“Like China, our struggle sessions will purify The Party and bring unity to our socialist utopia”
Also, isn’t Beehaw like, a bunch of fuckin’ hippies? Like the kind of people you’d have to be insane to call fascists?
Hexbear users are pretty stupid because they almost exclusively alienate would-be supporters, or at least close allies.
They fundamentally cannot see the difference between any non-communist liberals (left) and fascism.
Liberals? Fascists. Social democrats? Fascists. Democratic socialists? Fascists. Anarcho-communists? Fascists.
Communists?
Believe it or not, also fascists.
Funnily enough this one is far more correct than the others.
You forgot the true one - Tankies? Fascists.
What definition of communism ignores worker enfranchisement?
They just believe anyone who isn’t with them is against them. It’s a common human failing.
I’d like to point out that liberals are considered left in US, but center right pretty much anywhere else.
Hence the parenthesis saying “left”. Hexbear is exclusively full of American users that pejoratively use the term ‘lib’, so it’s important in this context.
So calling Socdems “filthy liberals” and telling socdems they’re going up against the wall… is still a great way to scare off potential allies.
Tankies have an incredibly black and white view of the world. Anyone that isn’t with them is a fascist. It’s also why they can’t accept that their favorite authoritarians have practiced imperialism, oppression of minority groups, and lots of killing. “Stalin believed in the same economic policy that I do, so therefore he never did a bad thing.”
Like the kind of people you’d have to be insane to call fascists?
Well, it is Hexbear…
deleted by creator
There’s always been a connection. The German Lebensreform movement on the one hand influenced the hippy movement in the US through a back-to-nature philosophy, while on the other hand evolved into the blood and soil philosophy of the Nazi party. Occultism was also popular in the Nazi party, and Odinist paganism is very popular with European neo-Nazis.
The modern spiritual movement is made up of middle class women who believe in the divine feminine creating the gift of life, children which they need to protect from vaccines which cause autism and perverts who want to sexualise them. It’s not a long road from there to being an anti-LGBT trad wife who believes in QAnon.
Odinist paganism is very popular with European neo-Nazis.
Oh god fucking damnit.
If I get called a Nazi for having pagan beliefs I’m gonna fuckin lose it
You can always call yourself by the tradition you agree the most with, like Ásatru or Romuva to confuse the uninitiated.
Hexbears say that anyone who’s against them are fascists so I’m not really surprised.
Shit like this is why I don’t get (some of) the LGBTQ community’s fascination with communism and tankies.
They have proven themselves just as anti-LGBTQ as the fascists.
communism and tankies
pick one, because they are not interchangeable.
One is antithetical to authoritarianism, and the other seeks nothing but.
There is plenty of good reason for LGBTQ+ folks to be attracted to communism.Anarcho-communism is antithetical to authoritarianism. But the use of the word today is nearly synonymous with Lenin’s or Bolshevik’s communism (and their further variations by multiple future parties, like Mao-communism), because this was the only flavor that actually existed as ideology in countries where communist parties were/are in power.
You my run with your own definition of communism being of a particular flavor, but you will always face people that do not understand you, because the common definition is not that.
The tankies scream real loud that they’re communist. So it’s pretty easy to get confused.
Absolutely true.
There are, however, for some unfathomable reason, queer tankies. That, I do not understand.
Same type of people as Log Cabin Republicans
Think of it this way - you’re a queer person who has struggled most of your life to feel safe and accepted. Then you meet a community that tells you all transphobes get the firing squad. Suddenly you feel safe, accepted, and like you matter. That emotional contrast is veryy appealing and addicting.
Nevermind that in real life, if you were putting people to the firing squads for as little as saying “neopronouns are stupid” will actually just make the majority of people fear and hate the queer community in the long run.
and also in real life the soviet union regularly executed queers
There were also Jews for Hitler.
Oh yeah, no argument there, just like those log cabin conservatives or whatever, there will always be people who both internalise their own oppression to such a degree, and also have the willingness to step over others to benefit themselves, who will act as “one of the good ones” for the oppressing group, tokens they think will be spared but never are.
