Too obvious to be funny, but i still wanted to draw a shitpost.
I was just thinking about how many lins are 100% convinced that if you try to provide universal public housing to everyone you must also do a bunch of genocides and have one spy per person in your society and have no food.
It is the moral of every story they see on the magical narrative screen that constructs their framework of what is good (Les Avengebledores, perfect children whose naivety is the source of moral correctness) and evil (Slitherkill, who wants to make the world better for the downtrodden but was damaged by a lower class childhood and therefore feels the need to murder half the universe to do it)
Evil is fundamentally sympathetic and understandable you see. Evil is imagining the world can possibly be other than it is
Every liberal work of fiction is about how good things are actually bad
I think he misspelled lib.
Btw what we mean by liberals is the original political term for those who support capitalism, not the colloquial American synonym for Democrat that alt-right types use. Conservative and libertarians are also liberals strictly speaking because they also subscribe to the same basic underlying ideology.
Edit: quoting the relevant part
In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism). In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism.
Conservative and libertarians are also liberals strictly speaking because they also subscribe to the same basic underlying ideology.
How can you say such a thing! There's a full 16pt difference in our preferred tax rates and we still can't agree on the exact specifications of the worker visa program for illegal residentsOld joke, the Soviet Union could’ve avoided collapse if instead of having one official state party, they had two, and they agreed on absolutely everything except abortion.
There's actually a lot to be said about the concept of "competitive" (not necessarily democratic) elections and how they increase the stability of a political system by shifting people's perceptions of what is wrong, that's part of what Fritz Bartel talks about in "The Triumph of Broken Promises", the neoliberal period imposed extremely harsh conditions on people but everybody went along in the end because they felt that they had a choice in the matter (lol) meanwhile the eastern block states wanted to try doing austerity but they knew the people would never stand for it.
Also ties into Chomsky’s observation that compliance with a political economy regime is done by having a narrow band of acceptable opinions but fierce debate within the band.
Hey I just wanted to stop in and say thanks for being patient, the whole terminology thing around ideologies is one of the more confusing barriers to entry into leftist thought but you're working thru it like a champ
You've already been linked the Wikipedia definition which is super helpful but I'm gonna paste the first bit again because it's worth reading more times, for fluent lefties as well:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights.
Based on this, all democrats and pretty much all republicans and libertarians are liberals, and that's on purpose. This is what we mean when we throw punches at "libs" - we all believe that some of these qualities are good, but libs believe that all of these things are good - we don't terribly like things like "equality before the law" (it's just as bad for Jeff Bezos to steal a loaf of bread from a supermarket as it is for a houseless person), "freedom of the press/speech" (your freedom of the press is legally endowed on you just as it is to Elon Musk or Rupert Murdoch even though their actual freedom of the press is millions of times what yours is because they own billion dollar news and speech platforms), "right to private property" (you have the right to own dozens of resort properties just like Donald Trump does), etc. Liberalism - democrat, Republican, and libertarian - is built on the idea that everyone can use dollars and power and status to exercise their rights to whatever degree they want to, and one of our biggest reasons for calling them out under their shared umbrella of liberalism is that they all share the same fallacious worldview that allows people with more dollars to have more fundamental enshrined rights, and even though people with very few dollars can't actually exercise any of their fundamental enshrined rights, liberals pretend they have the same rights just because they could exercise them if they had more money.
Gotcha. Thanks for the additional information. Politics can get muddy real fast, and terms can be abused or misused to create confusion.
that's why we stick to the definitions used globally and historically and avoid the colloquial usage. culture changes but history is already written.
To be fair, this is more an American english thing. Re-quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia article
In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism). In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism.
even that's not entirely accurate. in hungary for example, "libsi", "liberális" means what it does in mainstream american politics (rabid capitalists that are not necessarily against gay people existing). this isnt that surprising, since orban hired former republican campaign managers to build up his image/rhetoric
I didn't really want to get into Overton Window stuff in a brief post but yes, good point.
Not really, terms should be historically constituted and there is a serious amount of self-codification among liberal theorists that makes the term extremely useful
There are only eight subspecies of liberalism that actually matter to real world politics, and they cover everything between anarcho-capitalists to DNC blue no matter who libs
Classical liberalism, utopian liberalism, social liberalism, neoliberalism, ordoliberalism, dirigisme, siege liberalism, and the mutated step-child fascism, these are the actual differentiations among the defenders of capitalism
There is only confusion on this matter because utopian, social and neo liberals successfully appropriated a mountain of socialist and anarchist lingo and incoherently applied it to themselves. I don't blame them, liberalism is deprived of any genuine vision of human progress or solidarity, it wears the liberatory spirit of anti-capitalist ideologies like a carnival mask and as a result millions of potential radicals end up confused as to where they stand in the struggle over capitalism
It's a problem. Libertarians stole "libertarian" for the Anarchists. "Liberal" now means you want to paint a rainbow on the bomb. People think "Conservatism" is a real thing but Nazis aren't. Most people have no idea what Anarchism, Communism, or Socialism actually entail, let alone the enormous breadth of thouaght across the length.
We just need a point system.
Ohhh you’re a 230? Fuck you 200 class people! Haha 😛
The popular American usage can just die as it isn't specifically useful anyway
I don't know about what they were saying exactly but we did have someone come in earlier and start by calling us intolerant tankies and then have a meltdown over some of our non binary users using neopronouns, I can find the link if you want it
I think it's a typo for "libs," since n and b are next to each other on an English keyboard.
Like CriticalOtaku said in this thread, here on Hexbear, if someone says "libs," we mean liberal in the older sense of the word.
I see. Well, I guess that’s the problem with a federated social media system. Rules for the entire system, with identical subs, and never really knowing where you are.
What’s this hexbear instance about?
we are a left unity instance. we are composed mostly of MLs and anarchists, so we are opposed to imperialism
Yes for sure. If you mean actual democratic socialist ideology, like Evo Morales, Allende or Nelson Mandela, then yes. Hexbear is a left wing unity website.
If you mean social democracy, such as the Nordic/Scandinavian countries, then probably not. Though you're always welcome to stick around and engage in good faith.
No no, not social democracy. 😅
These damn similar names!
