unfortunately the bourgeoise have class solidarity with each other and not with us, they will prevent change from happening peacefully.

        • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          A smooth, voluntary, nonviolent transition to peace and harmony would be every leftist's dream, but there are institutions with power who have used, are using, and will continue to use violence to prevent it from happening in order to maintain their material interests. Call it whatever you want, but the process of transitioning from our status quo to something better will require dismantling institutions that are capable of defending their existence with violence. It sucks.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think the capitalists will work with you? Do you believe that their sense of fraternity and human decency will lead them to throw down arms and accept more radical change to the system than the strikes, protests, and abolition movements that the capitalists have met with mass murder for centuries?

          The capitalists are not your friends. Their power will not be voted away, it won't be argued away, it won't be negotiated away. It can only be removed by force, and removing it is the only way to keep them from using it to sculpt society into an ever-crueler engine of profiteering.

        • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you have the opportunity to see what the state does in the face of nonviolent resistance when the BLM protests were happening?

        • SoyViking [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please tell me how you're imagining getting people like Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to "work together instead of fighting" and give up their hoarded wealth. What short of sheer force would compel them to do that?

          Utopian socialism would be nice if it worked but it patently does not. The bourgeoisie have a very fine time controlling the wealth of the world and they have nothing to gain by accepting democracy. Socialism, like any economic order, is only going to be a reality if it is enforced with violence. If somebody tries to undo the collective ownership to the means of production they will have to be stopped by force, just as force is applied today to stop people from violating bourgeois property rights.

        • aaro [they/them, she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          our literal entire platform is that the people should work together as much as possible and efforts to divide the people should be met with the harshest punishment

          hundreds of thousands of volumes of literature spread across every nation, every language, every race, every gender, every sexuality, spanning centuries, and this is like the one thing we agree on the most

          • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think this response is really necessary for this type of person. Work with us and we will try our best to avoid any violence, just like Lenin or most of the historical socialist revolutionaries. We figure out how to less-violently or even non-violently remove the power of the bourgeoisie and we will gladly do it. But the fact is that for libs the discussion of possible needs for strategic violence is itself proof of the impossibility of working together, and for some it's because they know that this removes all possibility of actually winning and for others it's because they're blinded by their ideology and think that reformism hasn't been tried hard enough.

            Bring some new ideas not based in self-defeating liberalism about how we can avoid violence. I'll listen and try to apply them. But don't tell us we're dumb for realizing it hasn't worked yet, no matter how many people claim it's the best

        • Zodiark
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          deleted by creator

        • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah that would be great, unfortunately the world we live in doesn't work like that. Asking for cooperation when the other side is perfectly fine using violence and manipulation then you are effectively just advocating for subservience to the bourgeoisie.

        • TillieNeuen [she/her]
          ·
          1 year ago

          We're trained not to see the violence all around us, because we're swimming in it all the time. Here's a quote about the topic from Mark Twain that got me thinking years ago when I was starting to move left. Maybe it'll speak to you too:

          There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

          I love Monty Python, but I'll never forgive them for turning "Come and see the violence inherent in the system" into a joke. Dennis was spitting FACTS. you-are-a-serf

        • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          That sounds great but how do you purpose we get there?

          People who use violence for their own benefit can not be stopped without violence or a credible threat of violence.

        • WittyProfileName2 [she/her]
          ·
          1 year ago

          On the 3rd of November 1970, Salvador Allende peacefully and by popular consent established a socialist government in Chile. By the 11th of September 1973 he had been overthrown and killed, his democratic government replaced with the fascist regime of Augustus Pinochet.

          The revolution is necessary because the ruling class will fight to the last human to defend their unequal distribution of wealth.

          Call it authoritarian if you will, but this is the struggle that must occur if you want to build a better world.

    • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let's not pretend that your politics aren't inherently authoritarian as well.

      Either you support capitalism (or worse), which is grossly authoritarian as it inflicts massive violence not only via warfare but through mass starvation and deprivation, or you support socialism, in which case you have two options:

      1. The violent overthrow of the current system (spoiler alert: that's a very authoritarian thing to do!)

      2. The gradual reform of the current system, meaning maintaining the status quo for an exceptionally long time as we ever so slowly creep our way to a more just economic system while countless people starve, go homeless, die without healthcare, end up in yet-another war and so on (which is a very authoritarian proposition, just throwing away the lives of the poor in your own country-not to mention those in the developing world-just so you can have a neat and tidy reformist approach that doesn't rock the boat.)

            • milistanaccount09 [she/her]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Has anything changed in 70 years? The legacy of the suppression of the left wing in the United States is still with us today!

              • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                The cold war ended, the USSR collapsed, and china shifted to being a semi-capitalist autocracy.... I could go on but you're just trying to dunk on the libs (like MAGA, big surprise) and I'm not one anyway.

