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.
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.
Except that it very much is. How can you not see that?
These gleeful comments are very much what? Celebrating violence, as you originally said? If so, sure. However, celebrating violence is not against the rules. Go to any Ukrainian-on-Russian drone strike video and you'll find plenty of people celebrating death. What is against the rules is making threats or calling people to violent action against another. These are very much not the same thing. In the insurace CEO thread, the overwhelming majority of removed comments were not making threats or trying to incite more violence.
Celebrating violence is a method used to call for more violence. And the reason the war isn't heavily moderated is because it's a war. It's already at the worst state, and further violence is a foregone conclusion. That's a massive difference to celebrating a murder. Being popular doesn't mean it's okay suddenly.
I expected empire apologia in your comment history, and you delivered. Classic.
Oh god you made me snort.
Class war is a war too, and it's not one that we the people started. Condemning the CEO's death is saying that he should've been allowed to keep killing millions of more people through coverage denial, a form of social murder that ends their lives prematurely the exact same as gunning them down. Further violence is just as much a forgone conclusion, it's just a question of whether it will be resisted or left unchecked.
Class war being an actual hot war is both highly debatable and highly inflammatory. It's a fringe ideology of an already minority ideology. Expecting that to be a moderating standard on one of the largest Lemmy Instances is ridiculous at best.
It's not really about ideology, it's reality. People are being killed every day by people like Brian Thompson. If you actually cared, it's pretty easy to find countless stories of people losing loved ones because their insurance company sacrificed their lives for profit. Nobody really pays attention to those stories though, because the violence is so common, frequent, and normalized that we've become desensitized to it. In contrast, when violence happens in the reverse direction, in a highly contained retaliatory strike against one of the people most responsible, it's shocking precisely because it's so rare, because our side is so much more peaceful and restrained than theirs.
But whether for good or ill, as long as the system keeps backing people against the wall, more of this will happen. It's inevitable, you can't expect people to just accept it as conditions get harsher and more and more intolerable. If you commit social murder, you're putting your own life on the line.
I don't really see what's debatable or ideological about that. When people get fucked over, they will fight back.
As you go on to talk about the ideology.
I'm not really sure what you think is ideological about it. Is it ideological to say that people are being denied coverage? Is is ideological to say that some of the people denied coverage will die because of it? Is it ideological to say that when one group of people causes a second group of people to die, the second group tends to fight back? Because all three of those statements seem like pretty objective facts to me.
You can try to be reductive about your own ideology to be disingneous but it's still an ideology.
Well, if acknowledging objectively correct things means that you subscribe to a particular ideology, then what does that say about that ideology? 🤔
That's the problem though isn't it? It's only objectively correct to people who believe in that ideology.
Is it? Which of the three things I said is not objectively correct?
So gonna be a bootlicker... Weird time to expose it lol
There's still a clear distinction between celebrating violence and calling for further violence.
You're making a leap between the two.
They are explicitly and literally not the same thing, even if celebrating can be, and often is, used as part of a call for more.
Every cat is an animal, but not every animal is a cat.
The problem is you guys want to lawyer this like it's legislation. You're not wrong about the dictionary definitions. You are however absolutely wrong about how the English language is used and how violence is propagated.
This how the general population feels... Cope dear
No this is how the echo chamber feels.
don't worry plebs will start doing politics circle jerk within few days as elites prefer haha
let the pedons enjoy a lil W v the regime and their whores, jfc, so stiff
The person is no longer liing so you cannot call for violance aganst a living person for expressing glee to them
I also feel like wanting death to IDK the bacteria that causes the plague, or taberculousis, should not be a banable office but that is a bannable creature
also does wanting a hamburger count as calling for violace aganst a cow... a living creature?
Not only does what the banns are for not break the rule, but the rule is so broad as to be useless and cripple most conversations
And now you're being absurd.
ok so lets look at his the tos is "We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature." is that correct. so if something is already dead, like a porkchop, we can both agree that I can threaten a porkchop because it is already dead and so not living. This would be the same as a corpse, a corpse is no longer a living thing, so cheering a death AFTER someone died it is not advocating violance to a living creature its a dead creature. There is nothing incorrect or absurd in that statement
now lets look at it agian "We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature." Well, Mosquitos, Bacteria, plants, funguses, are all "living creatures" so I ask in ernistness does using anti-biotics not technicaly qualify as violance on a living creature? what about the Eradication of the guinnie worm? wanting to harvist a field? all of them are violance on living creatures, is this an unorthodox take yes, but it is not abserd, it is simular to the Jade view, and it is consistent with the rules you have set forth.
You cannot argue that an interpretation you do not like is abserd, you can say that is not the interpritation that the mod team follows, thats fine, I already have issues with your moderation policies but that is fair, but to say that following your rules to the letter but not nessicarily the spirit is abserd, that is just bad rule writing.