Hi all,

With regards to our recent integration into the Fediverse, it has become evident that specific rules should be outlined regarding our conduct towards it and our place in it. As such, we are making provisional amendments to the Code of Conduct in specific regard to federation as we find our footing and stake our ground as a part of the wider Fediverse ecosystem. The amendments are as such, demarcated within the dividers:

Federation

In regards to the Fediverse, a dual-pronged approach should be assumed:

Local Communities

Conduct remains as previously outlined [in the Hexbear Code of Conduct], except:

  1. Users visiting Hexbear should be given breathing room to inquire in good-faith about topics that seem obvious to well-trodden leftists. Assume good faith in even the most obvious of questions, except in cases where a user is explicitly acting in a combative or unreasonable manner.
  2. Do not ping users from other federated instances with intent to goad or mock.
  3. Do not directly link to comments or posts of other federated instances on public posts with intent to goad or mock.
  4. Disengagement rules, whilst not amended, are thoroughly emphasized regarding visiting users.

Federated Instances

Assume the conduct outlined regarding local communities, as well as:

  1. When in a federated instance, their rules (and their code of conduct) apply.
  2. Allow instances their own space for discussion, if requested implicitly or explicitly. If said discussion regards this site or its users, you are allowed to discuss said discussion within the local purview (meaning, within a Hexbear community), with regards to the rules laid out prior.
  3. Conduct that is deemed untenably toxic to the Fediverse and Hexbear’s standing within it (by discretion of Hexbear moderation) may be subject to reprisal, regardless of whether it is explicitly outlined.

We're thankful to the moderation and admins of the instances federated with us for their patience as we carve out our own little hole within the Fediverse. And to our beautiful posters, thank you for bearing with us in this week where decades happen 07

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

    For those of you who are lurking from other Instances, I'd like to offer you a little light reading. This is an excerpt from The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins, a book about the mass murder program the United States has been enacting on the world's communists since the 1960's. When you see people complaining about the need for civility and respect as they ignore what their own society has unleashed on the world, I invite you to remember this excerpt.

    spoiler

    This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:

    “Who was right?”

    In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

    Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

    Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.

    Show

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

      That's been my view for a while too. In an idealised world, I would be an anarchist. In the world we actually live in, I believe the ML/MLMs have the right approach to actually getting us to power.

      • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same. I was an anarchist for a long time, am still proud to work with them, and still think they're second to none in terms of spinning up small but impactful local initiatives and watching each other's backs in the street. I still absolutely love my arachist comrades. left-unity-2 But when it comes to mass movements, defending those movements against other state or capital threats, and potential state building I'm firmly in the ML/MLM sphere. That's where my silly screen name came from (long before Hexbear).

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's flippant but true; "War isn't about who is right, but who is left".

    • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don't really understand. Certainly one can be civil in speech and mannerisms and violent in direct action as they are not mutually exclusive in all aspects? If not is it because civility is always interpreted as incivility? Or any kind of incivility sort of poisons the well?

      I guess what I think is that though our manner and decorum is informed by others' responses, it isn't solely determined by it.

      What do you think?

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

        Liberals largely think you can debate fascism in the marketplace of ideas. This is because they don't know that they're already basically living in a fascist world, which I would argue is demonstrated by The Jakarta Method. If you give fascist ideas space, they will use that space to grow until they eventually start killing the enemies who stand in their way... "First they came for the communists..." Influencing the culture is basically step 1 of how to start a coup. That is why the US spends so much money on propaganda organizations across the globe and China has to resort to Great Firewall.

        People who demand that we not speak of violence (kill all the landlords, kill all slavers) are ignoring that at this very minute violence is being perpetrated against us by the very people they don't want us to speak violence towards. We are in a class war. Every bit of healthcare witheld, every person starving, every empty house is an act of violence against the Working class by the Capitalist class. And that's not even getting into the physical violence they use to enforce their will via the police, military, and nazi-adjacents.

        So in summary, violence against the oppressor is self-defense and liberals undermine that right on behalf of Capital by calling it incivility. A bit ranty, but does that about cover it?

        • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok yes the bit about self defence and an insistence of a polite society makes sense. Yeah, it does make sense that even if one were to be 'mean' or use vernacular which others may not like (but which are not inherently bigoted like deadnaming or misgendering, racist, ableist, sexist, etc) the response by people against communists or anyone who is working to defend themselves is unacceptable and a key insight into where said peoples priorities lay. One can be taken aback or even offended but it doesn't necessitate an extreme reaction as it's definitely not proportional (especially when you include history/context)

          Did I sort of get the gist of it?