hexbear.net is on sale for auction
hexbear.net is on sale for auction
Auction: https://www.sav.com/auctions/details/7073489/hexbear.net
Not sure what will happen, but seems to be a Fediverselore event for sure
Update: post from hexbear admin on chapo.chat: https://chapo.chat/post/4468531
You're viewing a single thread.
Hexbear isn't worth dogshit but if someone wants to waste their money, then i wont stop them
If I had the money I'd buy it and replace every post with goatse.
yes let's sexually harass all those people depending on our mutual aid comm. you're so righteous.
There are only two kinds of people on Lemmy.
-
People who left Reddit to escape the verbal diarrhea that overwhelmed the site.
-
People who left Reddit to spread that diarrhea.
sigh The @sh.itjust.works domain is full of the latter.
I'm just here bc people made fun of .world users, please don't make more tribalism 😭😭
If "verbal diarrhea" is so commonplace on reddit, then it wouldn't be necessary for people to leave Reddit in order to spread it, hmm?
Obviously your entire premise is sheer stupidity regardless, but I just want point out that even according to your own internal logic, it still doesn't make any sense.
-
Just social media posting your way to praxis? That’s a hell of a form of “mutual aid.”
what cowbee said, and you dorks trying to get the domain to redirect hexbear to sexually explicit or otherwise useless shit are just making it that much harder for the numerous palestinians, trans people, unhoused people, etc. who have come to rely on c/mutual_aid.
good to know that owning the "tankies" is more important to you dweebs than letting us continue to help them. i really hope you're proud of yourselves.
I think anyone trying to buy the domain and redirect it as some kind of joke is dumb and I don't support that.
But I'm curious how the vetting process works for c/mutual aid. How can you be sure that the money is going to people who actually need it, as opposed to people who are playing a part to garner your sympathy?
I've poked around hexbear from time to time and I remember a certain Palestinian family that was receiving fairly substantial aid. That appeared fairly legit to me, although it's still extremely difficult to be sure.
But the people who need help with rent, or help paying their phone bill, or whatever random sob story they might come up with, I view with inherent suspicion.
Have you ever considered that it might be a much more efficient use of your resources to actually walk around wherever you live and give food and blankets directly to the unhoused? To volunteer at a local soup kitchen or homeless shelter?
Sending anonymous strangers money over the internet has a very large chance of going to the wrong people who are adept at manipulating others but not actually in the most need. It has a very large chance of funding self destructive behaviors of mentally ill people that ultimately drive the individual further into poverty and misery. Just something to think about.
There's a Mutual Aid comm where people in need can make a request for money or other such necessity and others can fulfil them.
Maybe not goatse, but if i were rich i'd just redirect it to world lmfao
Average Western """"leftists""""
I don't know if you're talking about me, but if so i am not western, and hating on MLism isn't anti-left lmao.
Hating on a major branch of leftist thought isn't technically anti-all left, but it's still left punching. Trying to say Marxism-Leninism isn't left is just purity testing nonsense.
I dunno, if you consider yourself a leftist I think you'd be doing a much better service attacking right-wingers, especially now that there's a huge rise of literal Nazis in Western countries, than attacking branches of leftism you personally disagree with. It's entirely understandable why people would question your motives if you decide to dedicate a good portion of your personal time to anti-communism.
Hexbears accusing others of left punching and purity testing 😂
This is honestly surreal, you don't see the irony in what you're saying?
No, I don't see the irony.
Tankies are just fascists painted red.
And the last time I checked, hating fascists isn't anti-left
“Tankie” is a caricature. The idea of a tankie is the ideal vision of a McCarthyian Communist. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people labeled as such don’t actually fit that label, it’s more of a way to cast an image of someone’s positions based on, say, support for AES countries, and twist that into the evil Commie Pinko that haunts the dreams of 1960s children in the US.
Moreover, calling Communists "fascists" makes about as much sense as libertarians complaining about the US government being "Communist." It's entirely divorced from reality and rests upon dramatic errors in understanding what fascism is, and how AES states are run. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds to understand why fascism and Communism are in no way comparable, as well as Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union to see how the Socialist economy functioned in the USSR.
The idea of a tankie is the ideal vision of a McCarthyian Communist
So you're saying that tankies aren't communists?
Moreover, calling Communists “fascists” makes about as much sense as libertarians complaining about the US government being “Communist.”
