Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as "The Adjuster."
In the day or so since the alleged shooter's identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a "typical" American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society 
, but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as "nothing malicious," by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We're going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to "propaganda of the deed" may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
Also, I should have called out this wording earlier but I was trying to wind down the conversation, not get deeper into it:
That wording, “writing an essay about how he is actually bad and wrong,” kinda treats the whole thing like a big joke. Why? The guy retweeted a post mocking trans people. It almost feels like you’re rolling your eyes at the idea that we need to disavow that here, on a site where half of us are trans or nonbinary.
That kind of ambiguity is why the mods are taking the stance they’re taking.
It doesn't at all treat it as a joke. It points out the absurdity of having to prove your ideological bona fides every time you want to post a meme.
Once again, not at all. We should and do disavow his transphobia. I certainly do as a non binary person. I take transphobia extremely seriously, partly because I have no choice not to. However we are still capable of praising him for what he did, as we should in my opinion (though I'd never punish people for not doing so while it seems there are at least a few here want to punish me for doing so). There are actually many people in this world who are, sadly, surely transphobic, but still get my critical support. While Luigi is absolutely not the same as the Iranian state, the following analogy fits because your implication that I should not have the right to praise him reeks of liberals telling me I don't have the right to praise Iran, seeing as they are misogynists and more. It is here that I often explain to them the meaning of critical support. I wouldn't have thought that necessary to do on hexbear. And please don't be like that wrecker who got banned or the other people just trying to win a bad argument by saying "but but Iran is a totally different thing than some guy doing an adventurism! (no shit?) How dare you even talk about them in the same sentence!" and intentionally missing the point. Which is that the concept of critical support is widely applicable, as it clearly applies in both situations.
That kind of ambiguity does nothing to make me feel safer. I wasn't even sure I wanted to come right out and announce to people on this site I'm nonbinary (not because there aren't awesome NB and trans people here, just because I don't want that used against me at some point by wreckers or fascists from federated instances). I also know my experience doesn't apply to all non binary people, but especially if you aren't trans or NB, don't use us to try to score points. I also wouldn't say I feel "unsafe" by mods making this rule, but I certainly feel unwelcome because of it. I certainly feel like the overreach is real and obvious, and I've already given a big example of a well-reasoned and very thought out comment by a trans woman whose comment got removed for bogus reasoning. That doesn't make me feel safer here as a queer person, it makes me feel like people here will use me as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway, something I'm painfully familiar with.
Until you responded, I wasn’t sure, we’ve never spoken before, which was what I meant by “that kind of ambiguity”—the ambiguity of whether someone lionizing Luigi on hexbear knows about his transphobia and just doesn’t care.