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

  • 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?