I’m a political politician, not a politician political!!
If you agree that the west is currently the greatest threat to global socialism then this the place for you.
Well, west? I mean, I think the corrupt rich from everywhere on the globe are the problem, and while they may give lip service to the east/west, they’re all-in together.
The bourgeoisie aren't anyone's friends but their own, but there are places where they are more and less in charge, and there are larger and smaller coalitions, with the larger naturally being more malicious, though they tend to export that malice further from where they rest their heads for reasons of security.
QED western imperialism
we're mostly on the revolutionary socialist side of the spectrum but yeah, you'll be fine here. the inside jokes and cultural oddities will make more sense with time. welcome!
Well, someone else said it means libertarian…. People shouldn’t use shorthand when so many other words in the same topic use the same.
It means people who subscribe to the failing economic theory of liberalism not just Democrats but Republicans and Libertarians too.
its a shared colloquial understanding on the english-speaking western internet that "lib/libs" is shorthand for "liberal/liberals" in the vast majority of cases, the person who told you it meant "libertarian" was probably looking for the word "lolbert"
My bad, I should have clarified that to the rest of the world outside of the US, "liberal" means "Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian".
The political tendency in America that describe themselves as "Libertarians" are extremely individualist, pro-capitalists who are absolutists about private property and essentially believe that instead of a government all social entities should be private corporations that contract with each other and individuals to form society. Ie instead of a city having a civic government there would be a corporation that privately owns all the property and leases it, a corporation that owns the streets, a corporation that provides police and military services, but only to people who contracts. Many of them don't go that far, but strongly believe that there should be little or no government regulation or interference in the economy.
It's a very unrealistic system and non-libertarians, ie almost all Leftists and almost all Democrats, along with a good proportion of Fascists (GOP and their allies) don't take Libertarians seriously.
also they can't shut the fuck up about age of consent laws so around here "pedos" is pretty much always implied when talking about
HOLY SHIT THAT'S BOBBY DROP TABLES HIMSELF
You know, we have a little drop tables ourselves. 😏
Show
At first I thought this was about the United Federation of Planets. But it still sort of works even for Star Trek.
Yeah, should have named it "Last week's modlog abridged" instead.
Yep. They lie about themselves and they're opponents. Just like their opponents do in an opposing direction. They lie to make the opponents look worse and themselves look better.
Just like you've done here.
Exaggeration of "enemy" faults while downplaying your own.
objectivity is a myth and everyone is shaped by their material background
As we say on the show over and over again the atomic unit of propaganda is not lies, it's emphasis.
Citations Needed Ep 113: Hollywood and Anti-Muslim Racism (Part I) — Action and Adventure Schlock
This one is going to find a massive increase in use since federation
Don't need to. Saw how your users here descended upon my home instance the other day. You're hardly without blame around here
Fuck do you mean, Doug, are you denying all the apologia, fascism, colonialism, racism, sexism, ablism, and homophobia that occurred? And I wasn't there but I sure hope they gave the liberals of your instance hell for their imperialist views.
They came in with broad sweeping statements and assumptions paired with judgements and wishes of harm based in nothing but their own minds from what I could see.
There was also no shortage of an amplification of the message in this comic, all Western media is lying about everything all the time kinda thing. In the interest of full disclosure that's very likely an exaggeration itself, but I'd wager closer to the truth than what's here.
I'm not denying any of that happened any more than you're denying what went down on my home instance. I wasn't there
Not all western media is lying. There are a few okay podcasts, the Intercept, the Guardian is okay sometimes. Uhh... I can't think of any others off the top of my head right now. Pretty much all Western government organizations and individuals related to foreign policy are shit, I'm afraid. Like a couple of Irish politicians and a smattering of minority party people across the EU are the only real exception.
All media is lying to you a large part of the time. Yet it's only Western media you seem interested in calling out on it.
On the other end most media is telling you part of the truth or telling the truth part of the time.
They called it popular politics when I was in school
Bruv Western Media is the only media I can read. I'm American. We're ignorant as shit. If it's not in English I can't do anything with it.
Then learn another language. Change and grow.
But if Western media is lying and it's all you can read then how do you know it's lying?
They often admit their lies years after the damage has already been done. We mistake this for accountability
That still leaves you with having no handle on what the truth is today, right now if it's the only source of truth
I haven't consumed any Western corporate media content (that wasn't being dunked on) in years. I'm still way too aware of what's going on in the world and wish I knew less, tbh.
because there's alternative analyses available. see the news megathread
broad sweeping statements and assumptions paired with judgements and wishes of harm based in nothing but their own minds from what I could see.
unless source for the latter half of that statement, thats gaslighting, Dougall Western media is lying about everything all the time kinda thing
Do you think that a white-supremacist imperialist nation would be honest about an enemy that it is currently at war with?
Well done dropping the part where I explained that's likely an exaggeration. The source is out in the open. You're as free to look on my home instance as I am to look at your modlog.
I think they'd be as honest as their enemy is about them. Why would I assume that it's only one side lying about the other?
Beyond that the best lies are rooted in truth. Honesty happens with enough frequency to make the lies credible.
Then there's also the openness to influence I keep with people all over the world. Looking at varying points of view is so often the path to truth.
You're as free to look on my home instance as I am to look at your modlog.
Yeah nah i've seen how the imperialist bigoted fuckers from your instance behaved on here so I am safe to assume that they acted as such on home turf. They fully deserved any hate they got.
I think they'd be as honest as their enemy is about them. Why would I assume that it's only one side lying about the other?
So you deny that the combined western powers headed by america are a uniquely evil white-supremacist entity that has brought terror and misery to the people of our world?
uniquely evil
Specifically here.
So you'll freely judge my whole instance based on your experience on your own, but I should not do the same in kind?
Yeah you're free to judge us as rude or whatever for being hateful to imperialist reactionaries, that just makes you an apologist for the latter.
Specifically here.
Which countries that currently exist have legacies that are as evil, barbaric, white supremacist, genocidal, and settler-colonial as america and its allies?
inb4 "WHAT ABOUT MUH CHINA!!! MUH RUSSIA!!!!"
Neither was founded in the genocide of an entire nation's worth of indigenous peoples, sorry.
that just makes you an apologist for the latter.
