Sorry (🍁) we did this without making a post, but after receiving several complaints we defederated from hexbear.net yesterday.
Here’s a few quick examples of poor conduct by hexbear users:
- Spamming bullshit links to the pig poop picture: https://lemmy.ca/u/[email protected]
- General trolling: https://lemmy.ca/comment/2146513
- Posting the pig poop emoji repeatedly and not adding value to discussions: https://lemmy.ca/u/[email protected] https://lemmy.ca/u/[email protected]
- Calling for exections of landlords: https://lemmy.ca/comment/2154580
They warned their users to behave themselves, but that didn’t work: https://hexbear.net/post/280770?scrollToComments=false
Please read and respect the rules of the community instance in which you are posting/commenting. 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. Realize that you are a representative of the hexbear instance when you post on other instances.
How many Canadians had to take up arms and murder their countrymen to get gay marriage and cannabis reform? The other side certainly used a lot of violence, AND THEY LOST. I only have to come up with one counterexample and there’s two.
That’s it. That’s all there is to it. It is true that some rights took violence to establish, but clearly there are plenty that didn’t. If for example it takes violence to fix our housing problems, then I guess that’s what would have been needed, but there are plenty of options before we get there.
Yes violence can be both successful and unsuccessful but to begin with the state likely used violence against violent supporters of bad drug policy and bigoted marriage laws, or alternatively against covid deniers and what not. On the other hand people did riot for weed and gayness 50 or so years ago and continually violently defended themselves in their continued (political) existence for these years. Political change, even if the laws change relatively non violently at the end, needs violence or at least the threat of violence to come about.
You’re moving the goalpost. We’re talking about executions. Fucking terrorism. That is NOT the way social causes are advanced.
No I’m describing the world and how I understand Political progress. Protests, strikes, riots, civil war, terrorism, assassinations, police and military violence and war can all be used, and are primarily used to further political goals. Politics is, viewed from some perspectives at least, the struggle about who can use what kind of violence for what reason. Specific to the landlord example, the police will use violence to enforce the landlords property rights through eviction, sure there is a system that justifies that violence, it is still violence.
Looking at what Abes assassination did to political development in Japan. especially toward Abe and the Unification church seems to provide good reason to assume terrorism to be pretty effective at the moment. ISIS, black Panthers, the end of the British Raj, the existence of the country of Turkey its all violent power struggle for political goals all the way down. If you are a freedom fighter or revolutionary or a terrorist is literally just a matter of perspective.
I’m just trying to get you to realize that Violence is used by all political sides and that their own justifications for it are never perfect. You might find yourself supporting violence by the(your) state and violence from other groups on different issues, both are violence nonetheless. I generally agree executions for achieving political goals shouldn’t be needed, at the same time they do happen regardless, and you can separate good political goals from bad ones, and welcome the executions that further your political goals, without endorsing executions generally.