Apparently calling for the use of force to defend your country from invaders is "advocating violence". Also: being anti-American in general is against the rules

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.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

410 comments

They may very well be, though given the devastation to their infrastructure, it seems increasingly unlikely.
And anyone is welcome to come and discuss all the various and voluminous crimes of the Israeli state, so long as they do not advocate for violence.
My old roomate's brother was a doctor during one of the multiple illegal Israeli occupations of Southern Lebanon.
The IDF would show up at his house in the middle of the night, tell him if he resisted he would be shot, haul him off to god knows where to treat some prisoner, and then dump him at the side of the road like so much garbage.
Want to call to end that? Great! Prosecute that shit? Absolutely. Call for the deaths of everyone involved? That crosses the line and will get your shit removed.
- Want to call to end that? Great! Prosecute that shit? Absolutely. Call for the deaths of everyone involved? That crosses the line and will get your shit removed.
  🤣🤣🤣
  Next time when history repeats and yet other nazis start occupying some nations and murdering people, ensure you have some stern words for them.
  
  Next time when history repeats and yet other nazis start occupying some nations and murdering people, ensure you have some stern words for them.
  He'll have the banhammer for anyone who doesn't love them and everything they do.
  
  We're an internet forum, do not ever confuse that with "history".
  You want to organize locally? Great, nobody is stopping you. You want to arm yourself and stick it to the fascists? Go for it.
  You want to do that in our communities? Go fuck yourself. Not allowed.
  
  Go fuck yourself. Not allowed
  Carry on, you are funnier with every post 🤣🤣🤣
- Putting aside how legal prosecution is absolutely violence, state intervention is violence, laws are violemce. They're just a certain sort of violence tgat you support, that targets but does not protect some people and protects but does not target others. Which was my entire point about what you believe and thank you for finally acknowledging that.
  Putting that and how good it feels to hear mostly aside for a moment:
  A former head of msf once said that the only way to stop a genocide once it gets started in earnest is killing the perpetrators. Nothing i have ever read contradicts this. You let them kill til theyre sated, or you fucking kill them.
  Anything less is permission. Anything less is a call to let them keep killing. Anything kess than a call to violently stop them, is a call for their violence to continue. Condemnation of calls to violently stop them, unless some other force is in place and acting, is a powerful endorsement of their actions. A state in genocidal bloodlust tends to stay in genocidal bloodlust unless acted upon. Pretty sure that's from a math textbook.
  These mother fuckers post their war crimes on fucking tiktok, they've been doing it for years without consequence. Saying 'call for them to be prosecuted!' is a slightly more repulsive rephrasing of 'lubricate your favirite sex toy with the blood of palestinian children, queue up some murder videos, then shove it up your ass until you're shivering with pleasure'. It is a call to violence. Particularly gross particularly spectacular violemve.
  When institutions support violence, calling for those same institutions to magically stop being evil, to just stop for no reason but your asking, is supporting violence. It's saying "this violence is there right. How dare you call for them to suffer in kind?".
  When calls BDS gets called and potentially punished as terrorism, by the governments of nuclear armed world powers, anything short of violence is not opposition.
  And it sucks. Not a fan of violence. That is why i believe the zionists must be killed, and killed not just killed until they stop, but killed until they lose the capacity to restart violence. Because that, or fucking ultra-genocide world war 3 are the only two options they have left us. Anything short of 'zionists must die' is 'i masturbate to ultra genocide world war three'. There's more to it than that; mostly fridge horror about the political implications of their whole project, but it doesnt really matter here.
  The non-violent options are off the table. They blew up the part of the table those options were on, repeatedly, for decades longer than I've been alive, and now there isnt enough table for both parties. Which violence do you endorse? Silence is a vote for zionist terror groups like the idf. Go.
  
  Your OPINION is that laws and prosecution are violence, that's absolutely not the case and really only fringe elements legitimately believe that.
  Laws and prosecution are the cornerstones of society, going back to Hamurabi.
  You're welcome to be an anarchist if you want, you're WRONG, but you have the right to be wrong. 😉
  
  your opinion is that laws and prosecution are violence
  Okay, ill just ignore all the dudes with guns and dead/broken bodies, then. Ill forget the rape, the bones that healed wrong, the masdivel increased cancer risk. It's fine, ill be fine; it wasn't "violence" so it's fine.
  cornerstone of society
  Citation needed. And i dont read cuneiform. I read snow crash, so you can't make me.
  have a right to be wrong
  Not according to your entirely nonviolent men with guns.
  Edit: saying pithy shit you don't believe so you dont have to acknowledge your other lies is not charming or cute, unless youre a cat.
  the entire rest of the thing including a worked example you're just skipping over
  So...
  
  Snow Crash is a GREAT book, but untill you're better educated we cannot continue this conversation.
  Society exists as a series of rules and regulations. Enforcing those rules and regulations is what makes it all work.
  Failing to do that results in the collapse of civil order, we're seeing that with Trump 2.0 right now. Convicted on 34 felony counts, nobody had the balls to enforce it, and here we are.
  
  None of this is an argument that they're not violence, Only that they're necessary violence. That theyre good violence. You believe violence is necessary/important/critical to human society. Fuvk you that's disgusting and the root of so many problems, but you are free to be wrong. Even if its not really the point.
  I'll still indulge your argument here. Even if i suspect it wont stop you being wrong.
  Ive seen systems that worked on 'rules and regulations', both hovernment and corporate. As a generalization: 20% of the effort was spent circumventing the hard corners of those rules that kept perfectly benign necessary shit from getting done, and 60% was spent trying to do exactly what those rules were put in place to respond to, but in sneakier more convoluted ways. That stuff always always always got done. It just got absurd and expensive. Im sure poorer towns and corporations might have gone bankrupt, but the wealthy bay area shit sticks i knew thrived. They spent as many respurces as it took to do what they wanted to. Which means laws/rules do not stop things, they stratify them by class.
  The filthy rich police department and the only slightly wealthy police department are equally forbidden from kicking your door in for literally no god damn reason, but only tge filthy rich police department could afford to convince a judge that the computer that always says yes is reasonable cause.
  I have seen functional social systems that stayed relatively on mission, did not bloat quickly, and spent most of their resources doing what they were for.
  What cohered and drove these systems was personal relationships, ideals/goals, and rigorous effort to stay coordinated. People believing in things. People being convinced of things. It's not perfect, coordination has a cost, but even the shittiest of those orgs was more efficient, more on-mission, more pleasant, less wasteful, and less fucking evil than any for-profit, government, or even libshit axiomatic 'nonprofit' I've ever worked for or with.
  And i suspect these were the same basic forces driving the larger organizations, though cannot prove it.
  Now don't try to mansplain social order to me again til you can explain the whole viable system model from memory.
  
  Are you kidding me? It’s not fringe. It’s settled fact. It’s foundational to statehood itself. Please pick up a polysci for dummies book, of ask any LLM. They’ll all tell you that the state enforces its laws through its monopoly on violence and the threat thereof. Deeply unserious.
  
  LOL. The world exists outside polysci textbooks. You'll find that out when you actually leave college.
  
  I’m older than you, dummy.
  
  centrists love imagining that everyone they disagree with is younger than they are and therefore wrong.

410 comments