lmao couldn't be more obvious

Grats lemm.ee! Just gotta pump those numbers up and pass lemmy.world now

Someone paying $800 a month for their rent is gonna have paid $470,400 by the time they retire. That's like two fucking mortgages for the "service" of not being homeless.

It's just restructured feudalism at this point. We've abstracted away the direct relationship between landlord and serf, but over half our labor is still going to some third party doing none of the work.

I'm sure there's probably a few Hexbear users that think that, but as far as I can tell it's the minority. Maybe I'm wrong

In any case, there's a lot of us who prefer to interact in good faith. Personally that's why I left Reddit years ago, because people there are too at each other's throats instead of interested in finding common ground and developing ideas.

Personally I just think your distinctions are a bit idealistic. Maybe useful as abstract definitions, but too removed from real world economics to make strong statements about it.

For example, a regulated market economy is kind of the natural state of capitalism, unless perhaps you zoom in on single transactions. As capitalism was struggling to emerge out of feudalism, the newly emerging capitalist class had to contend with governmental entities that arose out of feudal economic relations (and thus were geared towards protecting the power and wealth of the landlord class against the peasant class). In that struggle, as the capitalist class gained dominance, they tended to enact laws that protected their interests against both the old landlord class as well as the new working class.

In regards to central planning, that's a tendency of complex economies to drift towards for a variety of reasons. Capitalism tends towards monopoly (because monopoly is the most profitable state an enterprise can strive towards), and in later stages of monopolization, the economy is de facto, if not de jure, a centrally planned economy. ln the US, a large amount of our industry and distribution is centrally planned by corporations like Amazon and Walmart, large agriculture corporations, etc. And I imagine companies are going to continue to consolidate.

The big problem is this central planning is done without our or society's best interests in mind, their primary purpose is to benefit the company's shareholders. What some of us theorize is that once it reaches a point of consolidation, that infrastructure can then be seized, and systems can be set up such that the efficiency and whatnot is preserved, but the purpose is changed to benefit everyone (as much as possible) instead of a small number of shareholders. That's very theoretical and general, of course. The specifics and nuances will depend a lot on the specific conditions we live in.

From a materialist lense, middle class usually refers to the small business owners, landlords, etc. Petty bourgeoisie basically. They historically tend to welcome fascist ideology out of fear of losing their privileged position in society.

So there's a difference between the working person who might get caught in a false consciousness versus the tenuously well-off person who's somewhat class conscious. The latter is likely a lost cause more often than not. The former can often be reasoned with if we can speak to their experiences as a worker and cut through the spectacle.

But yeah the Liberal use of the term "middle class" as someone occupying arbitrary income brackets is an immaterial abstraction with very little utility for either prediction or description.

Damn wonder how big that is on other instances

I don't really want to relitigate your experiences and these issues in this thread (especially because I'm a visitor on lemm.ee), so I'll try to be succinct. But I'm happy to continue elsewhere if you want.

What we mean by "broad tent" or nonsectarian is that diverse opinions aren't explicitly banned or removed (as long as they aren't pro western imperialism or anti LGBTQ+). That means shitflinging and low effort sectarianism (ideally) isn't allowed. It doesn't mean people aren't allowed to voice disagreement about ideologies and geopolitics. And since we don't have downvotes, we aren't afraid to voice disagreement, unlike Reddit where you just anonymously downvote and move on. This difference is certainly a culture shock at first, but I've come to prefer it. Even if everyone else disagrees with you, you still have a voice, rather than getting buried in downvotes and hidden.

As much as our users call people liberals derogatorily, in equal amounts we get called bots and shills and tankies (which is especially funny when directed at our anarchist users). I'd personally rather name calling be avoided in favor of good faith discussion, but it's difficult to assume good faith on the internet.

Hexbear has been around for three years, all the while dealing with a constant stream of bad faith wreckers and doxxers from 4chan and the like. Ultimately our goal is to foster a broad-tent leftist culture, with primary focus on LGBTQ+ and anti-US-imperialism. Within those two focuses we have a wide range of leftist tendencies, from anarchist (syndicalist, ancom, etc) to Marxist (trotskyist, leftcom, ML, etc). We, I personally, see good-faith disagreement as tremendously valuable and necessary for growth of ideas. We do our best to discourage sectarianism (within the bounds of anti-imperialist, pro-LGBTQ+ leftism) while encouraging discussion.

I really dislike the idea of defederating for difference in political opinions. That kind of thing merely recreats the kind of echo chambers found on corporate social media. I believe Lemmy has potential to be better than that. Differences in philosophy and politics and culture should be moderated at the community and personal level rather than broadly sweeping instance blocks. This leaves the agency up to communities to set rules and define their cultures, banning people as needed at this level rather than simply cutting off entire communities. It also gives users the agency to choose whether to block instances, communities, or users they'd rather not interact with (instance blocking on a user level is coming soon I believe).

The other reasons people give for defederating us (although I believe politics is primary) are spamming and brigading. The former is due to: the oversized emoji bug in Lemmy (we're sorry for this, on our side the emojis are normal sized so we don't even realize they're spamming) as well as the novelty of federation and lack of clear delineation between local and federated posts. The emoji bug will be fixed, and in the mean time we're on notice to try and avoid using them while on other instances. The novelty will quickly wear off. As for delineation between local and federated, this is a mistake that's gone both ways: lemm.ee users stumbling upon a hexbear post and not understanding why they're being responded to differently, as well as hexbear users stumbling upon a lemm.ee post and commenting/meming as if they're on their home turf. In either case, the rules of the given instance and community should be followed and enforced through bans rather than defederation, and ideally there'd be some CSS to make it obvious when someone's on another instance to make it easier to follow said rules. Defederating because of this happening would be like a person on Reddit posting their /r/NSFW stuff on /r/awww by mistake, and /r/awww unilaterally blocking all /r/NSFW users, as if there's no overlapping userbase.

As for brigading, by and large I think people are overreacting because they're used to the walled garden Reddit has become in its profit-seeking attempts to ban wrongthink. Keep in mind that Hexbear users have no ability to downvote (literally removed from the site for other reasons a while ago), so at most a "brigade" (or most often simply seeing a post on our front page) will be a bunch of (soon-to-be normal-sized) emojis and opinions you may disagree with. If a user is breaking a comm or instance rule they can be banned. If they're engaging in bad faith or spamming they can be blocked. Hell, even if they're engaging in good faith they can be blocked if a person simply doesn't want to see takes they disagree with. But ultimately it seems like a non-issue to me. Allow those of us that want to engage with diverse opinions to do so, and allow the rest to block as they see fit.