Amendments to the Code of Conduct regarding the Fediverse (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi all,

With regards to our recent integration into the Fediverse, it has become evident that specific rules should be outlined regarding our conduct towards it and our place in it. As such, we are making provisional amendments to the Code of Conduct in specific regard to federation as we find our footing and stake our ground as a part of the wider Fediverse ecosystem. The amendments are as such, demarcated within the dividers:

Federation

In regards to the Fediverse, a dual-pronged approach should be assumed:

Local Communities

Conduct remains as previously outlined [in the Hexbear Code of Conduct], except:

Users visiting Hexbear should be given breathing room to inquire in good-faith about topics that seem obvious to well-trodden leftists. Assume good faith in even the most obvious of questions, except in cases where a user is explicitly acting in a combative or unreasonable manner.
Do not ping users from other federated instances with intent to goad or mock.
Do not directly link to comments or posts of other federated instances on public posts with intent to goad or mock.
Disengagement rules, whilst not amended, are thoroughly emphasized regarding visiting users.

Federated Instances

Assume the conduct outlined regarding local communities, as well as:

When in a federated instance, their rules (and their code of conduct) apply.
Allow instances their own space for discussion, if requested implicitly or explicitly. If said discussion regards this site or its users, you are allowed to discuss said discussion within the local purview (meaning, within a Hexbear community), with regards to the rules laid out prior.
Conduct that is deemed untenably toxic to the Fediverse and Hexbear’s standing within it (by discretion of Hexbear moderation) may be subject to reprisal, regardless of whether it is explicitly outlined.

We're thankful to the moderation and admins of the instances federated with us for their patience as we carve out our own little hole within the Fediverse. And to our beautiful posters, thank you for bearing with us in this week where decades happen

top 1 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

For those of you who are lurking from other Instances, I'd like to offer you a little light reading. This is an excerpt from The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins, a book about the mass murder program the United States has been enacting on the world's communists since the 1960's. When you see people complaining about the need for civility and respect as they ignore what their own society has unleashed on the world, I invite you to remember this excerpt.

spoiler

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:

“Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023

1 points (100.0% liked)

announcements

22425 readers

1 users here now

Who announces the announcers?

A dedicated place for event and community announcements.

Find our current event board here!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]