Ok, on a thread about how psychiatric hospitals are getting gobbled up by private equity, and treatment standards are plummetting, I say, that if you actually wanna stop this, you have to overthrow the government and abolish corporations, otherwise, you’re complicit.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to get into a discussion about tacit vs explicit consent to be governed, or anything like that.
Here’s the post url again:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/46618629
But uh, yeah, jawbone all you like, don’t change nothin’ in a fascist state.
So, then after a brief exchange, where I remind pele that his retort he tried on me last time I said something like that of ‘Where are you from / You’re not American’, I remind him of the last time we danced that dance.
Here’s that older exchange, for context:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/45775934/20923933
He then thanks me for that reminder, deletes my original comment, bans me from his comm.
Problem: He banned me for “rule 5, promoting violence”.
Here’s rule 5 on the sidebar:
Here’s the instance rules:
Nothing about advocating violence.
I would also go so far as to say that uh, he intervened and made an uncivil comment.
… Am I… missing some hidden rules… somewhere?
Also… did I explicitly promote violence?
By saying:
“Overthrow the government. Abolish corporations.”
???
Is it impossible to do many nonviolent things to pressure a regime to change, a major policy to be reworked, with a sufficient amount of people?
Anyway, yep, there we go, I submit this to the evaluation of fellow m@teys and any other interested passersby.
bonus
pele, if you show up here, I Iiterally do not care what you have to say, I have blocked you to improve my lemmy experience.
Oh you don’t wanna do that? You’re complicit.
Libs don’t want to accept this- painting it as an uncivil attack relieves them of the cognitive dissonance such thoughts cause them. Banning someone to resolve your own insecurity is obv PTB territory
I do feel like you should know better than to say that, unprompted, directly to a lib mod tho, so it’s at least a little bit BPR imo
… That seems fair.
In a tepid half defense of BPR: I didn’t realize I was in pele’s comm, that he moderates.
I… didn’t realize he was a mod untill he banned me.
I don’t have the best eyes, and I lost my glasses a while back… I just saw his name in blue, figured that meant he was the OP or it was his lemmy birthday,.not the mod.
I don’t really have a filter, I tend to just be me, and then some people have problems with this, and apparently, sometimes they are mods and I am in their comm.
So… oops, on that front, but I also don’t care to self censor for… anyone, really.
Like I said, tepid, half defense, haha.
‘Surviving within a context means you are personally at fault.’
‘Damn, why don’t these stupid powerless libs we blame for everything rush to the ideology we take for granted? We’re on their side!’
We’re on their side!’
Sorry, was all that talk about class just roleplay?
Pretty sure it’s more the ‘or you’re complicit.’ Eye-rolling behavior. Even in the rare cases where it’s justifiable - not this one - that rhetoric does not work. If you give a shit about the impact your words have on people, you have to not do that.
In context, you said, if you don’t help me attack the people in power, you are among the people who must be attacked. I can see a moderator weighing the letter of the rules versus the spirit of the rules, at length, and finally sighing and clicking ‘I don’t want to deal with this.’ It shouldn’t be permanent because almost no bans should be permanent. But ‘take up arms or you’re a Nazi’ is big talk crossing any unwritten “come the fuck on” rule.
Unwritten rules are fine. This isn’t a court of law. It’s an internet forum. The whole reason we have human moderators, and care who they are, is because rigidly defining shitty behavior is fundamentally impossible. See any community that’s fallen for the cult of civility. Some places think being a polite Nazi is fine, but ‘fuck off, Nazi’ is intolerant and intolerable. Reasonable moderation requires reasonable moderators… reasoning about things. Any form of ‘you’re with me or you’re with the devil!’ can make them go, ugh, next.
In context, you said, if you don’t help me attack the people in power, you are among the people who must be attacked.
Nope.
You are reading in hostility and violence where there is none.
I am just as complicit as anyone else not doing everything they can to overturn or at least greatly modify a system.
You are right though, that I don’t give a shit about you or anyone elses insecurities more than any other particular person.
Everyone has them.
Most people just aren’t very honest about them.
And then they read in hostility into what could be read as simply criticism, with no intent to cause personal harm behind it.
I will again note that I did not explicity call for any violence.
I did not call for anyone, any person, to be attacked.
You just read that in, made up some context in your head, assumed it was in the text.
It wasn’t.
Just like I did not say ‘if you are not with me, you are the devil.’
Like I said earlier… I am just as complicit as probably everyone else reading this.
I am just more aware that I am complict, have accepted that I am, and am trying to spread this awareness to others.
