to apply adequate pushback to erroneous understandings of the world. the goal isn’t to convince the interlocutor. it’s to encourage the people reading to investigate the topic. on many of the topics in question, the history and ideologies involved take entire books to deconstruct - doing so in an internet comment is extraordinarily difficult. the people we’re talking to don’t even agree with us on the meanings of basic words - there’s not even a basis for debate. because such debate is so unproductive, the aggressive tone encourages many people to stop and ask more serious questions. this undoubtedly works because so many of the posters on hexbear responded in exactly that way here or on reddit at some point in the past. and when they asked those questions, they got detailed answers, including links to sources so they could investigate for themselves. in actual fact, many of the people on hexbear received exactly the kind of aggressive pushback you’re decrying and ended up eventually convinced that our viewpoint had something to offer.

Maybe at one point but if recent events are of any indication that is hardly true anymore. The reason these defederation threads prop up if your aggressive presentation made people inquisitive. It's an indication that people respond negatively to such behavior. And I'm inclined to believe people respond more negatively than positively because the responses I've seen about subject I know about have been less about making people inquisitive and more about just throwing in their face that they don't understand something the same way you do without explaining anything.

lastly, civility is not an unmitigated good unto itself. civility is the false peace – it masks tensions, pretending they don’t exist. real peace is not civility – it’s a state in which tensions are brought to the fore so they can actually be resolved. civility is a white, middle class sensibility – our world is incredibly fucked up and the people affected by it do not owe anyone that masking of the horrors of our world.

I disagree. Yes, there's no space for niceness as you need to be ready for conflict to test your ideas and beliefs. But it doesn't mean we should completely disregard civility. Are you really going to take me seriously if I call you shitstain in this post, bitch lover the next, steamy turd the next etc? I know I wouldn't take anything you say seriously if you came with such disrespect. Similarly I have no problem trolling the living shit out of you, but that already means I have zero respect for you or your beliefs and nothing you say or do will even get true critical examination, outside of how to better troll back. I could easily derail this discussion, drag you down into shit slinging contest and then sling shit until you stop responding but that's pretty far from civil discourse and not at all constructive. Discourse needs to have some mutual respect and if none is given then none is received, which means the discussion will go nowhere. The world is fucked but slinging shit between eachother doesn't really unfuck the world.

nor do we owe anyone an education they will neither ask for nor appreciate

And this is probably where we completely disagree. Your stance is that nobody asks or appreciates it so we shouldn't give it unless they really ask. I believe we should give it regardless because it's still a chance for them to open up to something new. I would've never familiarized myself with Das Kapital if not for someone else explaining to me that Marxist understanding of "capital" is not the same as "capital" taught to you in school. Had someone told me "How did they get the fucking money mf?" I would probably still believe capitalism is not that bad. Explaining socialism to someone who won't listen doesn't take a piece out of me, so why should I act like it does? To me it's a net positive. If someone listens and becomes a socialist that's good and if someone doesn't listen then really nothing actually bad happens because as you said, the world is fucked regardless.