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:

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.

  • archomrade [he/him]English
    33·
    1 year ago

    I’d argue that landlords of all types are backed by the violence of the state. That a lord or lady doesn’t themselves toss you out and drag you off to jail isn’t really a meaningful distinction to the person being forcibly removed from their home.

    • Firemyth@lemm.eeEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      The funny part is that in one breathe you utter the fallacy to your own argument. Being forcibly removed from whose home again?

      The one you paid the mortgage, down-payment, continuing maintenance, property taxes? Cause if that describes your home- guess what- you are a homeowner and cant be forced out of your home. If that’s not describing the house you are living in… you are a tenant and market conditions dictate what the rent will be. Nobody is going to let to you at a loss.

      So whatever reason you have for not being a homeowner means SOMEONE ELSE has to provide a home for you to live in. Which no one is going to just give you for free.

      • archomrade [he/him]English
        3·
        1 year ago

        Too bad home and house are different words, though I understand they do sound the same.

        • Firemyth@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          So. You just didn’t understand the point that you don’t own it? If you bothered to read I also made the distinction.

          • archomrade [he/him]English
            21·
            1 year ago

            Look, I can tell you’re really trying, you seem really excited. But honestly it feels pointless and a little sad arguing with you. Private and personal ownership are related but different, id maybe start there if you wanted to debate the merits of each.

            I hope you enjoy your time on here still

            • Firemyth@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Yes I’m sure it’s sad- everyone knows I’m right and the point is valid so there’s nothing for you to really debate. Instead you are going to make yourself feel better by acting smugly superior rather than actually addressing the argument itself. Again- yes very sad.

            • JennySmiles@kbin.social
              1·
              1 year ago

              Even Quine, Russel and Asimov wouldn’t talk with them, as they are ignorant and actively anti-intellectual. So I think with more modern conceptions like private and personal properties (even the non-Marxist ones) you make the correct points, but before they are registered they are already strolling around pigeons playing chess.

      • JennySmiles@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Read up on the concepts of ownership, property, belongings, usage etc. you have a French/Roman tradition for millenia which discriminates those rights. That you are uneducated is hardly archomrade’s fault.

        You also ignore the monopoly of violence which is the state’s and of course there is usage of violence even if you argue it is moral or can be legal. To think what legal is moral and what is legal is without violence would support genocides, colonialist murder of millions, their expropriation of land, goods, and children and legitimize atrocities of ultra nationalist governments.

        The argument in short is: To ask yourself what you need to know to understand archomrade’s points.

        • Firemyth@lemm.eeEnglish
          12·
          1 year ago

          Omg. Pseudo-intellect is the worst intellect. The one thing you are right about- there is definitely no point arguing with you. I’d advise making something yourself and then trying to apply your principles when someone tells you what you can and can’t do with it because they believe it’s immoral.