422
I said something along the lines of:
"Wow, I haven't had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while."
Along with
"Nah, the more dead ~~corpos~~ dragons, the better."
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
...
Good ole' civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
A 24 hour temp ban for celebrating violence is actually pretty reserved. Certainly not power tripping.
Counterargument: no.
E: To elaborate, the terms of service say:
"**We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature.**"
Merely expressing glee is not calling for violence or threatening a living creature. Banning someone for a rule they didn't break, for any duration, is overreach.
CEO isn't even living anymore so they're not breaking the rule just based off that.
Denying millions of legitimate claims that directly leads to many people being physically harmed or dying is violence on a large scale. So is lobying the government to keep healthcare in shambles for hundreds of millions of people.
It's a less visible, less gorey form of violence than a gun, but violence that begets mass suffering and death nonetheless.
If you define that as violence then everything is violence and nothing is legitimate. Overly broad definitions meant to paralyze society are a form of violence because people will die if we take no action, but we can't take action because Vent defined that as violence.
100% agree, this is a propaganda tactic used constantly by politicians and the rich and powerful. For example, if one were to broaden the definition of "illegal immigrant" to include more people, then use that definition to incite racism and mass deportation, I would consider that rhetoric a form of violence.
Would a military commander at war be considered non-violent because they only order subordinates to shoot but don't do the shooting themselves? Is the president ordering a nuke non-violent because they don't drop the bomb themselves?
Now, what if someone were to order the denial of life-saving medical care to thousands of civilians that have already paid for it?
When did I say we can't take action against violence, or that violent actions don't sometimes call for violent responses?
That's the joke. If you define violence as broadly as you have then you end up in an ethical trap that has only one exit; violence is moral and I should use it to protect my values before it is used on me.
I simply didn't highlight the exit in my previous comment. But I can see from yours that you've already decided this and decided this excuses people from following any rules about not propagating violence.
na your just committing the absurdist logical fallacy. violence absolutely can be ethical and we're rapid approaching that state in the US.
There's large differences between violence being immoral, having qualified exceptions, and being moral. Most people are in the middle. Every really shitty period of time, like when commoners were being executed en masse in the French Revolution, lives in the violence is moral category. I don't know about you but I'd like to avoid living in a time where my neighbor can report me to the secret police and I get sent to the gulag, or where educated people are rounded up and shot because they "can't be trusted".
That's where celebrating mob violence leads, on the left and right.
uh huh. no one is talking about murdering civvies. we're discussing good trimming the ol' bourgeois stock as its become sick and a danger to us. its good that you're trying to contextualize situations. now all you need to do is contextualize the what people are actually saying vs. what you think they're saying.
Now well, if you are in the bourgeois class. might want to start getting your house in order. start punishing your bad actors appropriately etc.
That's the problem, whenever this happens the definition of "enemy" becomes extremely malleable. And suddenly it's just whoever the mob doesn't like. No matter what class they belong to. The French Revolution killed far more commoners in the Reign of Terror than it did rich folks.
So what you're positively drooling over is just as horrendous as a secret police disappearing enemies of the state.
yes, we all know this. you're not some special snowflake with extra special insights. maybe you should take your reasoning and explain it to the people who are about to get fucked because they're assholes and people are sick of them eh?
Then can we please stop barreling down the road to mob violence?
Nope, thats not how it works. enjoy the ride.
I'm hearing that you believe violence is never moral, correct? Is Ukraine amoral to use violence to stop Russia's invasion?
I never said that so I don't know why you would believe that.
All I'm getting from this is that you're fine with people needlessly dying as long as the death wasn't a direct result of violence.
Of course not. But more death isn't the answer. Because we've seen that route and it doesn't end the cycle. Check out France and Russia. They didn't solve anything with their incredibly violent reprisals against their ruling classes. The only way to end this cycle is to end the existence of a wealthy elite. Which you can do by taking their money away.
What about WWII? The US Revolution? The US civil war? The Haitian Revolution? Is France really worse off now? Ukraine?
Violence / death is very rarely the answer to anything, but it's a cold hard fact that sometimes it is, especially when you start bringing war and revolutions into it, lmao.
"Hand over your money, please!"
To be clear, I'm not advocating for killing anyone in the streets, and vigilante justice like this is not something I'd like to see, but the blanket response of "violence bad" is plain wrong.
The US Revolution wasn't anything like the French and Russian ones. Haiti was but it wasn't Haitians that screwed them over afterwards, it was the US. So maybe they could have been the one time where an orgy of violence worked?
Except you're here defending exactly that.
Based on your arguments here you're basically saying that celebrating (or maybe even even simply not condemning?) this act of violence means that you must tacitly endorse this type of violence, correct? That's a very long bow to draw.
I think most people, myself included, would much prefer a non-violent way to prevent capitalists from profiting directly from the physical and financial misery of sick and dying people. Like maybe some stronger laws, better regulation and enforcement, and active prosecution of non-compliant companies and their bosses, for a start, right? But in the seeming absence of that possibility, why not let folks have their schadenfreude moment in peace?
Personally, for me it's also "important" that this is "celebrating" violence that was successful and is "complete". While I understand wishing Trump dead, the people posting about that after the failed attempt on him were making calls to further violence, which I personally found distasteful.
Because like you said, I feel we should be aiming for a better solution than murders and bloodshed.
But this fucker's dead already. No amount of hand wringing will change that.
Maybe it's shitty or hypocritical of me. I'm not comfortable championing the sharpening of the guillotine until all else has been exhausted, but I'm sure as hell not going to fuss when heads of garbage are rolling across the ground.
I wouldn't say you need to condemn it. But yes. We condemn celebration of violence when we don't agree with it, such as when extremists do a shitty thing and they celebrate. To fail to do so now risks creating more extremists and exposes hypocrisy to ones that already exist, making it extra hard to de-radicalize them.
There's really so many reasons to keep a muted reaction.
24 hours for chearing someone who is responsable for the death of thousands, is not refusing someone life saving medical care not violence? Is this not the paradox of tolarance you folks always harp on about?
I'm sorry but, "come back tomorrow" really doesn't have the dictatorial energy people seem to want it to have.
Look it is not the time, sure the time is reasonable, the issue is what you have chosen to do this over, your reasoning for it, not only has it not technicaly violated the letter of the TOS snippits that have been posted, it is also the moral call, which side are you on, when the CEO who made a fortune by letting others die ... is killed, do you let the people discuss it and cheer the death of someone who caused so much suffering, or do you assist the Capitalist class, and supress that sentiment, YOU have to make the choice.
the issue we have is not its a day, its that you chose to help the capitalists
Do you want a TOS the size of a novel? Because idiotic arguments like this is how you get that. They will pay for a few hours of a lawyer's time to create an honest to god TOS if you force them. The only reason you don't want to see this as a violation is because you agree with the actions.
I mean, are you saying that me following the rule and not the arbitrary spirit of your TOS is a stupid argument, no its not stupid, yes its in grey or bad faith, but its not stupid. Rules should be able to cover atleast grey faith arguments, or atleast attempt to. If your rules can only work if read in good faith, and we can all understand the sperit it is written in they are worthless
🤡