Not if you actually look at communist countries anywhere in the real world.
Hoo boy.
The point being raised, I believe, is that ‘communist’ countries are generally as ‘communist’ as they are ‘the people’s’ or ‘democratic’ - it bears little resemblance to the 19th century theories which spawned the term and which are still in use amongst socialist thinkers today.
So you’re saying there’s no actual communist countries, and this whole this is just theoretical?
I mean, countries controlled by communist parties themselves would say that. Communist parties generally claim to run a socialist worker’s state which will lead to communism.
In reality, it’s just a power grab, with little to do with the workers.
There have been socialist polities in the past 100 years, genuinely socialist. None without their faults, but certainly not the totalitarian farce that people think of when they think of communism.
there’s no actual communist countries
Correct.
Man, that’s really convenient.
There’s also no direct democracies either, so what?
I recon the Neozapatista communes in Chiapas come pretty close. Historically, Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Makhnovshina during the Russian Civil War, and a couple others also came very close to the definition of communism, although all of them, because they still had to interact with the outside economy, continued to use some form of money.
In the case of the aforementioned historic governments, they met their demise because they relied too heavily on an alliance with tankies, who then proceeded to shoot them in the back. The Neozapatistas did not ally with any authoritarian groups, which is why the sprung up in 1994 in the form of MAREZ and still exist today in the form of GALs.
No, these countries have implemented 19th century theories extremely accurately. After all, Marx manifesto is openly calling for violence and genocide and Marx was also a big fan of Taiping Rebellion which resulted in more than 20 million deaths. I bet he was dreaming about the same destiny for Europe.
Not even close to true
What do you mean? These are the facts. How can they not be true? Are you a lunatic?
Yes, when you actually understand what communism is, and don’t play the “the nazis were actually socialists it’s in the name” card
https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51f
Okay, so give me an actual real communist country where LGBTQ people are treated well and as equals.
the nazis were actually socialists it’s in the name
What the fuck
They’re mocking that idea about the Nazis, not endorsing it.
What the fuck
that’s exactly what you’re doing.
an authoritarian calling his dictatorship the leftist thing doesn’t make it the leftist thing, it just makes it part of a pattern of the power hungry intentionally co-opting of leftist ideas to gain popularity.
As for the first question, if you had followed the conversation at all or bothered reading any of the information I linked you would be able to answer that yourself, and I’m done doing the work for you, if you care, make your own effort to find out.
that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Huge difference. While the authoritarianism stage is not the end goal of Communism, Marx himself believed it was a necessary step. It is entirely reasonable on the topic of political theory to reference Leninism as Communism because it is a defined characteristic of one of the stages of a long-term Communist plan. Even though there is an implicit dream of a utopian future where that behavior stops, the behavior is still intentionally defined in the process. As a formal part of the process, there is an explicit pursuit of authoritarianism.
That said, there may be people who think communism can be achieved without the authoritarianism stage… But I think the “ACAB” statute needs to apply. Until Communists come out in open and extreme opposition to “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, they must be judged to be at the very least complicit.
that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Really? Point it out to me where I said nazis are socialist. I’ll wait.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/zapatistas-gay-rights-let-those-who-persecute-be-ashamed
The Zapatistas have organized a net of interconnected communes in Southern Mexico that have operated independently from the Mexican state since 1994. In these communes, productive property is held in common by the inhabitants. There are no employers or employees. Difference in wealth is negligible. Governance is achieved via participatory democracy. It is as close as you can get to communism when you’re still forced to trade with capitalists and thus use money.
Removed by mod
It’s better than most, but conversion therapy is not banned, and non-binary individuals are not legally recognised, so still not equal.
At least they’re trying however.
Removed by mod
Nazis were socialist. It’s not a card, it’s a fact.
By definition, socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee, depending on which brand of socialism you are interacting with.
I don’t see “totalitarian dictatorship” as a form of social ownership and I imagine most people alive wouldn’t either.