So calling someone an ass is only ok if they were being an ass to a decent person? How far do I need to dig into someone's post history before I can call someone being an ass to them an ass?
Which countries that currently exist have legacies that are as evil
(I cut the rest off as it wasn't in the original dispute)
England comes to mind. Japan has had some historic shit I'm aware of. I can't say whether China has or not because I've not dug into their history. Thanks for making decisions for me though I guess.
Neither was founded in the genocide of an entire nation's worth of indigenous peoples, sorry.
For one, we don't really know how China was founded, do we? As for Russia we'd really need to get down into Mongols and Kievan Rus and plenty of other things to make that determination.
That aside, is something founded in evil only capable of evil and something founded in good only of good? Can China and Russia do bad? Are they capable of as much evil as America?
Can China and Russia do bad?
yes
Are they capable of as much evil as America?
no, they don't have control of the global financial system and they don't coup and murder every antagonistic government that pops up around the globe. without the power to sanction and without the will to casually destroy entire populations, they aren't capable of anywhere near the same level of evil.
So calling someone an ass is only ok if they were being an ass to a decent person? How far do I need to dig into someone's post history before I can call someone being an ass to them an ass?
A: "I firmly believe that NATO is a good thing for the world."
B: "Shut the fuck up you imperialist piece of shit."
: "ASKSHAUSDLASFDLASLDFALSDFLASLDFLASLFLLY YOU SHOULDNT BE AN ASS TO IMPERIALISTS BCUZ ADVOCATING FOR FASCISM IS OK WHEN YOU DONT USE LE INDECENT SWEAR WORDS!!!" (you)Idgaf what you call people, you are an imperialist piece of shit either way.
England comes to mind. Japan has had some historic shit I'm aware of. (I cut the rest of your comment off because this response would make me look like a dumbass racist apologist otherwise lol)
Yes, England and Japan are both racist allies of america.
For one, we don't really know how China was founded, do we? As for Russia we'd really need to get down into Mongols and Kievan Rus and plenty of other things to make that determination.
"AKSHUASDLFALSDFLASDLFASYDFALSDFLASDLFALSDFLASDF;LKAJSDFLKJASDLFKASLLLY WHATABOUT CHINA AND RUSSIA ARE LITERALLY AS BAD AS AMERICA BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THESE AXES FROM THE VIKING AGE...!!!"The current nations which have the continuity of "China" and "Russia" didn't invade their own lands, genocide the civilizations who were living there already, and establish a white-supremacist capitalist global order using slave labor.
That aside, is something founded in evil only capable of evil and something founded in good only of good? Can China and Russia do bad? Are they capable of as much evil as America?
"ACKSHUALLLLLLYYYYY WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF GOOD AND EVIL, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE GREAT PHILOSOPHY???"I dont see how this hypothetical masturbation of the intellect is relevant to america and its allies having a historical record of perpetrating and supporting white supremacist genocides and a global system of capitalist exploitation for their interests while china and russia dont. america is fundamentally a racist, imperialist, genocidal country because the very idea of america itself is founded on the notion of white supremacy and thus the invasion of foreign lands with the former as justification for slaughtering everyone there and ruining the environment for ones personal enrichment. America literally means nothing but misery and despair for the vast majority of people on earth, everyone fucking hates it, including the remnants of the indigenous people who it genocided upon its founding. And it can mean nothing more because its like saying nazi fucking germany is "capable of good", no it isnt, its a fascist state that was rightfully destroyed.
Shall we go bit by bit?
A: “I .....
where did I say anything at all about NATO?
Idgaf what you call people, you are an imperialist piece of shit either way.
Based on what? Specifically. What imperialistic behavior have I exhibited, where, and how was it such? You are under no obligation to answer any of that of course, but without specifics I'm forced to assume you're just resorting to name calling because you don't like my opinions.
Yes, England and Japan are both racist allies of america.
So it's not unique, like I said.
The current nations which...
Where are you drawing the line for current. China has existed since well into BCE dates, and Russia since around the 18th century by the same calendar in use here.
I dont see how this hypothetical masturbation of the intellect is relevant to america and its allies having a historical record of perpetrating and supporting white supremacist genocides and a global system of capitalist exploitation for their interests
It's directly relevant to the statement that "Neither was founded in the genocide of an entire nation's worth of indigenous peoples". If we're being pedantic it's also several nations worth, but the quote is your words. If a thing is not bound by its origins then the statement was most likely made to provoke emotional response. It seems likely that you assumed I either didn't know or didn't care about said genocide. Both are wrong. More likely, however, is that it's a set up for how bad the US is. Incredibly bad, yeah. But does the starting state determine everything or is it just one step in a road? Are bad things tallied or averaged? Surely that needs to be considered if we're to weigh a country as young as the US against one as old as China.
while china and russia dont
based on what? Leaving western media out of it I have been privy to first hand accounts of life in both and that's a mighty claim you're making.
america is fundamentally a racist, imperialist, genocidal country because the very idea of america itself is founded on the notion of white supremacy and thus the invasion of foreign lands with the former as justification for slaughtering everyone there and ruining the environment for ones personal enrichment.
and we're back to founding. are you your parents? Yes, America is fucked and has been for its whole run. Is it beyond fixing? What if your grand parents were racist imperialist pieces of shit? Are you then beyond the possiblity for anything good?
America literally means nothing but misery and despair for the vast majority of people on earth
That's bold. I bet a lot of people don't think about it at all in their day to day lives.
everyone fucking hates it
provably false. I know several immigrants who love it here. I can't understand why, but it changes nothing.
including the remnants of the indigenous people who it genocided upon its founding
Also provably false. I know several people who had families here before Europeans came over who think it needs a lot of work and needs to do a whole hell of a lot better, but they would not say they hate it.
And it can mean nothing more because its like saying nazi fucking germany is “capable of good”, no it isnt, its a fascist state that was rightfully destroyed.
How was it destroyed in a way that America seemingly can't be?
So far your whole spiel sounds an awful lot like "America bad, China good, fuck you if you disagree". I can only agree with one part of that.
It takes a long time for someone to deprogram all of the propaganda they have accumulated throughout their life, especially when it came from the most sophisticated propaganda machine in human history.
