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.
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.
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.
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.
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.