Well first of all, I think that characterizing what someone else said as me saying "heinous shit" is showing bad faith.

If you look at the context of the statement, you'll see that this was in the "protecting heinous shit" conversational thread, I never conflated it with what you said and in fact don't think that you would say it. Obviously, I think you're just getting confused here rather than deliberately misrepresenting me. I was furthermore very careful about my claim because I was there for when that fight happened and saw the attitude that you and the other admin took, but what I just said is very concretely and undeniably true when you look at some of the various remarks the person made at the time, though of course this is colored by the fact that the user very obviously also just wasn't familiar with the historical subject and therefore didn't understand the real meaning of what he was saying.

this is about shit that happened ~100 years ago.

Was it even 1 year ago? I guess it might have been.

You keep telling anarchists to get over the betrayals and purges that anarchists went through at the hands of MLs, ~100 years ago, and trivialize those away as well,

I (thank god) am not Stalin, and I have plenty of practical and ideological differences with Stalin and you (thank god) are not Makhno and presumably have many differences with him. I don't think it's useful to project things this way instead of looking at people's actual professed beliefs unless they demonstrate having the same attitude (as, for example, when liberals respond to rising fascism by punching left). You can hate Stalin all you want, I don't care, I'm not arguing to pantomime his policies and lines and I would oppose someone who did.

I also just think that it's counterproductive to say "Why are you still blaming me for something that I did maybe a year ago while not taking personal responsibility for what someone who you never met and who would have hated you did a century ago? Pretty hypocritical." These just aren't comparable and I'm trying to talk to you mostly on the level of a human being. Blame me for my own actions.

By doing this, you are making an ethical statement. When something is ethical and one should do it, there's an unspoken implication that someone is less ethical by not doing it.

By the time you said this, it wasn't unspoken:

I'm just saying you made a poor choice and have continuously recommitted yourself to that poor choice.

But that's taking the very broad definition of "ethical," when I think what you're suggesting is that I'm making a moral claim (since the two commonly mean the same thing). To be clear, I don't believe in morality and I'm not assigning immorality to you. When I say "should," I mean it in the more banal prescriptive sense of "If you want the plant to grow, you should water it regularly." What I am saying is that if you're interested in a better state of affairs for yourself and others, then a different course of action makes more sense. So again, yes, I am saying you made a poor choice many times, that's why I'm arguing for changing course. That's not me claiming some sort of obligation on your part, because what I'm counting on is that theoretically you also want for things to be better for yourself and others. There is no duty or imposition here, again I am trying to talk to you on the level of a human being.

No, someone shouldn't always do what you did

Nor did I say they should always do so.

because material reality prohibits most people from doing it.

This is sometimes true, but it is less true than you think it is. People are too used to falling into antagonistic behaviors when they really don't need to do such a thing and it makes things worse for themselves compared to alternative courses of action.

It's just as valid however to completely block all interaction with people one considers toxic, just as it is valid for someone to ridicule people for being toxic. Your chosen course-of-action, as successful as it has been for you, does not assert an ethical superiority to all others.

I really don't know what I need to tell you for you to internalize that I'm not saying everyone should respond just as I did, because I listed other responses and indicated that there were yet others that I think would also be reasonable. That said, I think people cling to the idea of "validity" to avoid considering what the best thing to do really is. Obviously all people are imperfect (and I'm a wreck of a person, I just have this one specific interest) and we can say that things are going well if they consistently choose "pretty okay" courses of action, but we shouldn't fail to acknowledge that there are frequently better courses of action, which is why when we aren't talking about people in general but ourselves specifically we need to give the subject substantially more scrutiny than what we suppose is fine for what the general population does on average. Basically I think it's an excuse to avoid making choices that are more strenuous. I'm not talking about people in aggregate, I'm talking about you and myself.

And for completeness, I will say that online especially there is probably the least real excuse for treating someone abusively, whatever they might have done that makes one want to treat them that way, because one can just block them. Generally, shit-flinging makes the problem worse, people just do it to feel righteous or to lash out in frustration, but it's generally detrimental to themselves and others, so I don't think it's "valid." Here I will again remind you of my own efforts to argue against the "bullying works" culture on HB, because my stance is precisely that in aggregate it does not.

Also, obviously, I reject the Christ comparison for countless reasons, but we don't need to discuss that.

I think you and other MLs seriously need to take a step back and realize that not everything is about you.

You've made it very clear that it actually is about us. The first comment that I was responding to said so.

You're conflating two very different things. There's a very large difference between attacking a person and attacking an ideology

And here I will say again that this seems like your response, talking about how you used to be more positive toward MLs until Hexbear bullied you. You can split hairs about how that's attacking a very broad historical group of people defined by adherence to an ideological category rather than attacking the ideological category, but I don't think that's a very useful distinction.

To date (iirc), I've never personally attacked a single ML person for their ML takes, in all my posts.

I'm a little confused by this distinction based on what else you've said.

Likewise, hexbears never criticize anarchism itself, they only attack people directly for expressing takes they don't like.

This, however, I can say is not true. There are subcategories of anarchism that do receive direct criticism. Here's me and another user doing that, as an example. Hexbears also criticize chauvinist "ML" ideologies like whatever the ACP is going on about, and various other takes that at least you'd put in that umbrella if not us ourselves that we disagree with. I readily admit that "internet anarchists" are overrepresented compared to chauvinist MLs in our discussions, but I think part of it is that the ACP types tend to just be nauseating to wade through with their nasty statements about various marginalized groups, the same as we don't just endlessly repost groyper memes, while the internet anarchists are more fun because they're attacking ML-ism directly in a very frivolous manner or making silly philosophical claims. I still think there's some further bias though.

You can't conflate these two things as being equal! You can't say: "I agree we should stop attacking you as a person, but you also need to stop critizing ML theory. By extension, if you do continue to criticize ML theory, you can't complain about being attacked personally." These are not the same thing. It brings to mind that saying about the two meaning of respect; respect of a person and respect of authority, and how people in authority conflate these two deliberately.

You are right, but this is part of why I said we (as in the communities, or at least you and HB) would need to have a discussion about if what we view as reasonable.

I applaud your aims even if I am disbelieving about your potential to herd these cats.

My point in talking about my own experiences before was not to boast but to demonstrate that herding cats is doable, because I have historically seen that it mostly is.

I think it's silly to "discuss terms". We're not warring nations. I think y'all being able to distinguish between criticism of an ideology and personal attacks would go a long way towards normalizing relations.

Personally, I think "normalizing relations" is the way sillier "forum slapfight as warring nations" turn of phrase on my part.

Personally I'm not . . .

Look, if we can't agree on the aforementioned "heinous shit," not for the sake of litigating the ban of some silly kid or removing a year-old post, but as a baseline standard for the future, then I think you and I aren't going to personally get anywhere.

However, should you ever decide that you want to change things with Hexbear even if it requires some sort of compromise or re-evaluation on your part, you can ping/dm me and I'll try to help you. I'm not going to pretend that I think it's very likely, but I am completely sincere and hope that you do take the offer sometime. I expect you'll see such a thing as vacuous, but my view remains that this is a situation where compromise is needed because both parties have failed to take the best course of action.