All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said “death, death to the IDF”.
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (appearing as “acargitz”) pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world had comments removed for being anti-American “(again)”, though I couldn’t see the first time. It’s not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the “DC Comics” removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
But what are your rules? Because they are, comprehensively, not “no violence”.
I mean, it’s right there in the sidebar:
For !world it’s Rule 6:
“Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.”
But your view on laws makes ‘no advocating violence’ really messy.
So what counts? Who and how is it okay to advocate viooence?
So some violence is clearly allowed.
Also, ‘no regarding the mods’. You’re unhinged.
Edit: ‘no advocating violence’ is an extremely radical position, and i think there’s violemce youre choosing to not see. Make it more explicit.
It’s not OK to advocate violence.
Essentially if someone actually acted on a lemmy post and committed murder, manslaughter, assault, arson, etc. etc. all the personal injury felonies? That’s advocating violence.
Cheering on violence commited by other people, all the “That person needs to be Luigi’d” comments, those get removed too.
Celebrating death is advocating violence. Like I said in another comment, that one was super hard to enforce when Kissinger died. I personally loved the “I finally got him!” meme, but it was borderline.
I dont think you understand how radical a position “no advocating for any violence ever” is. It’s one that i, in a variety of pretty radical spaces for my entire adult life, have only ever seen a handful of times, and even fewer from people i took seriously. I do not believe people when they say it, because in the overwhelming amount of cases, they are lying, and mean something else.
You aren’t acknowledging the violence that you endorse in this rule, you’re not counting it as violence, but the reader, who will be trying to vibe out the actual rules because they’re clearly not just as-written, will read yours, and detect that there is some amount, form, or subjects for violence that are acceptable.
Having a personalish conversation with you here, i thing i can get a sense of that, but it’s absolutely not explicit in the rules, and enforcing half-unwritten rules is thoroughly shitty. It’s reddit mod behavior. Isn’t doing better than that why you’re even here?
Oh, there’s no doubt it’s a radical position. I’ve had to explain to another mod why the classic dishonest question “When did you stop beating your wife?” is a rhetorical device and not actually endorsing spousal abuse. (I got that comment restored once people actually understood what was being said.)
But in the cases of the comments that started this whole blow up, there is absolutely no ambiguity. If your comment contains any variation on “DEATH TO…” yeah, that’s going to get removed.
You ever see the movie “The Fisher King” with Robin Williams? GREAT flick. Jeff Bridges plays this radio DJ who goes off on a rant about Yuppies. (Ye olden term for “Young Urban Professionals”. We’d call them “Tech Bros” now. Yeah, it’s super old.) Saying “They must be stopped! It’s us or them!”
Well, someone listening took a shotgun down to a yuppie bar and killed 7 people.
https://youtu.be/KJf4bRKQPHg
The movie isn’t as dour as that makes it out to be, it’s actually quite touching and funny. Peak Terry Gilliam.
But the point is, if a comment, even an offhand one, could inspire violence, it’s got to go. Hopefully someone catches it.
So no pro war positions, no adcocating for laws, no sport hunting, only strict anarchist pacifist ultra-veganism so extreme it would turn me off?
Nope, for example, you can argue for shutting that shit down in Israel, I have no problem with that. As I’ve stated previously, Israel is not going to stop killing people until somebody invades and makes them stop. They have been engaging in war crimes for decades now and nobody is willing to stop them.
But as soon as you cross that line into “Execute Netanyahu! Death to the IDF!” that crosses a line.
Take them into custody and prosecute them in a War Crimes tribunal? Excellent, love to see it. Murder them in the streets? Well, now we’re no better than they are.
“Calling for the death of troops who are actively committing genocide is no better than committing actual genocide. The pen is just as guilty as the sword, and defending against genocide is no better than committing genocide.”
You would’ve made a “Good German.”
Okay so you’re totaloy incapable of seeing yourself. Is that why the rule about not regarding mods is a thing?