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.

  • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    106·
    1 year ago

    You misunderstand. I don’t think you said anything against the rules, so the report function isn’t appropriate. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it is your understanding that lemmygrad allows calls for violence.

    And you aren’t going to convince me it was anything other than a call for violence. You can downplay it all you’d like but all that does is paint you in a worse light. Would you approve of “venting” about rape, too? If not, why not?

    • ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
      116·
      1 year ago

      because I view rape as worse than murder, and it’s just generally really weird? I’m not ceding it as a call for violence because they’re not actually calling for anyone specific to die. They didn’t tag any users or specify any irl person, because it’s not meant to be taken 100% seriously. and yes, I can claim that, because 1) it was made for other lemmygrad users to look at and 2) it’s a comment that follows with:

      Their levels of racism, gaslighting, minimizing, projection, annoyance, false equivalency, and laziness drives my anger to a boil that makes the Planck-Temperature look like fucking ice cream-absolute zero with a douse of liquid nitrogen by comparison.

      like come on you can not tell me that is meant to be taken 100% seriously, they’re using extreme hyperbole all throughout the comment

      I would personally dm one of the actual admin accounts (at least that’s what I do), how often do they even check that account they’ve made like 5 posts with it

      Edit: ultimately you could probably find worse comments from some other accounts I know get spicier than that, I’m not trying to “downplay” it

      • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        84·
        1 year ago

        Did… you just use “it’s just a joke, bro” again?

        So as long as no specific person is threatened with rape, you should be fine with it, right? What if, instead of an ideology, they said people of a certain heritage should be shot? Still no one specific, but like, “Jewish people” or “people of color”, instead of “anti-tankies”. You still cool with that? If not, why not?

        • ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
          104·
          1 year ago

          because they’re not the same thing? are you really trying to equate political ideology to race??? what the actual fuck?

          Yes. the “it’s a joke bro” argument comes from when you go into a random comment thread or argument and make some asinine comment and then pretend it’s a joke. It would be like if I tried to drop some joke that insulted you rn, and said that “it was just a joke”.

          Example:

          ImOnADiet: you must be (some clever joke that implies you’re a fascist)

          Joe: what the fuck did you just call me a nazi?

          ImOnADiet: chill out bro it was just a joke!!!

          Do you really think his anger was enough to make “the Planck-Temperature look like fucking ice cream-absolute zero with a douse of liquid nitrogen by comparison.” do you really think that he wants to actually kill all neoliberals? I know people like to pretend that “ebil tankies” are just some subhuman monsters that would destroy the entire planet because it makes them feel good or something but no he I can promise you he doesn’t actually wanna kill everyone

          • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            62·
            1 year ago

            I’m trying to point out that it doesn’t matter who you threaten to murder, or why. You aren’t so radicalized that you don’t see that it’s wrong when it’s one of the “obvious” ones like race, but somehow you’ve been convinced it’s perfectly fine to do it when it’s “anti-tankies”. Does that really make sense to you? Why would one be okay and the other not, if it’s just “venting” and harmless? (hint: because part of you knows it’s not okay)

            I never said anything negative about people on the far-left. You’re projecting to deflect from something you know is wrong. I don’t know if he really wants to shoot people. All I know is that he said people should be killed for what they believe.

            • ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
              93·
              1 year ago

              It does matter. this is a common thing on the far left. we view neoliberals as largely responsible for the state of the world, and people express their anger in crazy ways sometimes. I have a friend who threatens to bomb my house, he’s threatened to drive his car through my living room window, and he’s done this in the middle of yelling screaming arguments. I have never for 1 second thought he was serious, it’s a way for him to express anger in a jokey manner. The reason I don’t care about advocating for violence is because ultimately the only way for communists to come to power will be through some level of violence, the state won’t allow us to take power peacefully. what the hell is someone making some hyperbolic statement compared to actually having to use violence in the real world if the need somehow ever arises (I don’t have a lot of faith in the western left). This is normally where tankie accusations get thrown around I doubt you want to hear why I’m a marxist blahblahblah

              I don’t view violence as fundamentally wrong. I abhor that it’s necessary, but advocating pure non-violence in the face of a state that has shown it will murder you with no remorse is both foolish and also ignores the violence that the status quo inflicts on the poor and minorities every single day.

              Also, I’m not sure what exactly sure what you mean about you saying something negative about the far-left. I called you an anticommunist because by and large anticommunists are always pushing for lemmygrad to be defederated. The only other thing was the “im just joking” example which was just me trying to come up with an example on the spot

              • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                1 year ago

                we view neoliberals as largely responsible for the state of the world

                Sure, and some Nazi blames the Jewish people for all the wrongs in the world. Does that mean that it’s justified if a Nazi says all Jewish people should be shot in the head?

                The reason I don’t care about advocating for violence is because ultimately the only way for communists to come to power

                And this doesn’t start your spider sense tingling that maybe you’re on the wrong side of things? Holy shit, do you do even half a minute of introspection? I’m sure fascists would say the same thing. Are they also justified in violence?