If you truly are a potential ally against fascism, then I hope one day you are curious enough to go out and read some things outside your comfort zone and see whether or not they make sense to you.
I am and have done for a long time. Being cognizant of what's lie and what's truth is a lifelong journey.
Outside viewpoints are one of the best tools for it.
Both sides. Concern troll. Civility. Blah blah blah. Post examples or fuck off.
Me: You guys acted more aggressive in my instance than this comic portrays
You: Both sides. Concern troll....
Posted an example elsewhere. Someone being a far bigger piece of shit doesn't mean you are incapable of being kinda crappy yourself. We're very far from anything resembling a both sides thing here
The one example you posted elsewhere (that I can find in your posts, you still won't like or make it clear for others) is this comment which is a bit ranty and online for my personal tastes, but I don't have any problem with the content of.
More importantly though, cherry picking the most (ironically) all caps reply you got here is not the same as providing evidence of Hexbear users "acting much more aggressively in my instance". So you still haven't provided anything to back up the claim you've made all over this thread. So yeah, plenty of people here will rightly doubt your sincerity.
I didn't link anything specifically for two reasons. For one, I didn't feel obligated to go sifting through a post I didn't especially enjoy the first time. For two, it was an effort to meet the same energy as "check the modlog".
Was I right in either of those, maybe not. I'll own that.
On the other hand if you don't have any notable issues with that comment I have my doubts you'd be more critical of anything I've seen on my instance.
But at the end of the day we're all different people with different insights and opinions. Am I wrong about how a comment reads to me and you're right? Is it the other way around? Neither. We're both right about how it reads to us. But that's not likely to change how you view my sincerity.
I've made my point with a good faith addendum on the slightest off-chance I'm wrong about your intentions, so I refer you to that, and with that I'm disengaging.
Idk, I saw a few comments on that post that were bad but most of it from what I saw were decently calm disagreements, at least calm in comparison to being called state actors as OP did in the post
I looked through it a few minutes ago and there are definitely polite disagreements. I absolutely appreciate that. There's also people in there obviously trying to stir shit, which I don't.
I gave the op a little more room, not for being from the same instance as me, but for being consciously unaware. Maybe I did wrong there, maybe I didn't. But they did post a "what's with" type question which implies unawareness.
I think I agree with a lot of people here more than I disagree. But it seems like more than a few would rather label me as an enemy over the things we disagree on than meet in kindness over the things we agree on. Makes discourse much harder.
It's hardly an exaggeration of enemy faults when the enemies self-identify as fascists or are a bunch of transphobes who can't even handle the existence of pronoun tags. And yes, transphobes and fascists are my enemies, these people literally want to kill me or want to deny my right to exist as myself in public and live a dignified life. I won't have that here, or anywhere we can extend our influence. As somebody else said, go to the bottom of the page and check our modlog. We're open and transparent about our moderation policy, everybody can see which mod actions were taken and why. For context, we normally have a person like that show up every other day at most, now we have to purge bigots all the time. Maybe your standards are too low to get this, maybe you think "nonbinary people don't exist" or "stop using pronouns" isn't hate speech, but it is. These are reactionary talking points and idgaf if you're fine with such people infiltrating your instance, we will keep our community safe from harm as we've done before when such issues came up. Being an inclusive, safer space takes active work and it includes stepping on people's toes and kicking people out who can't behave.
Nope, I'm with you on all that. That's also not what the comic is highlighting. Trans people exist and deserve all the rights everyone else has. Transphobes are pieces of shit and should be dealt with accordingly.
"I think Western institutions and media are not being entirely honest about their geopolitical opinions" is not like the phrasing I see from hexbear users out in the wild.
"I think Western institutions and media are not being entirely honest about their geopolitical opinions" is not like the phrasing I see from hexbear users out in the wild.
What you see is the logical conclusion of when you step back and realize that people are always supporting this year's war drive and claiming last year's war drive is ancient history and all in the past.
You say that like a whole lot of us didn't have that realization decades ago.
No experience is universal and your logical conclusion won't be the same for everyone.
Even if it were by throwing something aggressive in the face of someone who isn't even on the same road you're just going to come off as an ass. You drive others deeper into their position rather than getting anywhere productive. Which you may not care about on the surface, but then I'd argue you're just pushing a different war drive.
You drive others deeper into their position
You say that like they haven't held that position through multiple farcical wars.
I'm not the one driving them deeper into their position. They have chosen to do so themselves. Which is why they are more concerned about my civility than the millions starved and killed in the name of the rules based international order.
they are more concerned about my civility than the millions starved and killed in the name of the rules based international order.
You say that like your know their level of concern or activity in regards to those.
Consider someone starting to consider view points beyond how they were raised. Are they more or less likely to go toward someone with inflammatory rhetoric? The concept of a pipeline is hardly a new one.
Believe it or not the world isn't divisible into two camps. Why would you not encourage people to flow towards a direction that should be inviting?
Consider someone starting to consider view points beyond how they were raised.
unironically, the bullying takes work. many of the people on this website are here because they got pressured for bad takes, got shocked and confused, and stuck around to learn more. others went wow those commies are funny and ended up doing the reading. civility only protects the status quo. we live in a fucked up world and pretending it's not by masking how fucked up it is that people defend that status quo serves absolutely no one but the powerful. any tool that breaks people away from that reflexive defensive posture towards extant power is only an immeasurable good.
So if it breaks one person away but twenty more say they knew they were right about all them and refuse to ever attempt to engage in discussion again, that's good?
Yeah, it's fucked. We have people insisting that trans people are grooming kids while preachers keep getting arrested for actually doing far more than the trans folks are even accused of. But if you throw a whole lot of the country into the deep end of the pool they'll just drown while they take all the lifeguards down with them. But if you can let them dip their toes in the shallow end then you may find them swimming laps before you realize.
queer people started getting rights and acceptance after they started throwing bricks, not before. rights are taken, never granted. the genocidal policies will succeed in their project if they are not met forcefully. as a trans person, you can fuck all the way off - I will not be polite and civil with people who think my right to exist is open to debate. to accept the premise and engage in debate denies my own humanity. I exist, the people I love exist, and we will fight to the grave anyone who denies it. and I abso-fucking-lutely do not give a shit about the feelings of debatelords.
