I'm happy to remain federated; I think the communities, mods and the instance admins (thanks!) do a good job of curating the community, and by and large hexbear users interacting with us on this instance seem to do so in good faith.

That being said, I would make the observation that, from my perspective at least, there seem to be more than a few hexbear users that are apologists for authoritarian regimes. I want to preface this by saying that I am of an anarchist bent, so am not exactly enamoured with 'Western' political systems either, but this should not preclude criticism of (bringing up the most often contested examples) the USSR or China.

That being said, discussion of these things are important and differing views should be seen, as I have often found enlightening articles or overlooked areas of history through reading these kinds of discussion.

Bottom line: I would remain federated, but ensure we maintain the character of our instance.

I think it's reasonable to want to have a space that's free from people that defend authoritarian regimes. From my perspective, at least, 196 has always been a more anarchist-oriented space, and I think it makes sense to try to preserve that.

I'd also make the distinction that they are not banned from this forum, in the same way that libs are not banned from posting on their instance -- but those that post there are generally met with hostility, and that preserves the character of their space. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same.

*removed externally hosted image* (i am a fruit)

D:

I'll offer a perspective on this, that isn't exactly following the book's argument. Broadly speaking, it does not benefit the working class in any way to vote conservative; government regulation is required to restrict businesses and protect workers' rights. So, in order to gain votes, conservatives will often employ the tactic of publicising one particular issue that they know they are likely to be able to campaign well on, and trying to ensure that they win based off that issue. This works well, because if your candidate gets in, they are then able to vote on a whole raft of issues that the electorate may not support.

Previously in America, racial divides had been the basis of this tactic. Up until FDR, the Democrats had used divisions between black and white working class farmers to win the South (an interesting historical sidenote on this is the racial solidarity in the Populist Party, a third party that grew out of farmers unions in the south, and was eventually undermined by the democrats choosing a candidate who ceded to some of their economic demands). However, once the parties start to pivot, and especially once JFK/LBJ start to endorse the civil rights campaign, suddenly it's not as electorally viable to openly use racial divides as your campaign strategy. So, to keep your party relevant and to be able to stall civil rights legislation, you have to a) make your anti-civil rights operations covert (Google cointelpro), and b) find a new campaign issue to get your candidates in off the back of. That issue, this book posits (and I think quite rightly) was abortion.

Hopefully that's a somewhat clear explanation of the basic logic behind the explanation; if you're interested I can point in the direction of sources to read/watch/listen further.