I do not think I, or anyone else, is ‘the devil’.
However, in my view, if you cannot accept your complicity, if a community can’t… then they are in the cult of civility, as you put it.
Polite Nazis, as you put it.
Or at the very least, people who are polite to Nazis.
I will again note that I did not explicity call for any violence.
Explicitly.
I can commit outright felonies, stating my sincere opinions, without explicitly calling for violence.
People inferring meaning from the things you write is not some failure of honest comprehension. It’s a necessary skill we bring to every online interaction. And it’s not some “resting bitch font” situation, where a completely innocuous statement was twisted beyond recognition; you called people complicit for not overthrowing the government.
Complicit. Guilty. Criminal. Directly to blame for the worst abuses of a system clearly gone pear-shaped, because they don’t agree with your exact solution to the problems they plainly oppose.
You are calling people polite Nazis for not being 100.0% onboard with your specific political beliefs. Fuck off, guy. Regardless of what those beliefs are.
And it’s not some “resting bitch font” situation, where a completely innocuous statement was twisted beyond recognition
resting bitch font, I’m dyin 🤣
Came to mind after this baffling exchange.
A dozen people had incompatible takes somehow agreeing I was an absolute bastard. ‘Don’t sneer about them being wrong!’ I was agreeing with them. ‘They refuted your argument!’ They were agreeing with me. ‘Be polite, not snide!’ I thanked them? ‘You’re so mad at them!’ Never.
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
No no, I am calling you a polite nazi.
Because of what you have said here.
See how thats the immediate context of the conversation, where we can actually use that contexr to be extremely precise?
Well, apparently not, you seem to meld together concepts of the individual, the group and the member, you don’t seem to be able to hold them in your mind simultaneously yet also seperately.
Which possibly suggests you are highly emotional right now. That and your use of expletives.
Anyway, if uh, you think I made some kind of terroristic threat, well, I guess go for it right? Report me.
It might work, in this current fascist climate where actual objective rules don’t matter.
Then you win, right?
All the violence of the state comes down on me for offending you.
But normally… no, it wouldn’t qualify.
No specfic or even really discernible group target, no threatened action, thus no reasonably resulting significant damages.
Its too vague.
Oh also it by no means at all comes close to the threshold of a ‘credible’ threat. That one has a bit higher bar to clear, you’d have to have a way of indicating I have some kind of actionable plan, intent to carry it out, and capability to carry it out.
I have none of those.
But hey, your personal slapdash guesstimate is the same thing as you knowing what you’re talking about, right?
You just make up the details of the scenario in your head so that you are right.
Again, like a fascist, an overly emotional bully.
Finally, just so we are clear here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicit
com·plic·it
helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way
See that or in the middle of the sentence?
Yeah, complicit has a more colloquial usage and meaning, its not soley a legal term.
But it is telling that the legalistic interpretation is the one that you jumped to, and the only one you can hold in your mind at any given time.
Oh
my
god
it is
so tedious
to read your ‘well no but yes’
crap.
Oh sorry, casual use of expletives means I’m being emotional and unreasonable, and therefore wrong. Says guy comparing everyone who disagrees with him to Nazis. And chest-beating for consequence, as if getting banned from a website is the same as being sent to the camps. Quoting Webster without a fucking drop of irony, like I don’t know what complicit means, in the multiple synonyms-- nope.
Goodbye.
Bye!
The broader meaning of their rule 5 of “be good to each other” and your comments make me think YDI.
Saying “but it doesn’t say violence is against the rules” has the same energy as if you put a finger in front of their face and saying “I’m not touching you”. You went against the spirit of the rule they banned you for.
Saying “yeah overthrow the government or your complicit” is so hostile to so many people. Even if you’re right you were an asshole.
Overthrowing a government is not necessarily violent.
Do explain. The first thing anyone thinks of with that phrase is armed violent conflict.
Uh nope.
Not me, not others in this thread.
Sounds like a you problem.
You, presuming to speak for apparently, anyone and everyone.
I would provide you with examples of non violent means of resisting a fascist state, but you wouldn’t care, as exemplified by you refusing to look into the extremely relevant historical context I suggested you look into, so that you might understand the very real possibility of a literal genocide against mentally disordered people in a fascist regime.
Yeah, again, because it has nothing to do with this thread. Save your time.
If it’s so relevant, the OP should probably amend his post. It didn’t seem relevant enough to include originally.
Uh huh.
being nice to each other has nothing to do with violence directed at outsiders
How.
“each other” refrences a finite group, in this case everyone in the community. The rule does not apply to people definitively outside the community nor unkindness towards them.