There's a huge gap between people who think your right to exist is open to debate and a random person on the internet who doesn't know what the position of the instance is.
I pointed out that the overly polite statement in the comic is not reflective of reality and plenty of you are doing a great job of demonstrating that.
People have been nothing but patient with you in this thread. You're the one throwing vitriol and being an asshole here.
Plenty of my patience has been met with thrown vitriol and asshole behavior in here too. I've tried to respond in the way I've been met. I'm not perfect and I'm sure I've failed in places but I'm also out here by myself.
I think the vast majority here are also responding to you in the way they feel they've been met as well. I can empathize with the frustration and defensiveness of being alone.
I thought I prepared myself before I left the first comment but, as stated, not perfect.
Thanks for the understanding
You say that like your know their level of concern or activity in regards to those.
it's self evident, given the issues they raise
Being able to tell the concerns of a person based off limited interactions over the Internet is a skill the world has never observed.
Being willing to assume you know such things, however, is incredibly common
person posts about the civility of people complaining about NATO led mass murders
you can't just conclude they care more about civility than NATO's warmongering
thats a very lemmy.midwest thing to say
You're the second person to mention NATO. Where have I said anything about anything with NATO?
discusses NATO's wars
actually, where have i said anything about NATO?
so you didn't connect the dots when they talk about the international community or the coalition of the willing?
thats why people don't care to be civil to supporters. that and the odds they live in one the countries being attacked.
Where have I discussed NATO's wars? Seriously
It's been all day and my complaint is still misrepresentation.
Are you saying you are not aware of "concern trolling"?
I'm very aware that it, like any form of trolling, is utilized as an excuse when it's not what's happened.
Which is not to say that it doesn't happen. False positives and false negatives are as much a reality as the thing itself.
is not like the phrasing I see from hexbear users out in the wild.
What's the phrasing, show an example or two, don't just assert back your shit up bro
Its so funny how you guys became so used to being able to live in an echo chamber of western capitalist propaganda on reddit, then moved here, then had that bubble popped by us and lemmygrad, then became INCREDIBLY DESPERATE to get away from opinions you previously were sheltered from. Its just a funny reaction to witness.
Probably not the most extreme example but it was relatively easy to find
uh, am I supposed to see an issue with that statement?
Dougee we've gotten transphobes, pedos, racists and incels coming into our instance, if that's the worst you got from us, consider yourself lucky
So because some people are so much worse it's ok to be crappy? That doesn't really jive with me. We should all always be trying to be better than we have been before.
Those "crappy" people prove the point the op you quoted was making, people in other instances ARE hyper sensitive to critiques of western capitalism, that's just an easily observable fact, and it's not rude or out of order to point it out
People in this instance including me are more than willing to engage in good faith with those curious about our politics, but there will be no toleration of bigotry or blind faith in a vicious ideology that is cooking the earth
If we're defedrated because of those principles, so be it
Some are, yeah. I'm happy to be involved in similar discussions and I'm fine parting without agreement. You don't even need to leave the comments below my original one here to see that it isn't a universal position though. We are more often judged by our worst than not but that doesn't seem to fly with at least a few people here.
So because some people are so much worse it's ok to be crappy
Yeah. People reciprocate affection and vitriol, and being civil towards bigots is not a virtue. It's just a point of exploitation for bad faith posters to exacerbate divisions and legitimize their bigotries.
Also, it's the internet. Log off. I set my feed to local to avoid the other lemmy instances. Do that on midwest.social please.
That doesn't really jive with me. We should all always be trying to be better than we have been before.
The vulgarity and dismissiveness come forth in Hexbear after an established pattern from a user, native or visiting, of bad faith arguments, bigotry, and apologia for anticommunist institutions, policies, and states. People who come from other instances, that act in the aforementioned manner, aren't starting from the position of blind and unwilful ignorance curious of the world, political theory, or political economy and willing to know, discuss, and consider alternative perspectives.
Those bad faith posters, when discussing politics, work backwards from their conclusions. They engineer reasons for their prejudices and are unable and unwilling to overcome cognitive dissonance, reject all counterarguments as propaganda and just refer people as bots/paid shills/stooges or other dehumanizing flags to label dissidents.
If you're not a concern troll, agree to disagree, and go away. Ask your instance to defederate if its unbearable for you.
work backwards from their conclusions. They engineer reasons for their prejudices and are unable and unwilling to overcome cognitive dissonance, reject all counterarguments
From what I've seen this is not unique to people outside hexbear
agree to disagree
Happy to. Hopefully we can agree on other things in the future
is aesthetically different or semantically different? because that's pretty much what I see. people get aggro about it sometimes but the semantic content of what they're saying is still what's in the image.
aesthetics can still matter. If I say I disagree with you or I say I think you're a stupid piece of trash there are people who would consider that to be aesthetically different but they convey a different message that will be received different.
tone policing sucks ass. I will not be polite and civil with people who callously disregard human lives. civility is the false peace, a white, middle class sensibility that I refuse to adopt. civility masks the underlying tensions that mark our fucked up world, pretending everything is hunky dory. fuck that. bring the tensions into the light. it's only then that we stand any chance of resolving them. I'm not afraid of conflict. bring it on.
Where did I say to pretend that everything is hunky dory? Where have I callously disregarded human lives?
I neither can nor have the energy to try and make you do anything different than you will. But until it comes to violent revolution you're not going to change many minds with aggression.
Where did I say to pretend that everything is hunky dory? Where have I callously disregarded human lives?
You commented in an instance you never have before to specifically ignore the issues of and then go on to undermine perfectly valid and verifiable instances of bigotry - specifically transphobia - in both the post and the comments. Instead jumping to take offense at vague criticisms of "Western instutions and media" and both sides bigots and fash with a harmless anti-bigot comic. You did this for 9 hours.
You tell me what we should assume about your intentions.
I commented a criticism about the behavior of members of the instance after they had made a showing on my own. The criticism was relevant to the comic.
go on to undermine perfectly valid and verifiable instances of bigotry - specifically transphobia - in both the post and the comments
Where?
