chat

On the civility aspect, realistically at the core of it this is also political - I think many here agree that the bounds of "civil discussion" are specifically drawn to entrench the status quo, and also note that an easy tactic to silence dissent is to attack the manner in which words are said when you cannot logically attack or disagree with the substance of the argument (I swear i'm not trying to act like a debate pervert, but I do sound like a dweeb here). This inherently grows from a contradiction though: Whyis it civil to be able to debate the validity and existence of marginalised peoples, or justifygenocide, or argue for the upkeep of the current hegemony? And why is it not civil to tell those who justify genocide, argue that the current hegemony is inherently superior, or believe that people's existence should be erased to eat shit? This is where many other instances (mostly those established in 2023 and not 2020) refuse to apply thought, leading to a dedicated handful posting everywhere possible that hexbear is "aggressive" or "abusive".

I love hexbear for this comment alone.