That shit with _crypt.

Well first of all, I think that characterizing what someone else said as me saying “heinous shit” is showing bad faith. I won’t get into an argument on what someone else said and meant, but I’ll only say that 1. you’re mischaracterizing their position to make it sound much worse and 2. this is about shit that happened ~100 years ago. 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, but then get all upset when an anarchist doesn’t show the right amount of respect to USSR soldiers. You can’t have it both ways.

My point wasn’t that you should do everything that I did. My point was that you are basically being a contrarian throwing a fit for years on end[…]

And this again, shows bad faith on your end. Me being “a contrarian” is just being being consistent for the past 20 years. Me “throwing a fit” is me pointing out the bad faith and attempts at bullying directed at me whenever they happen. I literally avoid going out of my way to interact with hexbears, especially politically, because I’ve found it impossible to have a good faith discussion. You can’t plead for a good faith interaction, and then just paint me so uncharitably while you’re doing it.

I’m not asking about what someone must do, I’m talking about what someone should do.

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. I don’t think you’re trying to deliberately do a “sleight-of-hand” either, but you also can’t bristle at someone reacting defensively to you implying they’re acting less ethically than you are. The point of my statement was to dismiss you ethical statement. No, someone shouldn’t always do what you did, because material reality prohibits most people from doing it. 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.

You should have some standards for yourself, and shit-flinging about le tankies is not enough to say you have a serious political attitude.

Does that only apply to MLs, or to all other political positions as well? (i.e. can I shit-fling at libs without being labeled unserious?) If the former, who determines which political position deserves unconditional respect in order to signify a “serious political attitude”?

What I am talking about here is how people can, based on being more consistent with their own political ideologies (and not just personal drama contrarianism) seek a better outcome for everyone involved, even if what you should do is not exactly what I did. If that’s too much for you, why are you talking about revolutionary organizing?

First of all, I think that if you’re seriously committed in having a good faith discussion you need to get out of the condescending frame-of-mind where you constantly belittle me as a “drama contrarian”. It is not conductive to your stated reason for interacting with me.

That being said, I reject the idea that the right course of action is always to reach across, like a new Jesus, regardless of how many times you get slapped in the face while doing so. I also reject that it is stepping stone for revolutionary organizing. Like most other anarchists I believe in plurality of action. Some of us will be better at mending bridges and converting others. Some of us won’t, but will be good at other things. I happen to be able to do both, but only when in the right frame of mind and material situation. I personally don’t put a lot of weight in online discourse for achieving “revolutionary organizing” as I find that the true radicalization happens in real life experiences. I.e. people get radicalized through direct action for mutual aid, not online arguments.

That is to say, I don’t feel guilty for trolling people when they’re trying to act like dicks online, even when people like you claim I should have risen above this. You may disagree with me on that, but I haven’t seen a convincing argument otherwise.

“Caution” and “antagonism” are not the same thing

I think you and other MLs seriously need to take a step back and realize that not everything is about you. Me posting a meme in an anarchist comm about historical grievances isn’t trying to “antagonize” you. MLs don’t actually need to go on into anarchist spaces to start flamewars due to memes, nor do they need to take everything so fucking seriously. I guarantee the impact of that meme on people’s opinion of MLs will be much lower than a 1000-comment bullying pile-on.

From my perspective, posting a meme about historical grievances, or about the failings of state-socialism is a form of caution. I am trying to caution people to criticize ML ideology and its results. Sure it can be seen as antagonizing, but only if one always assumes they’re the main char and that a meme inside an anarchist comm is directed at them directly.

Which leads me to the following:

but you’re glossing over where I pointed out that it would need to be mutual with HB laying off you and that I would advocate to them on your behalf in the interest of normalizing relations. I’m literally already acknowledging that there is a side here attacking you and they also would need to stop, so it’s silly to just pretend that I’m telling you to unilaterally get in line and take it on the chin.

You’re conflating two very different things. There’s a very large difference between attacking a person and attacking an ideology. Hexbears have a habit of taking criticism of ML ideology or practice, as a personal affront to themselves, therefore seeing criticism of their ideology, as a personal attack. To date (iirc), I’ve never personally attacked a single ML person for their ML takes, in all my posts. Likewise, hexbears never criticize anarchism itself, they only attack people directly for expressing takes they don’t like.

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.

I’m completely serious about this and I’m confident that I could enlist a few other people (who are more respected on HB than I am) to help me make the case to the community. In fact, I think an important element would be discussing with you what you think fair terms are and what other parties think fair terms are and trying to come to an agreement on that basis.

I applaud your aims even if I am disbelieving about your potential to herd these cats. I appreciate being able to discuss in what appears to be good faith, because until now such attempts have been thrown back in my face (which is why I permanently have “shields up” when discussing with hexbears.)

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’m not someone who holds grudges, but I’m also not one to “turn the other cheek” either, that is to say, I can easily adjust to whatever vibes come from hexbears whether good or bad.

On the other hand what part of the anarchist flotilla do you think is problematic and should stop?