The US state department lawyers and the British House of Lords have evidence. That’s why they’re pursuing convictions of the Chinese leaders involved. No, wait— sorry, I misremembered. They both concluded there is insufficient evidence.
Right. Sus, like I said. You can’t trust people willing to use their authority to protect kids.
Although, when it’s put like that, it seems people are also sus who want to or would use their authority to force users to accept the risk of seeing porn and gore by allowing NSFW communities. You know. They could always go somewhere else that already allows it but no they’ve got to cry that they want it here or there, a place they already don’t like and don’t want to visit.
I have a feeling everyone involved in those equations would disagree.
Censorship is certainly the kind of thing that drove people away from dotworld for preemptively defederating from Hexbear by fiat.
You should read some communist literature before pronouncing about it.
Historically, who funded fascists and who fought them?
Because liberals sleep in the same bed as fascists and both are ready to fight socialism tooth and nail?
Other than, you know, the millions and millions and millions of them organised in parties throughout the world.
That’s right, not wanting to have SFW communities interrupted by porn and gore is sus.
That is not what happened.
When the Lemmy software was first created, the original Hexbear (it had a different name, then) created a fork. A development or two down the line and the two forks were incompatible. The Hexbear devs started working on a fix long before the Reddit API-debacle exodus. It wasn’t easy because the fork added features that were incompatible with, let’s say, vanilla Lemmy until recently. The Hexbear devs eventually made the fixes, which made federation possible again. And the long-planned re-federation occurred. The timing is a coincidence.
As for federation, Hexbear asked it’s community which instances should be federated. To maintain the friendly culture of Hexbear, there was an agreement to only federate with a few instances. Before that happened, dotworld defederated preemptively. Since then, I have no idea whose federated or defederated with who because I quickly lost interest with the drama.
I should say that I’d never used Hexbear before federation with my instance. I learned all this because it’s publicly available knowledge. After federation, with all the drama, I searched ‘federation’ and some similar search terms on Hexbear communities and learned what I’ve just explained. The key point is that you don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain motives for and the chronology of federation because, like the modlogs, the relevant conversations are still available to read.
Thanks for these!
Any good sources on this that you could recommend?
Damn, I don’t know what you’ve started here but the number of presumably white people coming up with all sorts of reasons to argue why black people shouldn’t have reparations is… is it a white settler moment? Then to follow this up with ‘you need to include white people or they’re not going to like it’ is… maybe Malcolm X was onto something about white liberals.
Marxists aren’t, or shouldn’t be, dogmatic. It’s the method that they uphold. Plus, Marx didn’t live to see the USSR, China, Cuba, etc, so it’s not possible to know whether he would maintain that position (taking your claim at face value).
We live distinctly under capitalism. No need for any other names that obscure that relation.
You’re a fount of knowledge, new (to the grad) comrade. Keep it coming.
Essentially, it means fascism is the method by which liberalism defends itself in the face of progress and revolution.
By your definition, every community is a tankie because every communist rejects idealism. If these are the only two options, the only option left is to choose a team. But that can’t be right because you imply that some communists aren’t tankies.
Further, does it count as a definition if other people use the term in different ways?
If so, how do you know who is a communist and who is a tankie without asking them how they decided to show (critical) support for XYZ?
By your definition, you must first know whether someone has strong reasons to support XYZ before being able to decide that they really decided because XYZ was on the right team. That would be exhausting and fraught with the problem that nobody is going to say they didn’t do the reading; if they give an argument, how do you determine whether it’s valid or a cover for ‘choosing by reference to team’?
I’m unsure if it’s possible to define ‘tankie’ by reference to ‘communist’ without also defining the latter and showing how they’re different.
Depends if you’re hungry.