db0

Actually that's also the flair for /0 users who haven't specified any flair

"the horrors persist, but so so I"

Most scrapers pretend to be normal browser agents

It's in fact what I was channeling with my comment ;)

The fediseer can help here both with the trusted instances and with finding servers based on tags

I (thank god) am not Stalin, and I have plenty of practical and ideological differences with Stalin and you (thank god) are not Makhno and presumably have many differences with him. I don't think it's useful to project things this way instead of looking at people's actual professed beliefs unless they demonstrate having the same attitude

Actually that's in fact the salient point: The argument anarchists like me are making is that hierarchical power (i.e. a state) is simply going to breed the next Stalin, regardless of originating good intentions. From where we stand, history bears this out.

I was furthermore very careful about my claim because I was there for when that fight happened and saw the attitude that you and the other admin took, but what I just said is very concretely and undeniably true when you look at some of the various remarks the person made at the time

I mean, so was I. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "heinousness" or the statement and what was really meant by the author. But the fact that your interpretation is repeated and misquoted like a broken telephone is why relations can't improve. In fact it reaches the point where you have members of your instance literally call me a neo-nazi. It boggles my mind that you can't see how removing all nuance in this way breeds hostility. When you reach the point where members of you community start calling anarchists "neo-nazis" and the rest go "mhm, uh-huh, this checks out", I think all expectation of compromise are out the window.

[...]So again, yes, I am saying you made a poor choice many times, that's why I'm arguing for changing course.[...]

I mean, "poor choice" in relation to what? Poor in being conducive to Hexbears liking me? Perhaps. But it is not an imperative for me for Hexbers to like me. In fact it's Hexbears who request that I take steps to make them like me in the name of "left unity". And I think that's ass-backwards.

I think this is ultimately the sticking point. From where I stand, I am not opposed to improving relations, but I do deny the idea that it falls on is on me to make an effort to be nicer than what I get back. Rather it's the ones who actually believe in left unity who should be making such an effort.

This, however, I can say is not true. There are subcategories of anarchism that do receive direct criticism. Here's me and another user doing that, as an example.

It's a welcome sight to see this play out like this, instead of the /c/slop reaction which is usually the case. Unfortunately 90% of the time, I see the slop approach.

You are right, but this is part of why I said we (as in the communities, or at least you and HB) would need to have a discussion about if what we view as reasonable.

Honestly I don't understand what kind of discussion you expect. There's no way I would censor myself from criticising authcom ideologies from the left, in the spirit of improving relations, nevermind convincing others to do so likewise.

Look, if we can't agree on the aforementioned "heinous shit," not for the sake of litigating the ban of some silly kid or removing a year-old post, but as a baseline standard for the future, then I think you and I aren't going to personally get anywhere.

What is there to agree on? If you're seriously entertaining the idea that the person is a neo-nazi for having a spicy take, or that I'm a neo-nazi for interpreting them charitably, then yes, we're not going to get anywhere.

However, should you ever decide that you want to change things with Hexbear even if it requires some sort of compromise or re-evaluation on your part

I am still unclear on what form you expect this compromise or re-evaluation could possibly take. I'm not going to censor myself to avoid criticizing ML ideology from the left, and I'm not going to take the "high road" when being bullied in the goal of "left unity". Do you have anything else in mind that I did not understand?

And a 100% reason to remember the name

They probably were in this particular instance too. They would just do it in private whenever the feds come knocking.

That shit with _crypt.

Well first of all, I think that characterizing what someone else said as me saying "heinous shit" is showing bad faith. I won't get into an argument on what someone else said and meant, but I'll only say that 1. you're mischaracterizing their position to make it sound much worse and 2. this is about shit that happened ~100 years ago. You keep telling anarchists to get over the betrayals and purges that anarchists went through at the hands of MLs, ~100 years ago, and trivialize those away as well, but then get all upset when an anarchist doesn't show the right amount of respect to USSR soldiers. You can't have it both ways.

My point wasn't that you should do everything that I did. My point was that you are basically being a contrarian throwing a fit for years on end[...]

