Thank you! I don’t even plan to subscribe to any of their content, but they stuck out in a sea of instances that sounded like Canadian legal problems waiting to happen.

I use the extension Simple Tab Groups for Firefox.

I’ll quote myself covering the important parts, skip the metaphor, and try to explain in simple English.

Most Hexbears act like spewing insults, trolling, and supporting murderous dictators are blows for righteousness. Until Hexbear culture quits sanctifying insults and trolling, a lot of doors are going to be slammed in your faces.

We hate you because of how you talk. The “call-outs” which are just an excuse to call people names. The posing. The rude pictures. The trolling. The brigading. Reply to any of it and get another avalanche of name-calling and trolling.

A lot of us also hate what you say. But many of us could tolerate what you say if you said it nicely. What’s the point of tolerance if you don’t tolerate a few things you hate?

You are a type of troll that is very hard to talk into not trolling. And nobody will put up with your trolling for long if they can ban you. So, expect a lot of bans because you are trolls.

If you argued for Marxism but didn’t troll and call people names, you would be banned less.

Not sure if you missed my point or you’re just trolling.

The more I look the more I see a severe clash of values between Hexbear and SIJW (and most Lemmy instances). Most Hexbears act like spewing insults, trolling, and supporting murderous dictators are blows for righteousness. On the other side, those Hexbears come off as juvenile delinquents wearing Red Guard armbands as they spray graffiti, break windows, and take offense at being told off.

Until Hexbear culture quits sanctifying insults and trolling, a lot of doors are going to be slammed in your faces.

Let’s tally up the replies to me from Hexbear users.

• One insult.
• One taunt.
• One helpful reply with a little pushback (which might be deserved).
• One reply expressing frustration with how Hexbear users are treated collectively.
• One troll.

So a minority of Hexbear users interacted reasonably, while the majority of Hexbear users did not.

I know you personally can’t do much about your instance’s users making a majority of posts in bad faith, but Hexbear as an instance has a bad reputation across the Fediverse right now because of their behavior.

Thank you for being genuinely helpful, unlike your comrades who insulted and posed.

we’re centrists. we hold the political center between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism.

Is that an inside joke? Because outside of Hexbear and maybe 1930s Catalonia, “between anarchism and Leninism” is extreme left.

I was trying to be charitable by assuming you badly misunderstood the comment because English was your second language. The alternatives are that you, in your own words, lack “the basic literacy of at least a second grader” or that you misread it on purpose to give yourself an excuse to pick a fight.

Enjoy the fight that you sacrificed your own dignity to start.

While in very formal English “one” is the generic pronoun and “you” is addressed to you personally, in casual English “you” is the generic pronoun with the same meaning as formal written French “on”.

So the post above wasn’t a personal attack. It used “you” to mean “one”.

Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

The echo chamber effect comes from mass downvoting of dissenting comments by a dedicated faction or the hive mind and mass upvoting by the same. The ticket to virtual popularity is popular soundbites.

It’s very confusing right now because the check is to show posts that you have already read. Posts that you have already read are hidden by default.

Kbin federation appears to be working indeed if someone had subscribed to a community before the 0.18.0 update. Waiting to see if a community that no one had subscribed to on this instance syncs in.

Edit: it hasn’t been pulled in overnight. Maybe it’ll only pull their content in after a new post is made?

Edit 2: It pulled in, but I didn’t see that it had because the current default is to hide all posts that you have already read. So confusing!

You’ve quit discussing in good faith and gone all-in on slinging insults, so it’s time to end this thread.

If you’ve already concluded that Jane Churchlady, a figure I constructed to be a social conservative who isn’t an extremist, is in reality an extremist then we’ve been talking past each other for quite a while.

So you’re very worried that if Christian bien-pensants are exposed to Jane Churchlady saying that gay marriage is against the will of God and she’s praying for gay couples, several of them will think she has a point and drift rightward, and preventing that is worth driving Jane Churchlady herself into extremism? I’d discounted the possibility that Jane Churchlady would convert anyone rather than be a nuisance. I can follow your logic now, although your conclusion that building a fence around bien-pensants is worth outright handing a 10-20% market share to extremists is a hard pill to swallow.

But the way, if you felt insulted it might be because the hat fits, my last paragraph was purely rhetorical.

Your answer to being called out making a backhanded accusation is to make another backhanded accusation?

You deeply misunderstood my argument and threw in gratuitous insults. So I’ll try to explain it again with a character.

Jane Churchlady is a social conservative. She believes that God disapproves of homosexuality. She thinks same-sex marriage shouldn’t have been made legal, and she says so. She votes for the local right-wing party, but she can’t bring herself to vote for the racist far right party. Jane Churchlady will not change her belief that God disapproves of homosexuality, and isn’t willing to lie about it to stay on a social network.

What do you do when Jane Churchlady registers for Lemmy?

1. If you let Jane Churchlady stay, she says that while she prays for gay people, they are sinful in the eyes of God.

2. If you ban Jane Churchlady, she’s out of your feed, but she registers for Gab instead and starts voting for the racist far right party after reading the posts there. Because you tried to deplatform her, she has been radicalized. If you hadn’t tried to deplatform her, she wouldn’t have switched to Gab and wouldn’t have been radicalized.

3. If you’ve got a third scenario, tell me what happens to Jane Churchlady.

I think we might be arguing two slightly different things here. You’re worried about the consequences of not shunning extremists hard enough to keep groups that are already down, down. I’m worried about the consequences of shunning people who are neither bien-pensants nor extremists as extremists, because it’s a strong incentive for the mal-pensants to support the extremists if not become extremists.

Also, your argument turns on the assumption that the extremists are incapable of making their own platforms and must rely on platforms offered by others. My argument is that if you deplatform anyone within eyesight of an extremist, it’s a matter of time before you’ve deplatformed so many people that they build their own successful platform. And the platform of the deplatformed will be ugly.

I worry that this “banish them to the corner” policy will combine with rapidly changing limits on acceptable speech and thought to hand the extremists a growing captive audience of resentful exiles. Is it really worth banishing Jane Churchlady if the price is making Gab a mainstream social network?