I thought you just said that Tankies aren't communists? Because the alternative is that communism is when you genocide uyghurs to create Lebensraum for the han chinese. Which is just fascism.
It’s entirely divorced from reality and rests upon dramatic errors in understanding what fascism is
I spent years learning about fascism just to be lectured by a fascist charading as a communist on the internet lol
as Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union to
I just quickly put it through Perplexity and: "For example, he interprets the 1956 Hungarian intervention as a pre-emptive strike against Western powers gaining influence in the Eastern Bloc"
It is Tankie shit. Imperialism bad, unless the Flag is red, then massacring workers and women is actually good. And from doing the same with the blakshirts book it seems the author has no Idea of how fascism came to rise or willingly lies about it to push his narrative.
Calling tankies communists is a disservice to the entire ideology of communism. If you want to simp for an authoritarian strongman just be honest with yourself and call yourself a fascist.
I said "Tankie" is a caricature, another term might be "strawman." They don't exist. It doesn't matter if these caricatures are Communist or not, the descriptor isn't an actual position but a term akin to "Pinko." Trying to seriously gauge someone's position based on calling them a Pinko, rather than, say, a Marxist-Leninist, is silly.
Your entire comment reads in bad-faith. The Uyghur people aren't being executed en-masse or forcibly sterilized, yet you liken re-education camps to literal industrialized mass-murder. There's a genuine conversation to be had surrounding China's treatment of Uyghur people that doesn't require Holocaust trivialization.
Similarly, you let an AI summarize a book for you in order to avoid engaging with it, and yet Syzmanski is correct. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, "coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways."
"But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing."
"Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements' ...." (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
"The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary."
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Color me surprised, the one calling Communists "fascist" and doing Holocaust trivialization is a defender of Nazis. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
I said “Tankie” is a caricature, another term might be “strawman.” They don’t exist
And literally in the next paragraph he denies the uyghur genocide.
The Uyghur people aren’t being [...] forcibly sterilized
except they literally are.
And then he parrots soviet propaganda on why their imperialism was actually not imperialism lol
Color me surprised, the one calling Communists “fascist” and doing Holocaust trivialization is a defender of Nazis.
Strawmanning and moving the goalpoast. Tried and True Tankie Method.
Go wank another one to the poster of Stalin over your bed. A serious discussion is not possible with someone living detached from reality. Have a good one.
Politics doesn't exist on a one-dimensional scale you know. These extremely authoritarian branches of leftism are to me just as detestable as right-wing authoritarianists (though clearly one is more of a present threat). But I dislike being associated with those people because they believe they somehow must be similar in ideology to me.
Politics doesn't really have dimensions to begin with, things like the Political Compass are just abstractions of ideas and positions that attempts (unsuccessfully, IMO) to provide shortcuts to understanding the broader image of a viewpoint.
As an example, Marxism-Leninism and AES states espouse and implement more democratic structures, but harshly oppressed opposition from liberals, monarchists, and fascists. This is certainly "authoritarian," but I don't think that's a bad use of authority. Rather, all systems and positions are "authoritarian" in different directions and towards different groups. You get where this is getting muddy and rather than clarifying, it's actually adding more confusion?
As a side-note, if you think Communists are "just as detestable" as Nazis, I think you need to look more critically at these movements historically. Blackshirts and Reds is a great comparison of fascism and communism historically, proving them to be completely uncomparable in terms of sheer brutality and who they served, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while taking a critical look at the USSR and why it dissolved.
Politics doesn't really have dimensions to begin with, things like the Political Compass are just abstractions of ideas and positions
Which is why I'm saying it's nonsense to claim that say a social democrat should not criticise a Marxist-Leninist because it's "punching left".
As an example, Marxism-Leninism and AES states espouse and implement more democratic structures, but harshly oppressed opposition from liberals, monarchists, and fascists. This is certainly "authoritarian," but I don't think that's a bad use of authority. Rather, all systems and positions are "authoritarian" in different directions and towards different groups.
This makes little sense. Apart from extremists most groups and systems do tolerate different opinions and viewpoints, and would even allow change if a majority agrees with it. Authoritarian governments explicitly do not allow this.
There's a case to be made for suppressing views that are directly harmful to human life. Authoritarian governments suppress viewpoints that may harm or reduce their own power. And much like capital, power has a tendency to accumulate in one place, which is exactly why democratic systems that allow other viewpoints are so important: it decentralizes power. This also deradicalizes extreme elements in government.