And this again, shows bad faith on your end. Me being "a contrarian" is just being being consistent for the past 20 years. Me "throwing a fit" is me pointing out the bad faith and attempts at bullying directed at me whenever they happen. I literally avoid going out of my way to interact with hexbears, especially politically, because I've found it impossible to have a good faith discussion. You can't plead for a good faith interaction, and then just paint me so uncharitably while you're doing it.

I'm not asking about what someone must do, I'm talking about what someone should do.

By doing this, you are making an ethical statement. When something is ethical and one should do it, there's an unspoken implication that someone is less ethical by not doing it. I don't think you're trying to deliberately do a "sleight-of-hand" either, but you also can't bristle at someone reacting defensively to you implying they're acting less ethically than you are. The point of my statement was to dismiss you ethical statement. No, someone shouldn't always do what you did, because material reality prohibits most people from doing it. It's just as valid however to completely block all interaction with people one considers toxic, just as it is valid for someone to ridicule people for being toxic. Your chosen course-of-action, as successful as it has been for you, does not assert an ethical superiority to all others.

You should have some standards for yourself, and shit-flinging about le tankies is not enough to say you have a serious political attitude.

Does that only apply to MLs, or to all other political positions as well? (i.e. can I shit-fling at libs without being labeled unserious?) If the former, who determines which political position deserves unconditional respect in order to signify a "serious political attitude"?

What I am talking about here is how people can, based on being more consistent with their own political ideologies (and not just personal drama contrarianism) seek a better outcome for everyone involved, even if what you should do is not exactly what I did. If that's too much for you, why are you talking about revolutionary organizing?

First of all, I think that if you're seriously committed in having a good faith discussion you need to get out of the condescending frame-of-mind where you constantly belittle me as a "drama contrarian". It is not conductive to your stated reason for interacting with me.

That being said, I reject the idea that the right course of action is always to reach across, like a new Jesus, regardless of how many times you get slapped in the face while doing so. I also reject that it is stepping stone for revolutionary organizing. Like most other anarchists I believe in plurality of action. Some of us will be better at mending bridges and converting others. Some of us won't, but will be good at other things. I happen to be able to do both, but only when in the right frame of mind and material situation. I personally don't put a lot of weight in online discourse for achieving "revolutionary organizing" as I find that the true radicalization happens in real life experiences. I.e. people get radicalized through direct action for mutual aid, not online arguments.

That is to say, I don't feel guilty for trolling people when they're trying to act like dicks online, even when people like you claim I should have risen above this. You may disagree with me on that, but I haven't seen a convincing argument otherwise.

"Caution" and "antagonism" are not the same thing

I think you and other MLs seriously need to take a step back and realize that not everything is about you. Me posting a meme in an anarchist comm about historical grievances isn't trying to "antagonize" you. MLs don't actually need to go on into anarchist spaces to start flamewars due to memes, nor do they need to take everything so fucking seriously. I guarantee the impact of that meme on people's opinion of MLs will be much lower than a 1000-comment bullying pile-on.

From my perspective, posting a meme about historical grievances, or about the failings of state-socialism is a form of caution. I am trying to caution people to criticize ML ideology and its results. Sure it can be seen as antagonizing, but only if one always assumes they're the main char and that a meme inside an anarchist comm is directed at them directly.

Which leads me to the following:

but you're glossing over where I pointed out that it would need to be mutual with HB laying off you and that I would advocate to them on your behalf in the interest of normalizing relations. I'm literally already acknowledging that there is a side here attacking you and they also would need to stop, so it's silly to just pretend that I'm telling you to unilaterally get in line and take it on the chin.

You're conflating two very different things. There's a very large difference between attacking a person and attacking an ideology. Hexbears have a habit of taking criticism of ML ideology or practice, as a personal affront to themselves, therefore seeing criticism of their ideology, as a personal attack. To date (iirc), I've never personally attacked a single ML person for their ML takes, in all my posts. Likewise, hexbears never criticize anarchism itself, they only attack people directly for expressing takes they don't like.

You can't conflate these two things as being equal! You can't say: "I agree we should stop attacking you as a person, but you also need to stop critizing ML theory. By extension, if you do continue to criticize ML theory, you can't complain about being attacked personally." These are not the same thing. It brings to mind that saying about the two meaning of respect; respect of a person and respect of authority, and how people in authority conflate these two deliberately.

