Defediverse
Defediverse
EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)
You're viewing a single thread.
If the 'thing you dont agree' with is hate speech or shit promotting violence for example that's the only sane option you have lol
Find me one neoliberal who isn't promoting violence.
Here's a comment thread where a Hexbear user said "I hope to kill people like you" because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.
Going on any Hexbear instance people froth over telling anyone right of Karl Marx to "get up against the wall". You guys are, and will always be, a joke.
If course you would, like a good little authoritarian.
In my ideal society I’d give people like you the freedom you deserve.
This you?
You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.
The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.
Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)
Ok let me know how your method works out
You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism.
What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.
The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory.
I have, but thanks for the suggestion.
The abolishinists were mean to me. : 😭😭
The tankies were being tankies, not unexpected.
youre getting into arguments where you don't know what the words mean, and then acting indignant when people point that out
That's very ableist of you to conflate dyslexia with stupidity.
Least bad faith liberal
Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?
I'm innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.
I'm innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.
People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they're all tankies because they're all wrong
Maybe we can assume people got terminology wrong and not immediately jump to death wishes?
Permanently Deleted
What incredible insight. The word 'social' is referring to 'socialism' and so is the relation between 'democracy' and 'democratic'.
It would take an idiot to mix these up, right?
The word 'social' is referring to 'socialism' and so is the relation between 'democracy' and 'democratic'.
I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren's policy page you'd know that.
No, social policies are not socialism, however, they do generally benefit the working class.
You guys are so worried about centrists that you are ignoring the fact that the US had a far right coup attempt less than three years ago.
And the US still has a far right regime in power, and has since 1776. What's your point?
What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.
Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don't identify your actual political position. It's clear that the only political position you'd take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.
I have, but thanks for the suggestion.
Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I'm an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.
Debatebro? That's what Hexbear does best.
I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don't engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.
I've read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I've seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider "needs", such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.
The difference between you and me is that I'd rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don't want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don't vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.
Edit: Lmao. Citing"theory" gets crickets from the people who endlessly say "you just haven't read theory". It's like they don't know what to do with someone who reads to understand, rather than "reading" just to virtue signal.
Debatebro? That's what Hexbear does best.
Hahaha, literally "I know you are but what am I"
reading" just to virtue signal.
Lmao peak angry chud solipsism. "I would never read except to lord it over others, so that must be what these commies are doing."
Permanently Deleted
Where has it worked?
Permanently Deleted
Cuba is your best example, however, it is a socialist state and not communism.
China has three stock exchanges and is not communist:
The USSR never got to the "people's dictatorship", ya know, because the dictators never completed that step. Despite being a very powerful country at their peak, the USSR only exists as a memory of a failed state.
Haha, classic Catradora_Stalinism, what a rascal.
She would make a great staffer in the Lubyanka.
She's probably like 16 dude chill and welcome to the Internet where people fling the most unhinged nonsense at each other without a second thought
welcome to the Internet where people fling the most unhinged nonsense at each other without a second thought
TIL I am internetting wrong lol.
For me personally, flinging unhinged shit at other users is tiring. I find it much easier to either be nice or abandon ship
It takes all kinds.
An aggressive communist with no sense of how the world works could be a child? You're the most self aware Hexbear user.
Also lol to "dude chill". I'm not the one fantasizing about murdering people.
Nah the capitalist system you cheer for murders people just fine, Mr. Welfare-capitalism-is-actually-socialism
She's not here, do you want me to pop into that thread and chastise her for you?
My mind just boggles at the fact that anyone is taking this two bit reddit clone seriously enough to carry a grudge longer that the lifespan of a single thread.
You're doing a lot of coping with that seething.
I'm fucking livid
because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.
so you promoted violence first?
i'm failing to see your complaint hereOh silly you.
Permanently Deleted
I support what are realistic policies actually will push the status quo in the direction you want.
Larping on the internet waiting for a revolution to occur seems like a nice fantasy.
Permanently Deleted
There are numerous democratic socialists who are in Congress, you just aren't paying attention.
Run for office. There have been many spoilers from genuine grassroots campaigns. Don't want to do either? Keep coping and seething online.
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. Entryism always ends up changing the entrant instead of the system. We are revolutionary socialists.
It's clear you never studied US politics if you think that is remotely true. The Gilded Age and the Great Depression briefly pushed America away from corporate interests towards policy that benefited the working class. We averted overt fascism a la the Business Plot and the ratfucking that Smedley Butler disclosed while being the most badass anti-capitalist ever.
You're not a revolutionary socialist, you're a larper who won't do anything to better the world other than wait for this revolution like it's the second coming of Christ.
You guys are the QAnon of the left.
Permanently Deleted
Present some options that have broad appeal and would be accepted by the proletariat. I don't know if you've looked around the US, but the voting proletariat generally find centrist policies to be "far left".