He’s just a full-on troll. He told me in another reply that socialism is “things like Holocaust”.
Nazism was a fascist regime. They were not “socialist” in any real way.
Here is an unbiased explanation of the facts of the discussion. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
They were full on socialists. Things like Holocaust are bread and butter of that kind.
So basically you’re just making shit up.
And north korea is a democratic republic?
Still being a communist is analogous to being a tankie, because to still be a communist in 2023 demonstrates delusional belief in an obsolete political theory while choosing to accept its endless failures and its millions of victims. It’s an active choice.
-Are average Americans “capitalists” because they sell their labour for money in a market economy?
-Is China a socialist nation?
-Were the National Socialists actual socialists?If your answer to any of the above was “yes” you need to take a step back and ask yourself some questions, namely:
-What is a capitalist?
-What makes a nation socialist?
-What is authoritarianism, and is it distinct from socialism?Denied. RIDF begone
What does RIDF stand for in this context? Not “Rural Infrastructure Development Fund” is it?
I’ve never seen it before either. Maybe I’m just not online or rightoid enough to know.
RIDF stands for Russian Internet Defense Force: those who are paid to further the foreign policy goals of Putin by shitposting online, but also includes the pro-Russian, anti-West, or just plain easily-manipulated idiots who do it for free. Concern trolling, forum sliding, sealioning, simping for the failed states and ideologies in Russia’s sphere of friendship, these are all RIDF characteristics. See also: 50 Yuan Army.
I don’t really agree. There’s nothing wrong with communist theory, it’s never really been embraced somewhere it should/would actually work out well. Vietnam I guess is probably the best real world example of success.
Marx, the original father of communism theorized it to be the next logical step in the evolution of an economic system. From his perspective only the most advanced industrialized nations would be capable of the transition. For whatever reason communism has almost exclusively been adopted by countries who were not or were currently struggling through the early stages of industrialization. Marx and his vision for a communist society was definitely not meant for a agrarian society as it was almost exclusively attempted in.
Communist ideas could work somewhere like America or Europe possibly. Most countries already employ many of Marx’s pillars of a communist society. America and all EU countries don’t really practice a pure form of capitalism, and haven’t for a really long time. There’s socialist and communist ideas employed all over. They just don’t openly get called that. Communism doesn’t have to be a bloody revolt with a totalitarian leader installed.
Vietnam I guess is probably the best real world example of success.
Yugoslavia but take away all the Yugoslavs
For whatever reason communism has almost exclusively been adopted by countries who were not or were currently struggling through the early stages of industrialization. Marx and his vision for a communist society was definitely not meant for a agrarian society as it was almost exclusively attempted in.
Because Marxism-Leninism proposed that if you have a small group of people who hold all the power, you can just will your way past the bourgeois democracy stage with the help of the peasantry, and the Soviet Union put a great deal of effort into supporting ML movements, and crushing non-ML leftists.
Communism is totalitarian. Tankies are totalitarian. You dumb?
They are so desperate for validations they’ve managed to twist this into evidence of communism as a superior ideology.
It’s hard to argue that communism as imagined by the tankies is better in any way than the souless capitalism that we all suffer under. However, real communism as imagined by Marx (but not Lenin) is vastly superior.
See, Marx saw the workers owning the means of production on a local scale. The example being factory workers owning the factory they worked in. Workers would directly profit from their own labor.
Lenin envisioned the State owning the means of production. Workers would work for the good of the State, or else.
Marx postulated that economies followed a sort of progression, feudalism led to capitalism, which in turn led to communism.
Unfortunately, the real world doesn’t work in neat, linear progressions.
Marx imagined a utopia, and Lenin, in an attempt to create something like it, reinvented feudalism with different masters. Which is not surprising, as Russia was still living under feudalism when Lenin was born.
My prediction for the future of government is as follows; as the climate crisis and automation crisis progress, there will be four types of government.
The first are failed states. They will have lost the climate roulette. Their populations are either fled or dead.
The second are puppet states. These will exist mostly for resource extraction. Their populations will still exist, but many will have fled or died. The rest will toil in resource extraction to feed the last two categories.