“Be excellent to each other.”
‘So the outgroup has no rights or moral value.’
I wanna throw you a monkey’s paw, then sit back and watch.
It is a wild leap to go from ‘we don’t have to be polite to politicians not present in the discussion’ to ‘kill all the others, they have no rights.’
It’s a wild leap to go from ‘be kind, god dammit’ to ‘only people on this website count.’ Fuck’s sake, the expanded rule makes clear it’s about vast groups. You gotta bend over backwards to insist ‘each other’ only means ‘those present.’
Never talking badly about anyone, anywhere sounds great for oppressors 🤷♂️
I love paws, I hope it’s soft
I strongly disagree.
That rule lists a number of kinds of bigotries, hatreds and cruelties targeting specific groups of people.
Advocating violence is not the same thing as varying kinds of bigotries.
It can be an element of bigotry, but not necessarily.
I believe you’ve made a category error.
Your interpretation of Rule 5 is ‘be good to each other’.
This is an interpretation.
It is not stated.
It would easy to state ‘advocating violence’ as another rule.
Beyond that, supporting a system that fails and harms people, as faceless machine, is not being good to each other.
Me pointing this out is not promoting violence.
I am autistic.
I generally do not read subjective meaning into things where there is no clear context to imply such a meaning.
I read what is written, and what those words mean.
I do not even attempt to follow rules that are not written, are not explicit.
If you think that people such as myself are assholes, and are hostile to so many people for stating objectvely true things, well then I guess you’ll soon not have hear from people like me, as we will all be thrown into those woefully inadequate psychiatric systems.
But that’ll be ok.
Because then you won’t have to hear from with hostile assholes who don’t want to be forcibly traumatized against their wills, and charged for that ‘privelege’.
Or worse.
I would suggest you look up the history of aspergers, autism, and what the Nazis did to people they diagnosed with those.
Ableism. As part of their broader genocide.
I’m not going to go research Nazi and ableism. Its not relevant to your OP, you weren’t banned because of ableism.
I was banned for stating what has to happen to prevent ongoing and worsening ableism.
If you don’t care to learn about why that is the case, that that is what has to happen, then you have no conception of what ableism actually is, as exemplified by the literal Holocaust.
This further solidifies that your idea that ‘I was banned for not being good to other people’ is astonishingly hypocritical, conditional, selective, arbitrary and uninformed at best, outright duplicitous bad faith rhetoric at worse.
You are saying that I am not being ‘good to people’ by suggesting that people do what is historically required to be done avert a eugenics campaign, a genocide, against the mentally disordered… you are saying that is me being ‘not good to people’, by saying that if they do not do this, they are complicit in it.
You have this perfectly inverted, and you refuse to even attempt to learn that is the case.
I was banned for promoting effective anti-ableism, which was misconstrued as promoting violence.
They banned me last week for what I assume was voting and didn’t even include a note 🍻
Blocked and blocked 🧹
You said “overthrow the government.” That is inherently a violent act. You also shifted blame for the actions of said government to anyone not actively partaking in previously the mentioned act. Additionally, “no calls for violence” is generally the kind of thing that shouldn’t need to be explicitly written (a “don’t drink the things you find under the sink” rule), but regardless, would easily be covered by “be excellent.”
A permanent ban may not be called for, but overall, YDI.
So if you’re living under a fascist regime, you claim that saying “overthrow the government” is a violent act and deserves sanction? U for real?
To “overthrow” something has an inherently violent undertone unless you’re talking about literally throwing an object too far. Additionally, most public spaces don’t enjoy being host to calls for violence or calls to bring down governments because things like that can easily result in sanctions against them. Passing blame to the people is also absurd, just as I don’t blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government and I don’t blame all Germans for the actions of the Nazis.
It seems like common sense to me that “Be excellent” would extend to things beyond the immediate list, and “Overthrow your government or you’re a fascist,” is not excellent.
In short, yes, overthrowing a government is inherently violent, no it is not inherently wrong, and yes, I believe it is fair a public space might not want to host that.
A government overthrow is not inherently violent. This is an absurd take. “Violence” is against people not institutions (or windows)!
And no, it’s not fair for a public political space to suppress anti-status-quo political statements.
Imagine living in the times of Nazi Germany, and you’re the clueless monkey who praises newspaper editors taking down articles who claim the Nazi Germany government should probably be overthrown!
You’re kinda glossing over the idea that words have meaning.
You can say overthrow the government and mean it in a hyperbolic way where you are actually saying “organize and vote them out” BUT it also evokes images of violent overthrow.