How do you have your people's revolution without the people?
How does any of that disagree with what he said?
Permanently Deleted
I'm talking about Emmanuel Goldstein. Anyone I can possibly list will never meet your purity test.
The purity test of having the wherewithal to oppose the economic system killing the earth and everyone on it.
Permanently Deleted
Don't forget to send me a text when the revolution starts, comrade.
I too support democratic socialism
Allende just needed more people's militias
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the Allende thing is more a US intervention problem that a democratic socialism problem. Certainly Mohammad Mosaddegh would agree.
Wow, you mean the US will just destroy you no matter how much you play by their rules, and that all that handwringing about evil communism is just bad-faith obfuscation from the world-eating vampire class to mislead their billions of victims? Wild.
So socialism, if it has any degree of democracy to it, which is kind of essential to socialism, is evil in your eyes.
What version of decision making is acceptable in socialism then?
Just one party rule?
Permanently Deleted
Extreme violence is still violence. Industrial violence on a massive scale is still violence. You are advocating for violence, terrible violence, and then getting upset someone else advocated for comparatively mild violence.
Yes. Tolerance should not extend to intolerance, and intolerance should never be a thing we tolerate.
If it were that simple, then it would be fine.
But the point is, people just start to label anything that whiffs of a different opinion as "intolerance".
So the solution is to just kick them off all the mainstream platforms and ensure they go to their own echo chambers where they are isolated from any reasonable counters to their ideology, which will just ultimately make the problem worse? Brilliant.
It’s like the war on drugs. If we just ban it then surely the problem will disappear…except it just gets worse.
How can people be this shortsighted?
Nazis/extremists don't respond to rational arguments against their ideology.
You ever hear of that black guy who makes friends with KKK members? Sometimes they give up their bullshit and they become friends. I will accept the risk of having futile arguments with many if there is a chance that logic and reason breaks through to a few.
That's different than arguing with people on the internet. Daryl Davis shows these people their shared humanity face-to-face. All I've ever seen from letting fash "debate" people on the internet is them slowly spreading their ideology to vulnerable people who are viewing the same conversations. Saying stuff that sounds reasonable on the surface like, "not everyone you disagree with is a nazi" even though they want to kill minorities as if that motive vs not wanting that to happen/doing everything in your power to make sure it doesn't happen is a simple disagreement.
I admit you raise some good points. I have always thought that people susceptible to extremism will eventually find it online, but maybe they won't, and maybe exposing them to those ideas in rational conversation on mainstream platforms is too "risky." My gut tells me that is not the case, but that is just my gut. It seems worthy of some kind of study.
I did that for years. Many years. It burned me out and made me much more of a thin-skinned and intolerant person with those around me in real life.
I love places where they willingly come to redeem themselves (like r/IncelExit) but otherwise I just stray very, very far. It took a heavy toll on my mind.
It is a noble thing but one that shouldn't be required of most users.
Cheers. Not everyone has the constitution to engage, and that’s fine. I do not think hate should be tolerated, but I think it must be confronted with reason. The only alternatives seem to be more isolation, extremism, and violence.
Honestly I still discuss online but it's very rare. Mostly with teenagers since they are usually more open.
There is a problem of even where to confront with reason. Most of the time you hinder more than you help on mainstream social media, because more comments on a post will boost it on the algorithm and distribute the original poster's message further while they remain wilfully ignorant.
Hear hear
Sorry but arguing online is not the same as what that one person is doing.
I will accept the risk of having futile arguments
Lol thats not the only thing at stake. Arguing online is a propaganda and recruitment strategy for nazis. You are not only risking some of your own time, but you are always also risking being a part of their strategy to gain power.
Please leave outreach and exithelp to those who know what they are doing
Well whenever regular people go in to their communities they get ridiculed and have their comments removed or even banned, so what's the difference?
Maintaining the moral high ground is crucial when attempting to fight extremists with reason and discourse.
MLK understood this tactic and brilliantly deployed it with his non-violent movement, and he defeated extremists with reason and discourse.
You can call me naïve, but wouldn't have been a shame if MLK gave up when he was called naïve?
When they go low, we go high.
-Michelle Obama
I wish we lived in a functional democracy where you can go "high, when they go low". The only thing that has resulted in is eroding the democratic system by ceeding power that undemocratic individuals will keep for themselves.
Edit: To add, I believe that Michelle Obama was right when we said that, but the world has radically changed since then.
No way this isn't a bit
Yeah because normalising fascism in 2016 so that actual nazis came into the light and the mainstream sure helped make them less destructive and made them have less of an echochamber! Oh wait..
If you have the choice between an eco chamber where 10% of people are nazis and say nazi shit to other nazis and normalizing nazism to the point where mainstream gathering places are full of crazy nazi babble and having 15% nazis I would chose to contain the poison.