The penultimate is the fascist police state. China and Russia are well on their way to this outcome, and the US is actively flirting with it. This is the end game of capitalism. A new feudalism where the serfs are disposable and interchangeable, instead of tied to the land and part of an inheritance. The only saving grace is that fascism always leads to an unstable mess of a government that almost inevitably crashes and burns when the strongman dictator dies.
The final category is the automated utopia. Automation takes off fast enough to put everyone out of work, and the governments realize that money is just something we made up and decides to just let anyone have whatever they want (within reason) because it takes no human effort to produce anything.
The automated utopia is a dream, I hope it happens. It would look sort of like a cross between Marx’s dream of communism and UBI with no strings attached.
See, Marx saw the workers owning the means of production on a local scale. The example being factory workers owning the factory they worked in. Workers would directly profit from their own labor.
Yeah, that’s fucking stupid and based entirely on Marx’s completely unrealistic view of the world being divided in “the workers” and “the bad people who exploit them”.
Tell me this: If I am a repairman, and I want to “own the means of production” what do I do?
Are my means of production my tools? If so, then every and all self-employed workers are already living the communist dream, and no revolution is necessary.
But then, if I improve someone else’s means of production, and they are therefore able to produce more value, are they not stealing my surplus value? Am I now somehow a co-owner? Do they owe me royalties until they replace the machines? Would them changing the machines make any difference, since one could argue they were able to upgrade at least in part thanks to my intervention?
Also I fundamentally disagree that simply turning every business into a co-op takes us away from a fundamentally capitalist system. It just makes the “capitalists” into companies instead of single individuals.
Capitalism according to Marx isn’t bad because individuals create this relationship of value-theft with the proles, it’s bad because these relationships are allowed to exist and fundamental to the system’s survival and function.
But in a world where workers own the entirety of their businesses, companies/outfits/co-ops will still produce surplus value and that value will still need to be re-circulated in the economy in order for new enterprises to be created.
This has to be the case because if the non-vital productive endeavors didn’t produce surplus, there would be no way for society to compensate the labour of the producers of necessary goods like food or maintainers of vital infrastructure like acqueducts and electrical grids, whose work is necessary no matter what, unlike say a factory making lava lamps somewhere.
So then you have 2 options, either:
-
this surplus exists and will need to be allocated somehow, and no workers would waste it without some return, since the alternative is to just pay themselves more and be done with it, hence returning straight back to the concept of capital injections and investments or,
-
this surplus is requisitioned and redistributed by some central authority, and that’s how you become a tankie. Doesn’t matter how many layers of “democractic” decision making you tack onto how this central authority works or is selected, at the end of the day you are giving a specific group the power to decide who eats and who doesn’t, by virtue of deciding the allocation of society’s surplus into different endeavors.
If I want to go out and create something, I’ll need resources to do it. In a capitalist world all I need to get that done is to find someone willing to believe my idea can make them back the money they invested plus some interest. This is to offset the risk of losing the money in case their assessment is wrong.
In a world where “the workers own the means of production” I will have to convince a group of people of the same basic contention and will probably have the same deal with them instead than a single person. Probably harder as groups tend to be slower at making decisions and less likely to take big risks.
In a world where a single entity controls the allocation of surplus I still have to convince them, and if they don’t see value in my idea, I have to either give up on it and do whatever they assign me to do, or starve (no communist society is a work-free society).
Automation takes off fast enough to put everyone out of work, and the governments realize that money is just something we made up and decides to just let anyone have whatever they want (within reason) because it takes no human effort to produce anything.
My guy, did you just erase the second law of thermodynamics from reality?
Entropy is inescapable. All this premise does is make labour worthless, it does nothing to provision resources to actually make the “whatever they want (within reason).”
That shit would still be valuable even if it were endless, and most of what we use daily is made with finite resources (petrol, metals) anyway so you would still need to trade in some way, which means you will still need to make surplus to compensate, or worse you’ll need to conquer the regions that have the materials your society needs to be able to fulfill the needs of this society.
