Oh I remember that shit. I didn’t post in that because I’ve learned to shut the fuck up when the going gets stupid. Probably why I’ve never caught a ban despite being stupid. Remember folks, you can always choose not to post.
Yeah, I come to Hexbear to get away from the drama and bullshit of the rest of the internet
That’s like going to a metro station to avoid public transport
But you can’t make me not post.
you’re goddamn right comrade. except in the comms i moderate
Ban them as a bit
Hexbear bore
“Do you disagree?”
“Its what the union members wanted!”
Nope… wait… wrong thread.
The origin of this thread was that the D*stiny subreddit had suspected that Hasan Piker had gone on a date with Paris Jackson, Michael Jackson’s daughter. LiberalSocialist often reposted threads from the D*stiny subreddit. LiberalSocialist was a very obvious wrecker from the start.
Paris Jackson was 19, almost 20 at the time. Hasan Piker was 26. Paris Jackson was also incredibly wealthy at the time. This was before Hasan had money or fame, it was before he even started his twitch channel. If there was any power dynamic in this situation, it was the multimillionaire heiress who had the power. I don’t think a romance was ever even confirmed. Also I think they are still friends who keep in touch.
https://nitter.poast.org/ParisJacksonMX/status/949823837335531522
Jaysus wept… a coupled piked heads from @LiberalSocialist@hexbear.net to @Pluto@hexbear.net…
Now, I’m gonna check their ban logs…
Oh, Pluto finally got banned? What was the final straw?
Shitstirring… see his modlog, specifically on his askchapo post about Gaddafi…
Could never tell if that person was doing a bit or not. His posts always seemed like he was trying to troll, but he would always double down in a way that really didn’t come across as a joke.
I think he was serious…
.
Edit: @asante@hexbear.net wrote about this
check the modlog (there are 7 pages dedicated to him). but basically:
- kept being sectarian (expressing his dislike of Maoists, anarchists, etc.)
- kept posting and commenting in the wrong places (i’d say half of his modlog is just this)
- would crosspost to 10+ communities for every post
- seems to have instigated a lot of the arguments he had here
- was temp/perma banned many times (on different instances too) for all these reasons but despite apologising didn’t change his ways
- and may have doxxed someone (check the modlog for this, a mod called him out on it)
but my impression of Pluto was initially positive too. feels weird seeing a fairly prominent Hexbear user be permanently banned, but wow he sounds like a lot for the mods to deal with and banning him seems more than justifiable to me now.
edit: doxxing point from here
They were also the reason why the news com added a new rule.
The “-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban–”
As I said, heterosexuality is unavoidable and even necessary to an extent. I’m not against it in principle.
based???
I’m a liberal socialist, not a fascist.
man this guy rocks why’d he get banned anyways?
Dating at any age is weird and creepy. Keep your vital essences to yourself at all times.
thank you, comrade alaskaball.
You said you were against “vibe-based politics” or something but that’s all I have, currently.
truly putting the “liberal” in “liberal socialist”
why did he get banned?
Power dynamics
Power dynamics.
What was the actual final straw for their permaban? I dont remember
Pretty sure it was for defending AOC’s support of a strikebreaking bill or getting too sectarian (or both)
She’s doing what the unions want. Do you disagree?
deleted by creator
Neither, really. They were banned for “sustained hostility,” a fair bit after that big thread where they got dogpiled. They got into the mindset of “me against the site” and got really combative over every little thing, always looking to pick fights and push contentious angles. I had a bit more sympathy for them than most, but at a certain point getting them off the site was probably better for them.
The final straw was that they started going around saying stuff like: “he/him, man detected, opinion discarded,” but it was really more about the sustained hostility.
Liberalsocialist was only doing what the unions wanted them to do.
LiberalSocialist wasn’t perfect but they are the harm reduction lesser evil
Do you disagree?
Do you disagree?
deleted by creator
That was like that persons least bad take why does everyone focus on it so much?
The comment pasting of “Power dynamics” probably
They always spam the same phrases on every thread though it was their thing
Because they would get one hundred hexbears responding to their troll comments and they didn’t want to let them have the last word, but also didn’t want to take the time to write a response to each
I feel like a complete idiot for actually trying to give an honest answer about how you can disagree with something morally, but that doesn’t mean that it must be illegal or punished by the state.
I agree with this in a vacuum but I find this position odd in the specific context of the topic at hand. The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
I don’t really see any downsides to raising the age of consent if this is actually true. The only retort I’ve heard is that raising the AOC could be weaponized against queer youth, but couldn’t that be said of the current AOC? Weaponizing the AOC against queers under 17, acceptable, weaponizing it against early 20s queers crosses a line! Also I think there’s ways of preventing that which don’t involve NOT having an AOC so we could just raise it and do those things.
Mind you I’m not advocating for raising the AOC here I’m just saying if you think 18-22/3/4 year olds aren’t REAL adults and having sex with them is borderline pedophilia, then it’s weird not to take the next logical step and make it legally pedophilia.
The answer is that consent isn’t a binary, it’s actually a complex gradient. We all acknowledge this when we talk about power dynamics involved, we are talking about a sort of half-consent.
Marxists also acknowledge consent in things like work and economy is not binary. The Libertarians who are obsessed with contracts and voluntarism believe there is a clear binary of consent, where if you sign a contract you agree to everything. They ignore the complex gradient of coercion that comes into play from desperation for employment, desperation for housing, corporate domination of the legal system, etc.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
So to function, we have to sort of have a line we draw in the sand where we say consent in binary. Otherwise the state could not function and would be overwhelmed by this complexity and scale (hundreds of millions of relationships to review).
Okay you make some good points here. I still think an argument could be made that the “line in the sand” should be moved upwards a bit could be made and I find it weird more aren’t making it in this whole age gap discourse.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
Bit idea: SciFi future where and AI tells you who you can and can’t bone based on a complex algorithm to assess power dynamics.
Yes, to be clear to my point so it’s understood where I am coming from, a Marxist feminist critique of the concept of consent, I believe in cases of doubt we should round down, not round up, so to speak. If consent in dubious, we should err on the safe side I believe and discourage such relationships. Whereas a Libertarian-minded person with a binary concept of consent would believe in assuming consent is present unless explicit non-consent was stated.
The most truly correct thing to do would be to have less severe punishments for more minor issues, and more severe punishments for more severe issues, taking into account all these factors. Unfortunately, that’s not really feasible for a legal system of a government to do.
Applying to the bureau for a dating license after they analyze our current relationship parameters.
The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
Because I obviously don’t think that, and I was trying to explain it to them from their perspective.
Okay but I think liberal socialist did think that way.
For example: cigarettes
I hate them, hate their smell, hate being around people who smoke, will never smoke myself and think they are killing people
I still don’t think they should be banned
Other examples would be interpersonal lying and cheating on your partner. Both are immoral, both should not be enforced by the state.
I think they should be banned. They are quite literally cancer sticks.
So what do we do with the people who deal in black markets for them and continue to smoke? What do we do with the illegal sellers and distributors and dealers of tobacco?
Either you give them ineffectual slaps on the wrist and we have a thriving unregulated black market, or you crack down hard and throw them in jail and we have expanded our carceral prison state with more poor addicts and made more criminals and handed a massive market over to the cartels and gangs.
deleted by creator
Give everyone zyns.
prohibiting substances does not have a great track record in terms of either effectiveness or collateral damage
I’ve got a lot of favorite awful threads, but this (power dynamics thread) is very near the top of the list.
i said it then and I’ll say it now: this was one of the few good LiberalSocialist takes. I don’t know about should never, but such a relationship will always have me raising my eyebrows