Instead jumping to take offense at vague criticisms of "Western instutions and media"
This is a big part of my criticism, so yeah, I focused on it where applicable.
and both sides bigots and fash with a harmless anti-bigot comic.
Where?
You did this for 9 hours.
I did this periodically as my day allowed. I responded to people who responded to me. Would it have been received better or worse if I just ignored responses?
You tell me what we should assume about your intentions.
It looks like you've already decided
It looks like you've already decided
I have, yes. Based on your only ever comments here being pearl-clutching about an inoffensive silly webcomic of a user expressing the amount of (verifiable) bigotry, bile, and hate they've seen and recieved. In response you mostly seem to have decided that the real issue you're going to spend your time on is repeatedly saying some variation of 'fascists are bad but you guys were just as rude in my instance' without ever providing any evidence.
So yes, I doubt your authenticity, your motives, and you've given me and others little to no reason not too.
On the off-chance that you really did just trip over yourself throughout this entire thread let me say this - Hexbear is a community of often marginalised groups, with often marginalised politics, who undergo a constant onslaught of bad faith arguements, abuse, and online and offline attacks. Federation here has opened up more traffic in both directions, and while we're pleased and happy to welcome people here who make an effort to engage in good faith and ask questions, we get a much high proportion of hostile people ranging from concen trolls to outright abusive fascists. If you find the messages you recieve overhwelmingly treating you more like the latter than the former, then maybe you should also look at how your posts come across in that context.
I'd like to point at that at no point have I suggested "just as rude" and on at least a few occasions have specifically said there's there's a hefty difference.
Assholes are everywhere and they like to target the marginalized. Believe me I understand. But does being treated like shit mean someone is given license to be crappy to others? Isn't that what the whole "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" phrase about?
Since I've been here I've had a variety of words put in my mouth so I could be judged for them. I'll admit that there's sure to be things I could've communicated better.
The "real issue" is also reading in more than intended. I didn't expect I needed to say "I agree with all of this except...". Maybe that's on me but I'm not in the habit of qualifying everything I say beforehand. I don't think a big part of the internet is either.
They're words, ShareThatBread. Do you understand how both foster thoughts?
This style of comic always does this, though, it reduces the arguments down to the basics to demonstrate why the other side is wrong. I've definitely seen many a Hexbear user get called a bot for implying that NATO countries are being dishonest about their geopolitical opponents, that's all the comic is trying to say really.
I don't doubt it. It seems like a large swath of the Internet has a hard time understanding that their own thoughts and experiences aren't universal.
I'll absolutely agree that NATO countries are dishonest about their geopolitical opponents. I would also say those opponents are dishonest about NATO countries. I don't think that's at all far fetched. It bothers me that it seems to come off controversial around here.
Well, yeah, but as westerners we can't do anything about how Russian or Chinese people react to their governments' messaging, we can only make sure to defeat imperialist narratives in our own spheres. Sometimes downplaying the negative aspects about other countries, especially the negative aspects that our own nations use for propaganda, is a good rhetorical tactic to keep the focus on what we can do to make positive change happen and not fall for the narratives that are directed at us.
I don't agree but I can respect your position.
What about when we get first hand accounts from trusted sources in regards to the state of life in those countries. Would you ignore them to continue keeping focus or acknowledge them?
Well, how can acknowledging them help foster an internationalist working class? If there's a way to promote solidarity based on first hand accounts, sure why not, but if there isn't it's neither here nor there.
For example let's say we get some accounts from China. If the people of China are prospering, I can agitate and say that a better world is possible, just look at China, and at the same time it's a good argument against intervening in China. If things are bad in China, depending on the reasons, I could either analyze how their policies could have been different and save that criticism for when it's time to build a new socialist experiment, so we can learn from the mistakes of history. If the reasons stem from Western economic policies, then I can agitate by saying that our outdated system is harming millions of people. What I would never do, is shout from the rooftops that life in China is horrible, or worse than here, because that drives down morale and it makes people more likely to be complacent and fall for false consciousness or end-of-historyism. The main point is, as socialists, we should agree on supporting no war but the class war, and as proles we should be agitating, educating, and organizing; we should not be imperialist lap dogs and do the State Department's job for them.
Maybe the source of the disagreement here is that you could see discourse and political discussion as an endeavor that should be illuminating and pursue truth. I think there's value to that, but not in discourse, I save the truth seeking for when I read calmly and have the time to look for definitions/relevant historical facts. To me, the point of public discourse and political discussion is to exert class power and advance the position of the working class, heighten the contradictions when reasonable, and in even the smallest way to set the stage for a progressive change toward the next stage of history i.e. revolution. That can also involve dispelling some of the fictions of capitalist ideology, it can involve rhetoric, appealing to people's material situation, etc.
I can agree with your assessment. I absolutely understand the value of, shall we call it directed truth?
Maybe some of it is hope that people will be willing and able to see and accept the whole truth of a situation. Some things are better for group a and some for group b. If we work together we can find the best of both.
I suspect you don't have that same hope. I could absolutely understand that and maybe even consider you the better off of the two of us for that specific circumstance.
If I didn't recognize the fascists I was standing next to (or their narratives) then the people getting mad at them would probably seem unreasonable to me too.
And how would you go about getting someone to recognize the fascists they're standing next to for what they are in such a situation?
By somehow getting them to question their old dogma and think maybe they might have been wrong. Then they might open their mind up and seek/absorb new information.
Which you're less likely to be able to do with name calling and aggressive behavior, yes?
Not for me it wasn't. I was a comfortable (but disgruntled) liberal before stumbling on CTH years and years ago (this is a new handle I made early this year). Maybe I was further along in my journey and was already primed for it but I connected with the vibe immediately. That was when I actually started my leftist academic journey in earnest and started participating/contributing to local groups/orgs.
The shitposts got me to read more books and do more stuff than being disappointed by the democratic party for years by myself ever did.
I'm a big enough person to admit I'm not always right.
It is a turn off for me though. I prefer to build up and encourage and to have the same energy around me.
they actually don't, fascists have to keep lying about the fact how they're not racist and don't want to genocide everybody
we don't have to lie about anything because we don't want to do anything secretly nefarious. It's simple.
