Lemmy.World Announcements @lemmy.world lwadmin @lemmy.world 1y ago

Lemmy.world Hexbear Statement

Update:
The comments from this post will not be removed as to preserve the discussion around the announcement. Any continued discussions outside of this thread that violate server rules will be removed. We feel that everyone that has an opinion, and wanted to vent, has been heard.

————-

Original post:
Yesterday, we received information about the planned federation by Hexbear. The announcement thread can be found here: https://www.hexbear.net/post/280770. After reviewing the thread and the comments, it became evident that allowing Hexbear to federate would violate our rules.

Our code of conduct and server rules can be found here.

The announcement included several concerning statements, as highlighted below:

“Please try to keep the dirtbag lib-dunking to hexbear itself. Do not follow the Chapo Rules of Posting, instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda. Posting the western atrocity propaganda and pig poop balls is hilarious but will pretty quickly get you banned and if enough of us do it defederated.”
“The West's role in the world, through organizations such as NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank - among many others - are deeply harmful to the billions of people living both inside and outside of their imperial core.”
“These organizations constitute the modern imperial order, with the United States at its heart - we are not fooled by the term "rules-based international order." It is in the Left's interest for these organizations to be demolished. When and how this will occur, and what precisely comes after, is the cause of great debate and discussion on this site, but it is necessary for a better world.”

The rhetoric and goal of Hexbar are clear based on their announcement: to "dismantle western propaganda" and "demolish organizations such as NATO” shows that Hexbar has no intention of "respecting the rules of the community instance in which they are posting/commenting.” It’s to push their beliefs and ideology.

In addition, several comments from a Hexbear admin, demonstrate that instance rules will not be respected.

Here are some examples:

“I can assure you there will be no lemmygrad brigades, that energy would be better funneled into the current war against liberalism on the wider fediverse.”

“All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.”

Overall community comments:

To clarify, for those who have inquired about why Hexbear versus Lemmygrad, it should be noted that we are currently exploring the possibility of defederating from Lemmygrad as well based on similar comments Hexbear has made.

Defederation should only be considered as a last resort. However, based on their comments and behavior, no positive outcomes can be expected.

We made the decision to preemptively defederate from Hexbear for these reasons. While we understand that not everyone may agree with our decision, we believe it is important to prioritize the best interests of our community.

984

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

984 comments

Nah, liberalism is in essence movement away from any authoritarianism, including the shackles of capitalism.

It's a capitalist hegemony mindset where it's seen somehow possible inside it. Pink washing is a good example. Marketing works for the masses and people conflating the idea is proof of it.
- Maybe you mean (left) libertarianism? Liberalism has never been anti-capitalist.
  
  One can use different names for the same ethos. Semantics are always a bit of a distraction. The idea of freedom is closer to anticapitalism than hierarchies of capitalism.
  
  Nah, semantics is important, without it it would be impossible to properly communicate complex ideas.
  
  Liberalism and (left) libertarianism are very distinct, and seeing that freedom and equality are important to you, I think it would do you good to learn more about the latter. Particularly libertarian socialism, and anarchism :)
  
  I'm familiar, no worries there. Semantics do have their use, say, a scientific research has to explain the terms it will use throughout.
  
  In public discourse it can lose focus of the subject at hand and lead to dogmatic labelism in communities.
  
  There are already so many words which have been hijacked with newspeak. We're speaking of one. Most assume communism is stalinism, anarchy is chaos, feminism is female chauvinism etc
  
  So the people are reduced to bicker which means what while... well we know what is wrong with the world.
  
  Ok, I looked into it a bit more and stand partially corrected, I guess you technically could be a "liberal anti-capitalist" depending on the definition used, but still, I think that's precisely why semantics is important. If you're going for such a particular definition then you'd do good to specify it. At least mention an author or smthn.
  
  If anything, bickering would arise from misunderstanding. E.G. even though libertarianism is through and through leftist, (personally) I always clarify that I'm not referring to the self-contradictory thing that is "right libertarianism".
- I feel obliged to inform you that you're using that word in a way that nobody else on Earth uses it. It sounds like you're trying to describe anarchism/libertarianism (not the so-called "libertarianism" in the US), but calling it liberalism.
  
  Don't worry, I know that the capitalist marketed version has penetrated the anglosphere. But still general knowledge like wikipedia corroborates what I'm saying
  
  Could you link me the wikipedia article / paragraph you're referring to?
  
  The first sentence of the article on Liberalism states:
  
  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.
  
  Private property is a fundamentally capitalist concept.
  
  Also, "consent of the governed" is non-existent in practice. Even without bullshit like gerrymandering, and the efficacy of propaganda, the tyranny of the majority is still a problem.
  
  Continue reading if you're interested. In that quote you'll already see properties which aren't possible in capitalism.
  
  rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law
  
  In capitalism money buys these. They're not available as is.
  
  Private property is a topic for itself. I can't think of a current ideology which prohibits owning a TV or a toothbrush. Some ideas separate that as personal property and private property actually talks about the means of production.
  
  Private means of production is "foundational" to capitalism. Not derived from it — it can exist without it as well.
  
  This wikipedia page adds a bit more but that's the gist of it
  
  A few rhetorical questions:
  
  Are private means of production where an owner takes most of the profit instead of it being fair among workers and owners, or worker-owners, something that is compatible with economic freedom?
  
  Or does a capitalist system offer more freedom to someone in this scenario?
  
  So then, can someone claim in good faith capitalism as liberal when it's based on such means of production ownership?
  
  Mate it sounds like you've got some nice ideals but are mixing them up with the wrong terminology.
  
  What you described is personal property, not private property.
  
  The fact that under capitalism, "rights" are bought is precisely why the "freedom" under liberalism is fake.
  
  Also, what do you mean with your rhetorical question example? That it wouldn't happen under liberalism because such heirarchies would be prevented by governmental reform?
  
  Friend, you've discovered contradictions inherent to the liberal ideology but instead of recognizing it as a self-contradictory ideology you've decided that all of the liberals on Earth are actually not liberals.
  
  Note also that communism and anarchism evolved out of a time when these contradictions of liberalism were beginning to rear their heads in the industrial revolution. They share many of the same values such as individual rights and liberty, and political equality, but recognize that these concepts as implemented in liberal capitalism do not manifest in a way that is good for any but the very few who own the means of production. A person cannot be free or have liberty with the boss's boot on their neck.
  
  No. My point is liberal capitalism is an oxymoron. There are liberals and there are capitalists, but if someone either says they're a liberal capitalist or that they're against liberal capitalists, then that's a weird thing. Who put that concept in their head? Why are they using such a concept?

984 comments