Take the Netherlands. There's been much said about the PVV, the anti-Islam and anti-migration party, coming into power. But because their power is so diluted and shared with other parties with different viewpoints, they're having to work with three much more moderate parties. As a result:
- They settled for a PM who was formerly associated with the labour party, a longtime fairly apolitical bureaucrat.
- They had to let go of their anti-Islam views.
- And the big anti-migration bill? The current proposal makes it so they can better differentiate between refugees from wartorn countries and those who are in immediate danger, between migrants who are coming from relatively safe countries who were not in immediate danger and between those who are actively prosecuted based on their identity and who cannot reasonably be expected to return safely. Not exactly massively radical stuff.
They're still twats, but they haven't made any extreme or radical changes, and they won't be able to do so either. They had to moderate, and they did (to a point, of course).
As a side-note, if you think Communists are "just as detestable" as Nazis, I think you need to look more critically at these movements historically.
History isn't exactly kind on either movement. The theory is always different from practice unfortunately. I'm not interested in counting skulls, I decide for myself what the boundary is for me to consider acceptable. I don't care how far beyond that boundary a movement is. I won't vote for it nor will I cease criticizing it so long as I have alternatives (and thankfully I have plenty). Both Marxism-Leninism as well as Nazism are beyond that boundary for me. Sure, there's more elements I agree with in ML, but I can find those in other ideologies too. It's the elements that I heavily disagree with that make me dislike it. I can acknowledge Nazism is worse, but that doesn't draw me towards ML in any way.
I suppose you could draw a parallel to people who won't support the democrats over their stance on Gaza having caused a genocide. Sure, republicans are certainly worse, but that won't make me a cheerleader for Harris. But given that the US has no alternative, I would (begrudgingly) still vote D. Thankfully I live in a country with strong democratic principles, which does provide me with alternatives, so I don't have to compromise on my principles.
"Punching left" just means antagonizing Socialists. It isn't about arbitrary spatial coordinates, but is a commonly understood shorthand.
Secondly, systems do not allow themselves to be changed. Feudalism wasn't voted away, nor is Capitalism. There's frequently controlled opposition giving the illusion of choice, when no such choice exists in reality. This is a fact that has been understood for centuries.
I don't think the case that viewpoints like fascism should be allowed makes any sense, and taking the USSR's example, liberalization killed 7 million people that would not have died otherwise. Rather, if we take Marx's analysis, centralization of industry and production is inevitable as it advances, ergo it should be democratized as it centralizes. Decentralization doesn't mean democratization, such analysis would mean Capitalism is more democratic. In reality, centralization and decentralization have nothing to do with how democratic a system is, just how it can be democratized.
As for Marxism-Leninism, you can oppose it without drawing equivalence to the Nazis. Doing as such originated as a form of Nazi apologia and Holocaust minimization, also known as Double Genocide Theory. You likely aren't intentionally doing that, but the fact remains that this is the origin of such equivalences. Moreover, the bodycount of Western European countries and the US is far higher to begin with, History has been more kind to AES than it has to Capitalism.
I encourage you to read the book I linked.
"Punching left" just means antagonizing Socialists.
"Socialist" is an incredibly broad label. To argue that critique on auth-left groups is an attack on socialists is just not meaningful in any way, as it specifically refers to a niche within socialism.
Secondly, systems do not allow themselves to be changed. Feudalism wasn't voted away, nor is Capitalism.
Except that historically speaking they have changed in certain situations. They are rare of course, but it's certainly not unheard of. The Second Hellenic Republic for example was established via democratic referendum, after which the monarch was peacefully deposed. The idea that all opposition is somehow controlled is fairly ridiculous given an honest reading of many historical events.
There is of course a certain set of safeguards built into almost any system that resists changes. A constitution is a good example. But that too can in most systems be changed. Resistance to change doesn't mean resistance becomes impossible. Authoritarian governments tend to establish blocks that prevent change, sure. But most democracies would be able to for example remove capitalism if a sufficient majority votes to do so.
There is a level of conflating of ideology and political system that you seem to display, which I suspect is somewhatideologically motivated in your case. Then again, those distinctions are hardly ever really truly clear. One could argue that capitalism is a strictly economic ideology, not a political one. But any system that adopts it also sees effects in the political sphere.