Am I supposed to sit here and recount every single racist vicious or vapid thing a liberal said in my presence in a row? I have to write an entire book for you of all the times?
How many times does it have to happen in diverse circumstance before my investigation may be completed?
How many cups of water do I need to pull out of how many parts of the ocean in order to prove that you'd get wet when I dumped it on your face?
This isn't some knee jerk reaction. They are a part of a system and view it as normal or even good, which necessitates these bad views and bad actions. They are Liberals, therefore they believe in racist vicious and vapid things. That's what liberalism is constructed out of. It's not some coincidence, and I damn sure don't need any more data points for my fucking graph
You (liberals)
Here's the heart of the issue. You're attributing me somewhere incorrectly and continuing away from there. It's also confusing to people who haven't been through the liberal vs leftist talk yet but would otherwise be an ally.
You are a liberal
Nope
therefore you believe in racist vicious and vapid things
Still no
That's what liberalism is constructed out of.
And some of the greatest science owes debt to terrible things. That doesn't mean good can't come from bad. Plenty of leftists had to go through liberalism to get there.
You've been concern trolling this thread for nine hours, wihtout ever offering a take, belief, or post of your own that isn't debate-bro nonesense or shitstirring. You've never posted in a Hexbear thread before. From the visable post history here your posts in other instances aren't much different. I wonder why people don't take the time to take your seriously.
We have @Civility@hexbear.net here and they're funnier than you. Post hog, drop the debate bro shit and be earnest, or move on.
This is unhelpful, that comment wasn't even in response to the intent of my comment and we already both moved past it
This person is engaging with me in good faith, do not fuck with them. If they said something truly objectionable elsewhere, point it out over there not here
Fair enough comrade, I apologise. I didn't mean to step on your toes. I'll comment elsewhere as they're all over this thread.
Very left. Just not quite as left as it seems a lot of people here are.
"Very left" like what? "I'd have voted for Obama a third time if I could!"?
It's good when a fascist reforms and abandons their bad ideology but that doesn't mean every ideology they adopted before reforming was "good"
Ok great. I interpreted what you said as liberalism is good because people on the left used to be liberals.
I've been trying to be increasingly clear throughout the day. It looks like it's not landing regardless so let me go out of the way to do the best I can.
Racism, fascism, transphobia, homophobia, sexism, ablism, and the other bullshit that somehow missed the list is all unacceptable.
Liberalism is a step on the path for those coming from somewhere like conservatism, but not a stopping place.
Misunderstanding, at least in part from me, is probably a big part of why this has all gone on so long. I'm sure I agree with most people here far more than I disagree with them.
You (liberals) are...
I knew I should have said they. I put liberals in parenthesis to show that in that sentence I was referring to a hypothetical liberal
I Wasnt intending that part to refer directly to you, or any reader, but I guess that just made it confusing
Fixed it.
Fair enough and thanks for clarifying. There's still a point in there though. Does telling someone they're racist and genocidal get further than telling them they're supporting such things or than trying to help them understand how the things they're doing are supporting such things?
Violence begets violence. It remains true in violent language. It's a last option and since we're strangers on the internet we should be pretty far from a last option.
the person who is being racist and who I am saying "you are racist" to is not my concern. Myself and them in the interaction is a spectacle, it is a public communication, it is more than just one person talking to another, I don't fuck with nazis cause I think it will change their mind, I do it so they LEAVE.
Educating others who are reading, providing more context, or making it publicly clear bigotry is unacceptable as community defense are my goals when posting.
Usually. Sometimes I'm just mad.
That being said, I'm not sure what you mean in this context by volent language, could you clarify?
This feels like a decent starting point. Deliberately inflammatory language. It goes much farther of course. That's a pretty low end example.
What about the person that's being racist and not realizing it? It was only a few years ago I realized how fucked up it is to say gyp. I assumed it was jip before. I try to be conscious of my faults but not everyone does. A lot of people would probably say "fuck you no I'm not" if you called them a racist for something like that.
As for that particular example, I see that it is 11 replies deep in a tree of replies, and that that user has made many posts in that line. It seems to me to be more of a frustration peak than it is a chosen demeanor.
Its frustrating to have the same argument over and over, and although it may not be the most polite, no one is required to be graceful.
Well, their feelings in the moment aren't really relevant imo. If someone has insulted me, it is not my job to inform them of this fact in a way that doesn't make them feel bad. That's something to keep in mind. When I was in highschool I was a fucking ghoul I was a nazi in all but name, so I get it. But redeeming hardcore liberals is not required
It's not required of course, but shouldn't it be a goal when possible? "Hearts and minds" and all that, right?
I certainly feel the point about frustration over making the same argument over and over.
It's not your job, you're right. But doesn't building a better society require effort? No one is obligated to help anyone improve or understand, but we'll get a lot farther if we do when we can. Only doing what we have to do doesn't get us very far.
The way I see it, you're 100% right if we were face to face. In class, in the office, in the friend group, whatever. Online the base assumption is hostile stranger, in person you're both real people, and its much easier to break through to someone. Online, if someone decides to think I'm an NPC, me and anyone who sounds like me can only be a NPC to them, because we're just text no a screen
So because we aren't face to face, I don't focus on that unless its abundantly clear that someone wants to engage in good faith and learn about a new perspective. Like now, I respect how you've engaged with me. That confusion we had about the You (liberals), you could have been an ass and said I was just lying after getting called out or any number of bad faith deflections, but you didn't, so I engaged earnestly.
However, this is not the average interaction. for one, this is taking a lot of time, in this same number of words and posts I could have obliterated a whole bunch of libs while leaving behind a trail of information and things to research for anyone who happened upon them. Sure, lower success rate perhaps than trying to save individual souls as it were, but far more chances to. Also, and I think this is a valid thing thats just down to taste, its a preference thing if you like the 1 on 1 or the crowd talking, its personal style and strengths
Sure, this talk has been valuable, but I bet you of all the people who come to look at this thread, less than 5% of them will actually read through this conversation of ours
And that's where we disagree. It's easy to spew whatever online. For all I know I see you every day of the week and neither of us knows we're the other here. There are no repercussions.
Except how a person thinks of that group in their head. Which in turn will affect their actions, maybe only slightly, in life. Going out of your way online to try and meet them on an honest level, where they may not be able to in life, can have a big impact.