I'm completely serious about this and I'm confident that I could enlist a few other people (who are more respected on HB than I am) to help me make the case to the community. In fact, I think an important element would be discussing with you what you think fair terms are and what other parties think fair terms are and trying to come to an agreement on that basis.

I applaud your aims even if I am disbelieving about your potential to herd these cats. I appreciate being able to discuss in what appears to be good faith, because until now such attempts have been thrown back in my face (which is why I permanently have "shields up" when discussing with hexbears.)

I think it's silly to "discuss terms". We're not warring nations. I think y'all being able to distinguish between criticism of an ideology and personal attacks would go a long way towards normalizing relations. Personally I'm not someone who holds grudges, but I'm also not one to "turn the other cheek" either, that is to say, I can easily adjust to whatever vibes come from hexbears whether good or bad.

On the other hand what part of the anarchist flotilla do you think is problematic and should stop?

I edited immediately actually, it took me like 10 minutes to finish writing the reply on the phone. There might be federation delays. FFS the comment I posted originally was even clearly cut off in the middle. How can you be so uncharitable?

No gods, no masters! Now your turn to follow your leader and shit yourself ;)

I think that this is an unserious complaint because I've seen you a) do shit-stirring and b) take indefensible actions in the name of being contrarian to MLs (not just being an anarchist, which is fine, but actually protecting heinous shit)

I'd love to see evidence of this. The most "shit-stirring" I've done in hexbear comms is call "On Authority" a piece of drivel.

Likewise, I'd love to see what you consider "heinous shit".

OTOH, what has happened multiple times is having a 1000+ hexbear pile-on in my own comms for posting anarchist memes. And yes, it started years ago, soon after I joined the threadiverse. My impression of MLs was lowered, and naturally I started acting accordingly for my own mental health. Since that pressure never let up, neither did my defenses.

was an ML[...]

While I'm glad for you and applaud your patience, it's an unserious demand to expect this from everyone.

For the record, if you ever turned over a new leaf[...]

Turned a new leaf from what. What of my behaviour exactly do you find problematic? Even in this thread, I came simply to post a fact, and this is what it turned out. What part of my online behavior is so problematic for you? Because if it's simply being cautious against MLs, well you realize that leaf cannot be turned on its own.

As I wrote elsewhere in here, anarchists like me don't reject cooperation, we reject being co-opted or used to further ML tactics. That being said, if the plan is to strengthen left unity and/or to convert more people into Marxism, the bullying and "dirtbag left" behaviour typical in hexbear is not conductive. And surely, even people like me who are cautious about ML betrayals, could be led to change their mind through good interactions, no? However in my case at least, the opposite has been the case, I was actually more positive towards MLs, before hexbears attempted to bully me.

Is he still a born-again Christian with questionable takes? If so, I doubt his boomer-opinions it will be much of a renaissance.

Not gonna lie, that was a hilarious pwn @Xylight@lemdro.id

One of could rightly apply that first sentence to you, and surely you would see how asinine it would be.

Hexbears constantly make such statements, based in uncharitable interpretations, particularly in places like slop and get highly upvoted for it. But my greater point is that if one's plan is a large leftist umbrella, it's counter-productive to follow strategies which alienate a lot of anarchists who do in fact share my anti-"left-unity" thoughts.

And sure, there's m@tes who don't get on hexbear shitlist.Typically those tend to be the ones who don't take as dim view of "left unity" as other anarchists, or who know to keep their thoughts to themselves at least. I just don't see this inter-instance relationship as overall healthy however.

I'm not sure if you're talking about my full reply or my 4 word short reply which I sent by mistake because of a misclick

We're anarchists. We don't look for "leadership" in that way. For me only the actions matter. If you performed anarchist praxis and build prefigurative structures I wouldn't have a reason not to see you as an ally. If you put your effort into capturing state power to wield it over others hierarchically, It would make me suspicious and eventually bring us in direct opposition.

Actions such as constant bad faith, 1000-comment pile ons, misrepresentation and last but not least, ableism. Hell, in the comment alone, other hexbears can't help themselves but barge in and leave snarky or malicious comments.

Imagine arriving there after 150 years only for the colony to fail due to a random prion in the environment.