Ancient Rome had free food and free circus shows for everyone, it did it by exploiting an entire continent and parts of others. Resources are finite, labour among them. Making labour infinite (or rather a byproduct of a different resource, power as opposed to food) doesn’t make the other resources less scarce.
I don’t think anyone is currently advocating to somehow go to a 100% co-op system. There will always be elements of capitalism in any system, just like no system is ever 100% capitalism. But getting closer to that would certainly lead to a more fair society. As it stands there is already micro elements of socialism built into capitalism, it just generally benefits the rich because they own the means of production.
I refer you to all of breadtube, for people who are advocating precisely for that.
Not only that but most of the big ones (Vaush, Hasan, Philosophytube, Contrapoints) had mask slip moments where they said more or less explicitly that that would just be a stepping stone to “full communism” and that even that already extreme market socialist position is only to maintain palatability with the mainstream.
-
It’s hard to imagine the Utopia imagined in the chronicles of Narnia could be worse than what we currently have under capitalism.
But like Carl Marx and what his followers imagine it’s not real. its made up fantasy. Real societies function on proven functioning principles. Not made up nonsense.
You can say
I want everyone to be equal
But they never can be because everyone is different and so by definition of their own individual existence cannot be. They only way to make everyone equal is to kill everyone. And that’s what communism does best.
You’re confusing Marx and Lenin. They had two vastly different ideas about what communism should be.
We have a century of Lenin, and yes, it came with death and destruction, including Leninist communists murdering Marxist communists.
You also don’t seem to understand that capitalism is so much worse. If you have no value in a fully capitalist society, you die far faster than even in a Leninist feudal society pretending to be communist.
The two East Indies Companies are prime examples of what capitalism run rampant get you. Murder and genocide in the name of profit, and the thing is, that shit is still going on. People elsewhere in the world are being exploited and murdered on a daily basis, so that you can live in a happy capitalist society.
Removed by mod
The big thing people like you fail to understand is how natural capitalism is. And how no society has ever been successful without it.
Jesus fucking Christ
Okay, you’ve now told me that you don’t understand communism, or capitalism.
First is the lie that capitalism is some sort of ancient invention. This is a lie because it ignores what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is not just “trading things for money”. That’s a child’s understanding, and like more explanations for children, it’s fundamentally wrong while still having elements of the truth.
Capitalism requires the private investment, and re-investment, in production of goods in order to make more wealth. Most trade prior to the late middle ages was simply moving goods from a cheap market to an expensive market. Buying from one lord and selling to another.
An important point is that the lords used the power of the State, i.e. their military, to extract wealth from their lands. This was called feudalism, and was not capitalism.
In the wake of the Norman Conquest, the English state was unusually centralised. This gave aristocrats relatively limited powers to extract wealth directly from their feudal underlings through political means (not least the threat of violence). England’s centralisation also meant that an unusual number of English farmers were not peasants (with their own land and thus direct access to subsistence) but tenants (renting their land). These circumstances produced a market in leases. Landlords, lacking other ways to extract wealth, were motivated to rent to tenants who could pay the most, while tenants, lacking security of tenure, were motivated to farm as productively as possible to win leases in a competitive market. This led to a cascade of effects whereby successful tenant farmers became agrarian capitalists; unsuccessful ones became wage-labourers, required to sell their labour in order to live; and landlords promoted the privatisation and renting out of common land, not least through the enclosures.
Enclosure or inclosure[a] is a term, used in English landownership, that refers to the appropriation of “waste”[b] or “common land”[c] enclosing it and by doing so depriving commoners of their rights of access and privilege. Agreements to enclose land could be either through a formal or informal process.[3] The process could normally be accomplished in three ways. First there was the creation of “closes”,[d] taken out of larger common fields by their owners.[e] Secondly, there was enclosure by proprietors, owners who acted together, usually small farmers or squires, leading to the enclosure of whole parishes. Finally there were enclosures by Acts of Parliament.[5]
Did you know that prior to the Norman conquest, people in England just grew food wherever they wanted? Just so long as they gave most of it to their lord, they could do what they wanted with the land.