                I don’t view violence as fundamentally wrong. I abhor that it’s necessary, but advocating pure non-violence in the face of a state that has shown it will murder you with no remorse is both foolish and also ignores the violence that the status quo inflicts on the poor and minorities every single day.

                Do you think it’s wrong that the ““status quo”” uses violence? After all, you don’t view it as fundamentally wrong, right? So it’s not fundamentally wrong when it’s used against you, either?

                Also, I’m not sure what exactly sure what you mean about you saying something negative about the far-left.

                You set up a straw man about so called “ebil tankies” that I never said or even implied, to justify advocating for violence.

                Here’s the kicker. Take everything you said, and then look at it and tell me if I personally deserve violence. I’m generally capitalist (democratic socialist is just capitalism light). You seem to imply you have no choice but violence against me. Is this truly how feel, or is all this simply to justify some stranger getting upvoted when they advocate violence, so you don’t have to admit your instance is toxic?

                • ImOnADiet🇵🇸 (He/Him)@lemmygrad.ml
                  111·
                  1 year ago

                  Nazi blames the Jewish people for all the wrongs in the world

                  please for the love of god stop equating political ideology and ethnicity, absolutely baffling behavior. I would ask you something about Nazi’s but I’m going to tiptoe around the .world rules here

                  And this doesn’t start your spider sense tingling that maybe you’re on the wrong side of things? Holy shit, do you do even half a minute of introspection?

                  More than you would think I bet. do you think I just stumbled onto these beliefs happily? I’ve never even been in anything as violent as even a fucking fist fight in my life, I wish more than anything that it didn’t have to be this way. Here’s a quote from the Jakarta Method that sums up why I believe this quite nicely:

                  Please read long quote below (emphasis mine)

                  This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

                  In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

                  Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

                  Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

                  That group was annihilated.

                  • Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method

                  Do you think it’s wrong that the ““status quo”” uses violence?

                  I don’t oppose the status quo because it uses violence, I oppose it because it uses it against the working class, communists, minorities, really anybody who threatens the status quo. I would support the status quo if it was using that violence to protect the working class, communists, minorities, so that we will one day achieve a communist society where the state no longer even exists to use this violence. As long as the state exists, someone is going to use the violence it holds, and I want that violence to serve the interests of the working class, not the likes of billionaires who are currently hurtling us towards manman climate change disaster, if not extinction.

                  “ebil tankies”

                  I threw in the part about evil tankies because you seemed to be taking that comment as them seriously 100% wanting every single neoliberal to die and that there’s no hyperbole there, which is very consistent with what people who throw around the term tankie say, they say we’re the scum of the Earth who just find joy in murdering puppies or something. Seemed like where the conversation was going, forgive me, I’ve seen way too many people from .world head down that path so I had my guard up, it’s annoying to have a conversation derailed by it

                  tell me if I personally deserve violence.

                  I have no clue if you “personally deserve violence”. I don’t really like playing the hypothetical game, and tbh even if I wanted to say so I wouldn’t be able to because of the rules of this instance. If you’re really truly interested in that part of the conversation we could take it somewhere else. I wouldn’t be any more mean than I am now, I reserve that for people who come in to troll on lemmygrad and nazis

                  • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    1 year ago

                    please for the love of god stop equating political ideology and ethnicity

                    Explain to me the difference between advocating to murder one group and not the other. From where I’m standing, your stance lines up perfectly with a fascist’s, just on the other end of the spectrum.

                    do you think I just stumbled onto these beliefs happily?

                    No, I think you were radicalized.

                    [Your long, pointless quote]

                    The person you are defending wasn’t talking about any government or world power; they said “anti-tankies” who couldn’t be re-educated should be killed. Who does that sound like? Next you’ll be advocating for rounding up all the “anti-tankies” and putting them into “reeducation camps”. Right?

                    I oppose it because it uses it against the working class, communists, minorities, really anybody who threatens the status quo.

                    So? You don’t have an issue with using violence to get what you want, why is it wrong for the ““status quo”” to do the same thing? Your sophomoric stance is “violence is okay when it’s used against the bad people” but who the “bad people” are is entirely subjective. Do you not see how this fails even at a conceptual level? What would you advocate someone who thinks tankies are the “bad people” do? Should they resort to violence? Is that the appropriate action? If not, why?

                    Let’s take a slightly longer view of this. Let’s say your dream comes true and “anti-tankies” are “reeducated” or killed, and the big bad ““status quo”” is finally defeated. What happens if a group of “anti-tankies” grows in your new utopia, when you’re the ““status quo””? Do you resort to violence?

                    You are what you claim to abhor.

                    just find joy in murdering puppies

                    You have spent several comments over several hours defending murdering people; your stance has long since moved from “it was just a joke, bro” to “I agree that murdering people is the solution”. Do you really not understand how that makes you appear? All this comment chain required was you to say “yeah, man, that’s messed up-- calls for violence are wrong”. Yet, here we are.

                    I have no clue if you “personally deserve violence”

                    What?? This was a softball question to help you redeem yourself. The only acceptable answer is “No”. Holy shit.

                    @lwadmin@lemmy.world

          • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            1 year ago

            Because those analogies show the huge gaping flaw in this guy’s stance.