                    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      Genius strategy to never allow yourself to grow as a person. Any time anyone points out something negative you're doing, close your mind to it with a reactionary "I'm being insulted!!" and shut down in a huff

                    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      You said:

                      you're just trying to dunk on the libs (like MAGA, big surprise)

                      Glass houses and stones

                • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  (like MAGA, big surprise)

                  You understand the fact that the content of the dunks, and what we're dunking ON, being different materially matters right? That just the mere fact that we both dislike liberalism doesn't make us the same when we dislike it for entirely different reasons?

                  Like, even on the few points where we agree, its almost always different reasons and logic behind taking those positions.

                  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Similar because a good portion of the propaganda in both extremist groups is coming from places like the CCP and Kremlin that want to destabilize the US and other powerful countries (like India).

                    Divide and conquer isn't anything new, but it's implementation on social media is.

                    • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      Question for you, why would the destabilization of the US be a bad thing? For me it would be an objectively good thing considering all the evil in this world it has wrought. While I will continue to deny that I'm a paid shill for China and ESPECIALLY Russia, I won't deny that the end of western neoliberal hegemony is a desirable goal for me.

                    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      The idea that American right wingers are taking their ideological cues from a communist government is probably the most galaxybrain take I've ever heard

                      And by the way, it's the Communist Party of China (CPC). You just come off as ignorant and possibly racist when you deliberately use the wrong name for them.

                      And are you actually saying that destabilizing the hegemonic global empire is a BAD thing? Let alone the fucking genocidal religious fascist government that's running India right now??

                      hitler-detector beep beep beep

                    • macabrett
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      It's very easy to never question your own world view if you think everyone you engage with that disagrees with you is getting talking points from another government. Have you considered that your thinking that our ideas come from government talking points IS an actual talking point from western politicians?

                    • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      According to who? People defending the narrative that they are contradicting? Yeah man. What a totally unbiased and reliable source for that information.

              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Impossible that the social institutions we built back then could still be in use when the fucking water pipes we built back then still are

                • booty [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And we live in a gerontocracy, like the children of the people responsible for the stuff that happened 70 years ago are still in power right now. It's not like 70 years is a world away, the current US president has firmly established memories of 1954, the guy was 12.

                  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Very true. In fact I would like to elaborate on your point to say the very same individuals in charge during all the heinous shit during the cold war are still in place, of whom Biden is one.

        • very_poggers_gay [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.

          Hey America (and Canada, UK, Australia, etc.), how ya doing?

          ✅ Rejection of political plurality (See: Range of acceptable thought among mainstream political parties; Also, consider some self-reflection)

          ✅ Strong central power to preserve the political status quo (See: Mainstream media apparatus, spanning news, movies, tv, etc.)

          ✅ Reductions in the rule of law (See: Absolute failure to hold politicians or corporations accountable)

          ✅ Reductions in the separation of powers (See: Politicians funded by and catering to corporate interests)

          ✅ Reductions in democratic Voting (See again: Politicians funded by and catering to corporate interests + absolute failure to hold politicians accountable; Also see: Rampant gerrymandering, erosion of voters' right, zero democracy in the workplace or outside of political elections)

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            No see you're allowed to decide if the guy with the blue tie or the guy with the red tie is your representative (uh... if you live in one of the handful of districts that are competitive anyway) so that means it cant be authoritarian. God I love our illusion of democracy. It makes me feel so nice.

        • CriticalResist8 [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          So we have to pretend political plurality is inherently and self evidently good now?

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hey! The guy in the red tie and the guy in the blue tie disagree slightly on one issue! The ability to decide between them is true freedom!

        • aaro [they/them, she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          rejectetion of political plurality

          Show

          use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo

          Show

          reductions in the rule of law

          authoritarianism is characterized by reductions in the rule of law?? what???

          separation of powers

          Show

          and Democratic voting

          Show

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            authoritarianism is characterized by reductions in the rule of law?? what???

            Here, "rule of law" means roughly "all people are equal before the law" (that is, you don't have a group of people who are above it).

            cop lord-bezos-amused a-little-trolling

            Emojis unrelated

        • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Using wikipedia as a reference for political ideology is like asking W Bush which countries are good and bad

        • wild_dog
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          deleted by creator

    • aaro [they/them, she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which political system do you suggest is more authoritarian than the owner of the largest military in the world, the largest police force in the world, and the largest intelligence (espionage) agency in the world?

    • HornyOnMain
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you have no problem with communists and you have a problem with authoritarianism you may wish to read this short essay by Friedrich Engels, one of the most important communists in history, on the matter: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

    • AOCapitulator [they/them, she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      all political systems require authoritarian principles until class can be abolished after communism, do you know anything about the words you are using?

      Police are authoritarian, for instance. Do you think your "democracy" is peaceful? Do you think it is nonviolent?

    • MF_COOM [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Propaganda is any alternative to the hegemony of Western corporate media