Anyway, capitalism then kicked into high gear after the bubonic plague. Suddenly you had a lot of land free, and mass migration to cities in the wake of the plague.
Then things really kicked off with what I like to call the official start, the formation of the Dutch East Indies Company. See, this was the first time that a company was formed without a built-in expiration date. Before this, you could make a company and sell shares, but at the end of the trade caravan or whatnot, the company was dissolved and everyone was paid out of the profit. The Dutch East Indies Company sold shares that paid dividends, with no expectation of the company dissolving. They actually had to get laws changed to make it possible.
And they were the most brutal, and violent organization to ever exist. They committed several genocides to seize islands from locals so that they could sell shit to Europeans. Particularly for nutmeg.
As to your misunderstanding of communism. Here, read this.
deleted by creator
I lumped mercantilism in with capitalism. I mean, they are two flavors of a very similar thing, it’s just that before the Dutch East India Company, a company had to disband when the reason it was formed was over, but you know that eventually someone was going to come up with the idea to just not do that, and they did with the Dutch East Indies Company.
This just shows how little you understand about nature and economies
Did you know that the World Anti-communist League smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Europe so that they could arm them and set them loose in South America with orders to murder anyone who they suspected of being even slightly left leaning? All in the name of spreading capitalism.
That’s the level of threat that the rich and powerful see in the dream of communism.
Your lies about the “nature” of things are just that. Pretty lies that you tell yourself to justify the horrific suffering that capitalism has inflicted, and continues to inflict, on the world today.
Didn’t they do exactly what Beehaw is considering? Their “survival” so far has been mostly in isolation, but now that they’ve refederated they act like they were here the whole time.
I must have missed the chapter in the Manifesto where it’s not communism until it’s only expressed in “dunk culture” rhetoric.
No amount of rhetoric will ever convince me that someone who engages in the act of “dunking” is supposed to be taken seriously… The word sounds like a family-friendly replacement for what should be profanity.
Either own it and say that you’re using provocation as a “90s flame war tactic” or get dunked right back into the kiddie pool.
From what I’ve seen, “dunk culture” means coming into an online space, behave like a group of howler monkeys, make a complete ass of yourself and declare a win when everybody who isn’t a part of your group stops interacting with you.
I respect Beehaw for striving against all the odds to make a non-toxic space for their users on the internet. They do come across like the the summer of 67 of the Fedi.
That said the communities I’ve subscribed to are large but the conversations aren’t that vibrant.
The admins are certainly toxic though. Any criticism of them whatsoever results in an immediate ban.
Is that a fact? Interesting to know
What’s a beehaw
dialectical perspective
Fuckin lol
Every bloody time I see the word “dialectical” or “dialectic” or any of its other forms I get annoyed because I go look up the definition and stare at it for 10 minutes and STILL aren’t sure what the fuck it means.
Post-Enlightenment pre-Nietzschean philosophy is like fucking higher mathematics, it’s another language entirely.
People have to study this in universities. It’s pretty esoteric to the field but also a basic term when you’re that far in.
It’s a very reliable signal that the person you’re talking to is so detached from anything relating to the real world that you’re really better off doing anything other than talking to them.
Personally I don’t really care. Beehaw’s shit and the mods spend more time chatting on discord than actually modding their instance.
and the mods spend more time chatting on discord than actually modding their instance.
Lmao well said.
Your copypasta "This is hardly a surprise. When you adopt an anti-communist stance, you pave the way for unhealthy social trends to takeover, which increases the moderation workload considerably, and forces you into an unsustainable method of operating. Perhaps the decay has finally reached a stage advanced enough to send them back to the likes of Silicon Valley centralized models.
Hexbear has survived all this time because, like China, has been engaging in self-reform to address the problem of rise and fall. So long as Hexbear continues this path, it will continue to go the distance.
The other big instances that are here today may not be in a few months, or years. Fascinating to see from a dialectical perspective."
