President Trump suggested a federal takeover of New York City and Washington, claiming a "tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to."
First off, to be clear, I don’t agree with this statement, I think it’s the wrong stance.
But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn’t this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.
As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence “violating site rules” and at what point is it “legitimate discussion of impending hostilities”.
And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.
He means fuck the mods because they ban and delete comments that even hint at violence or Revolution, which only helps the oppressor. We are never going to get a better deal if every time we talk about getting mad, we get shut up and shut down.
It was a huge issue on Reddit and is becoming one here with the mods who just ban everyone who gets mad
Yup. This honestly is my biggest gripe about moderation, because it is more often than not about regulating realtalk, in favor of a negative peace.
I don’t want civil war, because I have to risk my body and bloody my hands. Unfortunately, that choice isn’t wholly mine to make, because the Trump Regime insists on destroying people. We need to be able to speak freely and begin cooperating together, so that fewer people die in service of a free democracy. It is for the sake of making things less awful, that we must be able to talk about what must be done.
wouldn’t this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
Out of context, yes. However, lemmy.world has been banning people for jokes or PERCEIVED call for violence.
It feels more like a “I’m having a bad day and i’m taking it out on you.” On top of that, the incresing amount of fake news sites or uncreditable news outlets is alarming. If the goal was to be reddit 2.0 , Mission accomplish.
At what point is a statement which incites violence “violating site rules” and at what point is it “legitimate discussion of impending hostilities”.
I feel this should be the point if his threat is carried out. Everything up to this point could be argued in a manner that it is still, no matter how crazy it sounds, in hia scope of power. Removing an elected political adversary due to their political party would mean starting over with a constitution.
Fuck the mods!
Violence will be the only correct response if this is done.
Actively overturning an election bc the other party won, is a call to remove those in charge by any means.
Yup.
If he went through with this it would be an act of war on the American people. At that point lethal force would be justified.
The election is in November …
Yes, if he overturns the election results after the election. I guess he could passive aggressively do it to.
First off, to be clear, I don’t agree with this statement, I think it’s the wrong stance.
But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn’t this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.
As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence “violating site rules” and at what point is it “legitimate discussion of impending hostilities”.
And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.
edit for clarity in brackets
He means fuck the mods because they ban and delete comments that even hint at violence or Revolution, which only helps the oppressor. We are never going to get a better deal if every time we talk about getting mad, we get shut up and shut down. It was a huge issue on Reddit and is becoming one here with the mods who just ban everyone who gets mad
Yup. This honestly is my biggest gripe about moderation, because it is more often than not about regulating realtalk, in favor of a negative peace.
I don’t want civil war, because I have to risk my body and bloody my hands. Unfortunately, that choice isn’t wholly mine to make, because the Trump Regime insists on destroying people. We need to be able to speak freely and begin cooperating together, so that fewer people die in service of a free democracy. It is for the sake of making things less awful, that we must be able to talk about what must be done.
Jordan just bans you if you hurt nazis feelings.
Out of context, yes. However, lemmy.world has been banning people for jokes or PERCEIVED call for violence.
It feels more like a “I’m having a bad day and i’m taking it out on you.” On top of that, the incresing amount of fake news sites or uncreditable news outlets is alarming. If the goal was to be reddit 2.0 , Mission accomplish.
I feel this should be the point if his threat is carried out. Everything up to this point could be argued in a manner that it is still, no matter how crazy it sounds, in hia scope of power. Removing an elected political adversary due to their political party would mean starting over with a constitution.