200
Suddenly seeing more hexbear posts. Did we re-federate with them?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
200 points (89.7% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7584 readers
4 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Being pro Russia, genocide denialism, authoritarianism, being hateful of ideas that don't conform to their worldview, racism (just not towards the same people), the list goes on and on.
Being anti-nato does not mean we are pro-russia.
Specifically which genocide is being denied?
Define "authoritarianism".
Yes we are hateful towards racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia and fascism.
What racism is being done by hexbear users? The mod team takes such things very seriously
The whole "we want to end the war" argument just reeks. It stinks of russian propaganda. Russia started the war. They invaded Ukraine. Would you have the same viewpoint if the US was the invader? I've seen that comment several times and it kinda starts sounding like a red fascist dogwhistle
The war did not start in 2022, your analysis of what has been happening before the invasion needs to go back before that.
Ok
I guess instead of "war" I should have said "conflict" btw
It was a low-key civil war, make no mistake about it.
Your government doesn't just allow armed, organised (largely ultranationalist) paramilitary groups to conduct ethnically-motivated attacks on its own soil without their tacit approval, especially not when those same paramilitary groups tended to get absorbed into the state military forces later on.
This isn't the wild west were talking here.
Fuck, if a protest action in your own country can deploy the pointy end of the state against you immediately then the civil war against the easternmost part of Ukraine could have had a police/military response within days rather than leaving it to play out over literal years.
No sure, I get where you're coming from, but for the purposes of the other poster I think it was best to adjust my language.
At the time time, it's also best for the purposes of the other poster to reply with your perspective as well haha
dude history has a context
🤡🤡🤡
In the vast majority of cases, no, not even close.
It's 100% a problem, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it's racist, so it's already inherently a problem for that reason alone. But it's also a problem because your [hexbear's] moralistic self-righteousness combined with your [hexbear's] obvious hypocrisy gives people opposed to your ideals that much more ammunition (and of course you don't care about that, but that itself is also part of the hexbear problem).
And the worst part is that, as with so many of hexbear's problems, there's no reason for it. It's such an easy problem to fix, and would give an instance like hexbear that supposedly prides itself on its inclusivity such a huge boost in credibility. If you want to set yourselves up as morally unimpeachable, then be morally unimpeachable! Set an actual example, and be leaders that bring people together, not because of compromising your beliefs, but by actually being consistent, steadfast, and intellectually honest about the beliefs you already have.
And sure, I get the importance of having a place where you can feel comfortable and meme hyperbolically about problems you feel are important, and about the people who don't agree with you. That seems to be the direction that most hexbears seem to want to go.
But, in the end, it is racist, and it is disingenuous to promote yourselves as this bastion of anti-racism while encouraging literal racism on your instance and then act all surprised pikachu face when you get called out on it.
i don't care about being racist toward white 'people'
"Up yours, woke moralists! 😠 We'll see who cancels who."
Can't be racist against white people
Really? Go tell that to Jews... Or the Irish... Or Acadians (heck, french Canadians in general)... The list goes on and on...
You mean all the people that weren't classified as "white" as they suffered persecution by white people? Okay
Man, that goalpost must be fucking light for you guys to move it around that often!
can't be racist against white people
"goes on to name people crackers excluded from the 'white' definition in order to colonize them"
Oh so the definition of being white varies now? People are dermofluid or something? "I'm white skinned but I'm not white."
Also it's still happening today but you would never admit that a white French Canadian or an Irish can be the victim of racism because their skin color somehow makes them immune to it or some shit.
I can't tell how serious you're being but I read a really good book on this subject- The History of White People
The TL;DR on that is that whiteness is a social category, not an objective observation of human beings and their differences. For most of American history, as an example, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch/Low Germans and Scandinavians were considered a superior race to the 'alpine' and 'mediterranean' races of High Germans, Spaniards, and Italians. Irish weren't Anglo-Saxon, they were Celtic and were thus considered inferior. The racism people observe when they see 'Irish need not apply' signs or slurs directed at Italians in the 1800s were because those people were not considered 'white' at the time. It's an over-simplification, but these groups needed to be incorporated into the dominant group before they would be given the treatment we generally think is normal for white people.
Which is very jarring to us, since obviously Irish and Italians and Bavarian Germans are 'white'. But it literally does vary, and the entire purpose of the category is to render people inside of it superior by virtue of belonging to it, it's a category that exists to express supremacy.
"white" is a concept made up to justify slavery and white supremacy. you are actually hitting on something really important, the definition of being white HAS varied widely in history. when the concept of whiteness was first being developed, it was in order to justify categorizing people as white or non-white, and then the eugenics movement ran away with that concept to promote racial supremacy- not racial identity, but racial supremacy. so "white" as a category did indeed refer to specifically condoned peoples with supposed genetic, moral, intellectual superiority. and the definition of "white" did indeed vary then as well as now. irish, italian, slav, spanish, jews were all once distinctly non-white by the definition of "whites" at one point. the definition has changed since then because it has always been a non-scientific concept designed to identify "us" from "them" and justify the subjugation of whoever was considered non-white at the time.
The definition of being white, like all definitions, can indeed vary based on time and place, yes. Whether someone is white "enough" to be included in the category of "white people" is not an objective fact and will change from culture to culture, from time to time, and even from one individual perspective to the next.
Racial categories in Europe were more complex than they generally are today, especially in America. It's difficult to maintain distinctions in race between different European nationalities when everyone's immigrating to the same place and having kids together, so over time these subtle distinctions have dropped off somewhat in favor of the simpler categories of "white" and "non-white." But some of these distinctions still remain, for instance, many people who identify as "white nationalists" or even "white supremacists" also hate Jews, including Jewish people with white skin. Hitler's infamous 14 words declare that a future must be secured "for our white children," yet clearly he did not consider white-skinned Jewish people to be included in that definition.
As absurd as it may be to say that someone can have white skin but not be considered white, it can happen. The reason it doesn't make sense is because race is, to a large degree, something that is socially constructed and nonsensical.
Imagine considering Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes to be racist, while simultaneously arguing that you can't be racist against white people.
And for good measure, considering the use of the word "crazy" to be an offensive term against the mentally ill.
Those things are crossing the line. But overt racism is fine as long as it's self-deprecating.
Would you also say that black people can't be racist towards other black people? 'cuz some people in Rwanda would love to have a discussion with you I'm sure! Heck, Haitians would love to talk about Dominicans with you!
I would say it would depend on the structural conditions and who holds power over whom
No one here is pro Russia lol. We just recognize that the war in Ukraine is an intractable meat grinder, and working for peace is more productive than continuing the conflict in an effort to further enrich War Contractors.