I don't think the case that viewpoints like fascism should be allowed makes any sense
Never argued fascism should be allowed. It's an ideology that is a clear and present danger to society and human life, so it should in my opinion be banned.
Decentralization doesn't mean democratization, such analysis would mean Capitalism is more democratic.
Capitalism by definition centralizes capital as much as possible. This accumulation of wealth leads to an accumulation of power, which has anti-democratic effects (see: the US). Decentralization does not necessarily mean democratization, but centralization does almost always lead to more authoritarianism.
It's the big stumbling block of communism as well. It attempts to decentralize wealth by spreading it over the population, with the workers owning the means of production. But doing so requires incredible power (to seize and redistribute), which typically ends up with a small group or even a single person. And they rarely relinquish that power (see: the totalitarian leadership of the USSR), which also leads to authoritarianism.
As for Marxism-Leninism, you can oppose it without drawing equivalence to the Nazis.
I was very explicit in that I don't consider them equal. You can compare things without equivocating them. To consider a comparison an equivocation is what people do to silence critique, a tactic which I don't appreciate. All I'm saying is that both are beyond the boundary of what I in good consciousness can support. I don't care about counting skulls, I care about the risk that the pile grows. That risk is far greater with Nazism (obligatory: fuck Nazis), but unfortunately also not insignificant enough with Marxism-Leninism either.
Thankfully those aren't the only two options available.
Totally going to defeat that 400 year dictatorship of capital which has only previously made concessions to workers when there was a tangible alternative system presenting some threat to theirs with an election. Keep it up. Believe in you. <3
Yes, Marxism-Leninism is surely the only alternative out there. I guess all those concessions to social democrats, greens etc... never happened. 🙄
Those concessions to social democrats were made when the USSR was presenting an alternative, workers were presenting an alternative (dragging the boss out and beating him to death infront of his family), or both.
People forget FDR was a Roosevelt, old money. His predecessor had just sent the tanks in to raze an encampment of insurrectionist soldiers within sight of the capitol building. FDR didn't give concessions because he secretly thought his class deserved less and the workers deserved more, but as a means to protect capitalism (and his privilege under capitalism), and nearly got coup'd for doing that.
When the bourgeoisie don't have a reason to fear the guillotine, they stop buying guillotine insurance and your social democracy gets hollowed out by neoliberalism.
hating on MLism isn’t anti-left lmao
lmao
Woof. We've got a live one.
Yes of course, real leftism is when you exclusively punch left and encourage spending money to highjack leftists spaces to redirect them to right wing neo liberal ones.
Lol. I don't exclusively punch left so i don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and i said it would be funny, while saying "it's a waste of money".
and encourage spending money to highjack leftists spaces to redirect them to right wing neo liberal ones.
Get a clue lmao. State capitalism isn't leftist. Even fucking social democrats are more leftist, and that's saying something.
Lol. I don’t exclusively punch left
Your comment history disagrees.
State capitalism isn’t leftist
Oh but imperialist neoliberalism is? I guess "real leftism" is just Western chauvinism.
Even fucking social democrats are more leftist
Why? Oh right, because they're Western
Your comment history disagrees.
Okay? This is a new account anyway, i switched to it. And lemmy isn't the only thing i use so this is just a stupid point.
Oh but imperialist neoliberalism is? I guess "real leftism" is just Western chauvinism.
Whataboutism. I did not say that at all lol. Fuck state-capitalism, but fuck neoliberalism more.
Why? Oh right, because they're Western
Do you hear yourself? I'm not western, i have nothing to gain from praising them.
This is a new account anyway, i switched to it.
Ah ok, leftism is when you name a new dedicated account for left punching.
Whataboutism
Lol, the classic cry of the hypocrite.
Fuck state-capitalism, but fuck neoliberalism more.
Says the one calling for a "state-capitalist" community to be hijacked and redirected to a neoliberal one.
I’m not western, i have nothing to gain from praising them.
Then you should stop doing it.
Okay so i said literally none of that. This is my main account that i switched to recently, "cry of the hypocrite" = calling out fallacies lmao.
The reason why i hate hexbear more than .world is because one brigades, argues in bad faith, contributes absolutely nothing of value to the fediverse.
Then you should stop doing it.
Lol, Don't recall doing so but okay.
