It's a premium game for premium gamers, they're just weeding out anyone who isn't PREMIUM enough

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.

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.

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.

Did I say explicitly about being inside Nazi Germany?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

~~How did OP make this account as revenge for his account being banned if the sockpuppet account is older than OPs account?~~

Edit: I misunderstood this comment. What I said was incorrect.

"I want my political enemies killed," versus "I want my political enemies killed by my political allies."

Very nuanced.

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.

It's UK slang.

"For a person to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 against their will, admitted to hospital, and given treatment, if they are perceived to be a threat to themselves or others."

Even if they're abandoned, they can still have value in what already exists. Removing them entirely would be foolish. Perhaps making them free would be a good move, but I doubt Valve actually has the authority to decide the value of someone else's product, even if it is their storefront. A warning is the best solution IMO.