Hmm, it still appears in my inbox. I'm not pretending to be disaffected, you do genuinely piss me off and I have nothing but contempt for someone as disingenuous as you. I've made no effort to appear aloof like you do, I respond to things earnestly just like you accuse me of when you put out low effort bullshit because, again, you believe in nothing.
I think it's just that you sent this before I blocked you, so it should work now.
You're lecturing us on interpretation and then unwilling to take the question of interpretation seriously. Your appeals to hypocrisy are fallacious and a deflection from being completely ideologically impoverished. I'm a compulsive arguer like you are, but I'm finally processing that, having decently demonstrated that you don't believe in anything but using words and values as conversational currency, there's no further point in talking to someone who doesn't believe in anything. Blocked.
This is an incredibly Not Mad response from someone with a history of baiting drama
Why are you not answering the question though. Is the Chinese state fake leftists? I assure you I have a point to make about your hypocrisy, not trying to deflect.
Because it's off topic! What the fuck does China have to do with any of this?
That's a rhetorical question, it has nothing to do with this, and whatever concern-trolling you have about Uyghur genocide proving they are also anti-left is an appeal to hypocrisy, which is ultimately attacking my character but completely unrelated to the question at hand. Even if I say fucking Saudi Arabia is communist, that wouldn't change whether what I am saying here is true or not.
As always, I don't have responsibility for all statements in the instance.
Yes you do, you control the platform. Someone who controls a platform is responsible for what is said on it.
I just don't interpret their comments are uncharitable as y'all do. Feel free to ask the user to elaborate on whether they "hate poor people" however. I tend to give the benefit of a doubt.
What other interpretation is there for the comment? They've been prompted to elaborate and haven't said shit, but I think it speaks for itself. You keep retreating to vagaries. Do I need to reprint the comment for the benefit of your memory?
I don't have the time
lmao Don't front like this, you have endless time for petty bullshit like this worthless argument, don't pretend you're too busy.
I'll spell it out for you a little clearer, since you don't seem capable of understanding it on your own. Your entire attitude fucking screams "I have nothing good going on in my life, so I've adopted an extreme viewpoint that easily allows me to feel superior to others". You see this shit on all sides of the political spectrum. An example you're likely familiar with and hate would be fanatical/fundamentalist Christians. Nothing truly going right with their life, so they adopt a belief system that gives them an outlet for their hate/anger/frustration where they don't have to feel bad about it because they are targeting the "bad guys". Someone who was in a good place in life wouldn't be posting shit online calling for putting people in fucking gulags. You can use all the excuses and mental gymanstics you want, but at the end of the day, you've adopted an idealogy where extreme actions are justified and right to take against your "enemy", and where anyone even slightly advocating for you to slow your roll is instantly redefined as an "enemy". You just did that. You start spouting shit about Americans, and when the guy said he wasn't one you just said that he effectively was one anyway and kept down the path you were already on. That's absurd. Anyway, your entire defense for your statements here is that your bad guys are the real bad guys. That's the beginning and end of it. That type of self righteousness is something to be feared, not something to be championed because you've "found the right target". Please note, I've not made any statement on whether you're wrong or right in your targeting. That's a separate discussion. It has been demonstrated time and time again in historical record the world over, that the fervor of people like you can and will be abused, and shifted towards wider and wider classifications of "targets". Anyway, I hope your life situation improves enough someday that you no longer find the need to be a self-righteous asshat on the internet calling for people's torture. I'm blocking you, so I won't be around to see it.
-- good leftism, no cause for concern
Did you see the comment in the OP? What do you think of that just going unchallenged? db0 is being a useless contrarian as they usually are, but are you more of an adult?
There's no need to shake our comrade here for receipts when we have vile shit right in front of us that is evidently A-OK in the view of the administration.
I swear to god this guy is such a fraud it's insane.
You have no ideology other than contradicting muh tankies. Look at your pathetically trying to deflect to China and your beefing over instances. It's absurd, and pretending that liberals accepting you means you have "better Praxis" is a joke.
Attacking people for being marginalized is anti-leftism. If "left" means something, then it's possible to be anti-left. You yourself are making exactly the same fucking accusation about CHYNA being fake leftist at the same time as calling me sectarian! You don't believe in anything
In other comments you even tried to distance yourself from that user's remarks, but when it's pointed out to you that you hold responsibility for the account, you fucking double down on defending that bullshit as leftist. It's ridiculous.
Edit: This part is still bothering me:
Likewise, not all leftist spaces immediately ban those with even slightest problematic viewpoints.
But are you doing anything? Anything at all? It's not like you're going and having a talk with this dude, are you? So you're just letting reactionary shit fly unchallenged. Tell me, how could that be the enlightened pRaXiS that you claim it is?
In Yugoslavia and Soviet Ukraine, the CIA had a long history of supporting fascists and riling up ethnic tensions.
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.
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.
This person would have a hell of a time on a hamster wheel.
I don't care about litigating about Hexbear, you can hate it or whatever. What I am complaining about is the wizardbeard guy explicitly disparaging downtrodden people in favor of those who are doing well in the status quo. It's immensely social darwinist, to say nothing of the fact that even anarchists, to my understanding, care about things being counterrevolutionary.
Like, isn't the whole point of anarchism that the status quo is fucked and needs to be drastically changed? Don't you proudly self-identify as a type of radical [i.e. "extremist"]? If so, then doesn't this guy making blanket statements about extremists being scum seem to represent an issue?