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.

  • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    1·
    1 year ago

    I feel obliged to inform you that you’re using that word in a way that nobody else on Earth uses it. It sounds like you’re trying to describe anarchism/libertarianism (not the so-called “libertarianism” in the US), but calling it liberalism.

    • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      Don’t worry, I know that the capitalist marketed version has penetrated the anglosphere. But still general knowledge like wikipedia corroborates what I’m saying

      • Robaque@feddit.it
        1·
        1 year ago

        Could you link me the wikipedia article / paragraph you’re referring to?

        The first sentence of the article on Liberalism states:

        Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.

        Private property is a fundamentally capitalist concept.

        Also, “consent of the governed” is non-existent in practice. Even without bullshit like gerrymandering, and the efficacy of propaganda, the tyranny of the majority is still a problem.

        • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          Continue reading if you’re interested. In that quote you’ll already see properties which aren’t possible in capitalism.

          rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law

          In capitalism money buys these. They’re not available as is.

          Private property is a topic for itself. I can’t think of a current ideology which prohibits owning a TV or a toothbrush. Some ideas separate that as personal property and private property actually talks about the means of production.

          Private means of production is “foundational” to capitalism. Not derived from it — it can exist without it as well.

          This wikipedia page adds a bit more but that’s the gist of it

          A few rhetorical questions:

          Are private means of production where an owner takes most of the profit instead of it being fair among workers and owners, or worker-owners, something that is compatible with economic freedom?

          Or does a capitalist system offer more freedom to someone in this scenario?

          So then, can someone claim in good faith capitalism as liberal when it’s based on such means of production ownership?

          • Robaque@feddit.it
            1·
            1 year ago

            Mate it sounds like you’ve got some nice ideals but are mixing them up with the wrong terminology.

            What you described is personal property, not private property.

            The fact that under capitalism, “rights” are bought is precisely why the “freedom” under liberalism is fake.

            Also, what do you mean with your rhetorical question example? That it wouldn’t happen under liberalism because such heirarchies would be prevented by governmental reform?