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.
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:
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.
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".
No, by definition, it targets living beings.
Now you're getting close to the truth. Now ask the next question. Who actually initiates violence during government changes..?
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...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
There is no such clause by definition.
Why would you bring up Nazis if you clearly know so little about what happened in WW2?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich
https://arolsen-archives.org/en/news/nazi-germanys-schriftleitergesetz-the-end-of-freedom-of-the-press/
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.
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.
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. You sound like you'd be the perfect collaborator with them.
You stated first that overthrowing a government isn't violent and is akin to firing someone, and then later agreed that overthrowing a government is usually violent. These points are plainly contradictory, and asking "who initiates the violence," is a transparent attempt to shift the narrative.
Yes, you did. I took a screenshot.
And if you were, for reasons unfathomable, talking about a journalist outside Nazi Germany, why? That's a blatant false equivalency. I have very clearly stated that I'm talking about someone who could be realistically targeted for their opinions, a position influenced by the history you're trying to bastardize.
Whee, doggy! Now that's a straw man! What I actually said, easily visible above, is that I understand why someone would want to preserve themselves, but you go off.
I've had fun here (lie), but I'm tired, I'm done, and I'm going to bed (truth).
Since you insist on being spoon fed: Overthrowing the government is not violent. A [state] government's reaction to not being followed by the people is usually violent. I want to think you can understand the difference and implications of this, but at this point, I doubt it.
Yes, I was in fact referring to someone outside Nazi Germany which is why I chose my words very carefully, and which person you would clearly praise being silenced from a public forum for asking to overthrow Nazi Germany. It is not a false equivalency. It's exactly analogous what you're going right now.
What? You are claiming you are in fact trying to protect @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com from retaliation for posting their opinion in a public forum? I repeat: Are you for real?
That's the exact implication of your statements until this point.
Either your literacy or your morality needs work, because you have misrepresented or misunderstood every single thing I have said from the beginning. I'm tired of this. It's ridiculous. I can't argue against constant logical fallacies. Maybe tomorrow you'll come back and see how "You are claiming you are in fact trying to protect @/sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com from retaliation for posting their opinion in a public forum?" was completely incorrect or how a forum host that could be touched by a fascist regime is different from an editor that can't be. And maybe, just maybe, you'll realize how shitty you've been accusing me of being a Nazi sympathizer because of the conclusions you've jumped to. But I don't care anymore. I'm done. This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever had and I'll have no further part.
Oh thank fuck, I was planning to disengage after this point because you're incapable of expressing a sane opinion and your reading comprehension is clearly shot (not a call to violence btw)