What side are the people who dont want to go to endless wars? Thanks.
The war is already raging all around you, has been for centuries, having the privilege to pretend it hasn’t so that you don’t need to pick a side is picking a side - that of the oppressor.
The side that doesn’t talk or give a fuck about politics. I like to call them “people that live for humanity”.
The side that doesn’t talk or give a fuck about politics.
‘The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.’ - Plato
Both sides are ran by the WEF and non elected NGOs. If you try to change it theyll lock you up or kill you.
Jesus Christ
They killed him too
That’s a pretty wild claim. Do you have anything to support it?
I get the feeling that I know who you think the WEF and NGOs are run by
The board of directors.
Lmfao, you mean “apolitical” enlightened centrist. just letting fascism get on with it?
No you can still fuck with fascist. You can literally do anything you want.
It’s like everyone is seeking some magic special person or group that will never exist to work for and protect them. Do it yourself. Depend on yourself. Be yourself. Unity will never exist.
Hate a leftist, go fuck em up. Hate right leaning person, go fuck them up… or just shut the fuck up and live. do whatever the fuck you want. It’s childish as fuck to expect the universe and humanity to bend for manmade ideology.
I’m not going to live under some made up rules for people that are insecure of chaos.
That’s the exact useless toxic individualistic bullshit attitude that capitalism breeds to get, and keep us exactly in the situation we’re in.
You’re not as enlightened nor edgy as you think you are.Not trying to be “edgy” or “enlightened” lol.
Your acting just like those maga people.
Ok, so openly admitting to deliberately and intentionally being part of the problem, got it.
Did Beehaw go the way I feared it would?
I didn’t join it because I was concerned it would do exactly what I saw happening on reddit; go so far i to the everyone’s valid uwu mindset that they wind up making people uncomfortable in their own supposed safe zones and making pride labels into meaningless collectables instead of practical, useful terms.
Things like sexual asexuals and transgender people who see it as a trend to try out. Large majorities jumping in and claiming a label without understanding it at all and then retroactively re-defining the label to fit what they want it to mean, pushing away the original users because they’ve been outnumbered, outvoiced, and bullied into discomfort in their own space.
Beehaw just… gave me those vibes on first glance so I didn’t bother looking deeper for my own sanity.
That’s not it. The instance’s entire schtick is “be nice.” They have rules about doing things like assuming good faith in people you’re talking to until proven otherwise. This makes it a tonally different place. It’s heavily moderated. That’s it. That’s why they’re not gonna fuck with Hexbear or Lemmygrad or whatever else because those places are too tonally aggro for what Beehaw is trying to do and be.
You can disagree, you can have crazy opinions there, but you have to voice them politely and certain flavors of bigotry are not welcome. It’s actually great for certain kinds of conversations. Pushing people away from writing to dunk on each other forces a different sort of interaction that was sadly missing in much of the Internet.
Interesting. I might take a look then.
I got so tired on reddit from the communities making labels mean literally whatever someone wants them to mean that I was just over the entire thing. Personally watched the one I was part of shift from a simple, easy to understand concept for a rare group sharing a single trait to a whole umbrella of anyone who feels like making up a microlabel for their particular feeling at that point in time.
It got uncomfortable fast and many of the original group gave up and left from discomfort. That’s the kind of thing I fear finding in lgbt groups now.
Beehaw has the demographics that hexbear pretends to, it’s just a bunch of folks that want to be uninflammatory together. A bit boring for me, but I support their completely unobtrusive goal.
This all reads that you’re mad that Beehaw (and reddit too, amazingly) isn’t bigoted enough against certain sexes and sexualities.
No instance has “gone” this way, you just have inane values.
bruh their comment is downvoted 19 times. Do you really think that represents our community?
I’m talking about the user I replied to specifically, not any group they’re apart of. Obviously even sh.itjust.works doesn’t subscribe to this guy’s bizarre ideas either.
ah! Your edit really clears it up, thanks!
i thought you were referring to the whole community, lol
What
