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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
🤡