I step out of Hexbear and into another instance for once and immediately get this shit lmao
I was letting off some steam about how sick and tired I am about working a shit job to make some asshole rich, and I made an off hand remark about how my employer probably belongs in a gulag. Further down the reply chain, this lemmitor asshole shows up to send me a whole tirade full of faux concern, breaking out the psychoanalysis to say I’m just an extremist full of unjustified hatred because I must be a bitter loser. Somehow they come up with this nuclear hot take comparing my anger at the capitalist class to a Christian fundamentalist hating gay people.
But the fucking cherry on the top here is sending me this comment as their very first interaction with me and proceeding to instantly block me to deny me the chance to reply at all. I’ve seen others use the block feature as a means of getting the last word in, but never to get both the first and last word in at the same time. And in the end, this self-unaware lib ends up calling me the overly self righteous one. Perfect.
Tbh, what gets me is that they were so fucking close to getting it. They almost came to an accurate understanding of the fact that my material conditions as a poor person getting fucked over day in and day out by my employer stealing my labor will heavily inform my politics. But of course they never quite reach that point, instead bizarrely veering off into psychologizing me, and acting like this is all just some sort of character flaw on my part.
Rule one: https://hexbear.net/comment/4738025
It’s wild how there are neoliberal ghouls on that nominally “leftist” instance. Really makes you wonder if there are some ideological problems with their particular brand of “leftism” that it is so immensely compatible with open chauvinism like that.
Rule 3, no?
Shut the fuck up and go purge the neoliberal chauvinists from your instance. When it’s actually more recognizable as being anarchist rather than “left-ish with red scare characteristics”, we can talk.
“Your specific brand of ‘leftism’” did not refer to “anarchism”, it referred to your specific brand, which attracts absolute slime like we see in the OP for reasons that you would do well to figure out.
CC: @blashork@hexbear.net this is my reasoning. If insulting someone’s boutique nominally-anarchist (actually bidenist) instance is sectarianism, I invite you to take whatever moderation actions you deem appropriate to defend its sordid sanctity.
Well good to know that it’s that easy to work around your community rules by just re-labeling the target as “not real leftists”. As is tradition of course. Carry on then.
And down goes the paper-thin mask
My sibling in Christ, when you’re done pissing your pants over my meanie gatekeeping, try actually reading the comments in the OP. That person is a chauvinist explicitly defending the status quo by saying, in so many words, that all “extremists” are mentally-ill losers looking to power trip. Are you saying that it’s newspeak revisionism to claim that a message like that is probably not leftist? Please, tell me where Kropotkin says that revolution is only supported by the bitterest dregs of society and therefore invalid.
Of course you have no problem with your own fucking redbashing, but opportunistically using this shallow patina of anti-sectarianism when it comes to Your Guys is apparently not below you.
Hey, “no sectarianism” is your rule, not ours. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy where the rules are easily bent by just arbitrary relabeling the other side. In truth, you never believed in “no sectarianism”. You only use it to enforce groupthink.
In any case, your whole argument above fails since you generalized against our whole instance.
All this self-victimizing when it would be so much easier to just ban a blatant chauvinist, but it’s more important to you to own teh sectarian tankies than it is to actually administer your instance according to any set of leftist principles.
All this self-aggrandizement when it would be so much easier to just not generalize based on uncharitable interpretations, but it’s more important to you to own teh liberals than it is to actually administer you community according to your own rules.
You’re trying to do a “no u” here, but it fundamentally doesn’t work on someone who has kept sight of the original object of dispute. The original object of dispute is the vile, reactionary tirade from the user linked in the OP who . . . let me check . . . still isn’t banned! No action has been taken against them despite you clearly knowing about their little showing for days at this point.
It would have been so much less effort to say “Right, this user goes against the values of our instance, we’re removing them now that this behavior has been brought to our attention,” but for whatever reason you’ve instead chosen to sit here and mewl about sectarianism, uncharitability, hypocrisy, and so on. Don’t worry, I know that you’re only bringing them up because we profess to care about these things, they aren’t actually things that you believe in or you might act on them. They are just conversational currency to weaponize, which is why other people have been calling you a redditor or a debate pervert or whatever, because they exhibit the same behavior of believing in nothing while trying to abuse the beliefs of their interlocutor.
But you can’t muddy the waters here, the object of contention isn’t being attacked for being anarchist or otherwise “the wrong sect” of leftism, it’s being attacked for not being leftist. You can’t get around this, because this person is opposed to the most fundamental basis of leftism by treating someone’s status as a societal outcast as though it were a moral condition.
‘If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.’ – some guy, idk
The heart of leftism is the recognition that there is darkness – systemic oppression – and seeking to remove it. The darkness of socially necessitated poverty, the darkness of an enclosed commons forcing every interaction to pass through the hands of rent-seeking middlemen, the darkness of false consciousness turning people against the marginalized and powerless as enemies.
You want this to be about tankies hating anarchists, but that’s not what this is about because this dude isn’t an anarchist! If anarchism means anything, and I believe that it does, then this guy isn’t an anarchist. I don’t know what he professes to be, but for any of these ideological terms to mean anything beyond consumer-identity, for them to mean something in a genuinely ideological, it follows of simple logical necessity that it’s possible for someone to claim it and for that claim to be false. This guy is vilifying people who are left in darkness; Whatever he claims to be, he is a reactionary.
Furthermore, – yes, I still have more to say because you’ve tried so hard to muddy the waters – I have made no claim as to what the majority population of your instance is. When I am criticizing your instance, I am not criticizing an incident of its demographics, I am criticizing it systemically. Perhaps it is made mostly of anarchists, I neither know nor care, but if it is moderated in such a way where marginalized people aren’t protected and this sort of vile reactionary rhetoric against them is allowed to go unchecked, the instance – not the population on it, but the instance itself, as defined by its administration – is not leftist. If anarchism actually means something to you, then that means actually having to follow leftist principles and not just cynically use it as conversational currency to attack people you dislike.
I don’t hate anarchists. I wish that your instance actually was anarchist, but it evidently is not, given that you’re apparently okay with this asshole being on it unimpeached.