It is illegal in many places to advocate for that.
Hosting that content in many places can make you responsible for it.
You don’t have to agree but you ought to at least be able to understand.
An institution is made up of people. Regardless of that, violence can target anything. And as far as government overthrow goes, I suppose it doesn’t have to be violent (making my use of “inherently” incorrect, I admit), but the fact is, it usually is, because more often than not, that’s the only realistic option. Stories such as Bolsonaro are uncommon at best, and in the context of the US, functionally impossible at this point.
With regards to “suppressing anti-status-quo political statements,” I’m moreso speaking of a group not large enough to effectively defend itself attempting to insulate itself from potential retaliation.
Edit:
Imagine living in the times of Nazi Germany, and you’re the clueless monkey who praises newspaper editors taking down articles who claim the Nazi Germany government should probably be overthrown!
Nice edit btw. Not shitty at all. The newspaper editors would be killed in the context you propose, which is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not a “monkey praising them” like you said so assholishly, I’m the guy who understands that they’re trying not to get fucking shot in the head.
As of that edit, I’m done speaking to you on this. Goodbye.
An institution is made up of people
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? You’re overthrowing (i.e. changing) the institution, not performing violence against the people in it! This is such an inane take, like saying that them people losing their job as corporate bureaucrats is “violence”.
Regardless of that, violence can target anything.
No, by definition, it targets living beings.
but the fact is, it usually is, because more often than not, that’s the only realistic option.
Now you’re getting close to the truth. Now ask the next question. Who actually initiates violence during government changes…?
The newspaper editors would be killed in the context you propose,
WTF? From where did you pull that shit out? You’re conflating “overthrowing of government” with “kill all politicians”. That speaks more about you, than it does of me.
Also nice dodge in not actually addressing my historical analogy. Just strawman your own where I said something completely different.
Alright, so, you’ve conflicted yourself here, by saying overthrowing a government is the same as firing someone, but then agreeing with me that it’s usually a violent endeavor. This is especially amazing when you compound it with the fact that you claim violence is specific to people. Fun.
Now, moving on…
No, by definition, it targets living beings.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
There is no such clause by definition.
WTF? From where did you pull that shit out?
Why would you bring up Nazis if you clearly know so little about what happened in WW2?
Journalists or editors who failed to follow these instructions could be fired or, if believed to be acting with intent to harm Germany, sent to a concentration camp.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich
Regardless of whether they lived in the German Reich or in the occupied nations, media professionals like Carl von Ossietzky, Milena Jesenská, and Titus Anno Brandsma who were involved in the resistance were often arrested, deported to concentration camps, and mistreated; many of them were killed.
Here’s an article about how they executed an associated press war reporter.
https://niemanreports.org/the-story-behind-the-execution-of-ap-reporter-joseph-morton-during-ww2/
It’s honestly embarrassing that you brought up Nazis but couldn’t even back it without personal attacks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Gerlich
And it’s not a straw man if I’m just bringing up a part of your analogy you didn’t understand.
Alright, so, you’ve conflicted yourself here, by saying overthrowing a government is the same as firing someone, but then agreeing with me that it’s usually a violent endeavor. This is especially amazing when you compound it with the fact that you claim violence is specific to people. Fun.
Not conflicted at all. I know revolutions can often involve violence. I ask you to think who initiates the violence. but you’re not going to do that.
Journalists or editors who failed to follow these instructions could be fired or, if believed to be acting with intent to harm Germany, sent to a concentration camp.
Did I say explicitly about being inside Nazi Germany? No, you just assumed that because you thought you got an easy gotcha and could spam links to seem smart. You’re also massively disingenuous if you think I support the actions of Nazi Germany towards their critics.
But it’s interesting to see you claim that the correct course of action while inside a fascist regime is not to resist it, because it would retaliate violently. You sound like you’d be the perfect collaborator with them.
I overthrew the ball and it went over the backboard.
it’s SJW, the nazi bar. there’s not a whole lot of good that comes out of that instance, and @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works is just more of the same old shit. it’s literally in the name.
As usual, feel free to bring receipts when you make such statements about other instances so that people can have a look
What are you people talking about when you lob that insult?
Well, clearly, he is busy upholding Rule 5:
Don’t be a bigot.
You just have to invent the context in your head to make that make sense that way, and then it does make sense that way!
Ardent leftists making themselves difficult to distinguish from campist tankies.
I don’t care what some liberal who hangs out with nazis thinks.
Never wonder why typical people have no idea what you actually believe.
racist
Leftists are not a race.
idk…