Which is not to say that I must be right or you must be wrong. But I think it makes sense.
spew whatever online
Its a far ways off from "speak to the audience not the person you're talking to" to "spewing whatever"
There are no repercussions.
Idk what you mean by that, its not about repercussions its about how the medium through which we interact shapes the ways we interact
Going out of your way online to try and meet them on an honest level, where they may not be able to in life, can have a big impact.
A very admirable thought, and one I share and have often written long posts about (doin it rn over on Hexbear, to the annoyance of some of my comrades lol)
But again, its about impact. For the effort it took to go through all this, just to end in "agree to disagree" as it seems like its headed towards, I could have made a lot more people think about a lot more things, you know?
Also, my apologies, I added a whole bunch to my previous comment in an edit and forgot to hit send in another tab until just now, I didn't change much but added 2 paragraphs, some of which I may have reiterated here lol my b
It very probably is headed there but I would argue that both of us, as well as an unknown number of observers, have been shaped by the interaction. Maybe only a little, but not none.
I know I've learned a few things from a few exchanges here. I think it's mostly been from the ones that have been open to discussion on both ends, which I think emphasizes the point I was trying to make, even if I didn't succeed at it.
But the other side of that is one of the others I've exchanged with today, who was more drawn in by the type of rhetoric that drives me away.
I think the lurking audience isn't to be discounted though. I've been among them before myself, but there's never a way to know their size or if they're even looking. Even so we can be influencing them in unexpected ways.
Either way I think I'm ending this a bit better than I started it. I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way.
No worries about the oversight. We're all prone to mistakes.
Exaggeration would be expected and perfectly normal in a political satire comic strip… I really wish i had to use it. Sadly, a joke came here numerous times and wrote itself. Objectively, the only thing i did was to downplay our position a little.
So you don't shit in you own house, just in others? That's not really improving anything.
What are you even trying to say? That our "brigading" somehow caused them to behave like a racist, homophobe, transphobe, sexist .etc? Look, even most people who's country was invaded don't use it as excuse for this kind of discrimination. And you're talking about some shitposting in political threads?I'm saying this makes it look like you think your shit doesn't stink. You're not the bastion of reason it looks like you're trying to present yourself as.
I have no idea how you got to the interpretation you put there.
Okay so because we're jerks, this guy isn't a fascist? Is that your position?
Just because someone is wrong doesn't make the other person right. American politics are a great demonstration of that.
Similarly just because someone is a giant piece of shit doesn't mean someone else is incapable of being crappy. I don't know how it reads differently without assuming I'm incapable of understanding that.
There are a lot of people who think being civil with bigots is as bad as being the source of bigotry itself. Civility with everyone is not a universal value.
Some people take great offense when they see someone viewing bigotry as a failure in civility, a moral failing on the same level as being uncivil to bigots.
I can understand that. I think part of what I've been failing to communicate with many is that civility works in stereo.
The comic, at face value, shows a breakdown on the bigot end. That fella should definitely be told to fuck off. But my complaint was the misrepresentation of the comic. If the start is the same but the response is something more like "the media is lying and you're racist if you believe it" (this is hyperbole to make a point) then civility was not extended to civility. The bigot is still a bigot and should still be dealt with accordingly when they demonstrate it, but until they have exposed themselves as one why shouldn't they be given the courtesy in case they're not.
Does that track?
I do see what you mean now. I think for a lot of people, the idea of being surrounded by secret bigots makes them feel incredibly unsafe and is a big source of anxiety in their lives. It may seem unnecessary to someone who doesn't feel that kind of anxiety, but there really are a lot of bigots and toxic people in the fediverse who put in a good amount of effort to stay hidden. Getting these people to reveal themselves is as much a goal as driving them away or keeping them out. It's an important tool in the moderation toolbox for spaces where this is a persistent issue.
Some people have gotten very good at getting these people to reveal themselves too. I haven't seen all of these recent threads, but I suspect some of these strategies may come across as obnoxious to the uninitiated.
I had someone try and "get" me on Reddit once because I didn't like a comedienne's bit so it must have been that I hate women.
I don't doubt that it works, but like any test I'd bet there's unintended negative responses too. I can understand the importance, however. I'll try to use that knowledge to be more mindful in the future.
But that still leaves potential allies feeling unwelcome by the same measures that strive to keep bigots out. I suppose everyone is going to have a different metric for what is acceptable there.
All that being as it is I'm not entirely sure I'd be welcome in these spaces in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have blocked me today. C'est la vie. I can't change what has already happened.
I do appreciate the conversation we've been able to have.
I wonder if you'd have the same reaction if it were "a fucking comic strip" in the reverse direction
If somebody made a comic about my political views an behavior and only exaggerated/downplayed one aspect instead of going full strawman like the usual? I'd subscribe to their Patreon.
No, I would have a much more subdued reaction, probably just roll my eyes and continue scrolling, because communists in the west are used to slander.
So you don't shit in you own house, just in others?
What?? Like, Dougie everybody posting here got plumbing I hope.
It must be so cool not needing to ever actually examine a situation before knowing immediately what's going on and what the motivations of people are. Just super easy and gratifying, huh?
Is that take really, "if you don't know everything don't say anything"?
"No investigation, no right to speak" is an extremely easy bar to clear and a very easy thing to learn when you're entering any space you're not familiar with or held by a cultural or other group you are not a member of.
Don't talk over people if you don't know what you're talking about. You obviously don't have to know everything. If you don't know you listen before you talk.
That's assuming I have no familiarity with a group that exists in a public space and recently made a big showing on my own instance.
It's not possible to talk over someone in a back and forth medium such as this. Even then I've endeavored to be respectful. I've failed in places, sure. I'm human. But the attempt isn't meaningless.
Just because you haven't seen me before doesn't mean I haven't looked before saying anything. Seems like there's an interesting reversal in there somewhere.
It's actually based on local modlog for the last week. I checked their posting history too. Of course, a lot are just plain old cryptofascists who don't pretend to be progressive, and just usually don't bring up this kind of issues to avoid conflict. But here is also a disturbing amount of people who fit perfectly.
It's a comic strip. A fucking comic strip.
