United Healthcare CEO gets murdered, many celebrate, lemmy.world mod(s?) pile on the temp bans and delete posts
I said something along the lines of:
"Wow, I haven't had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while."
Along with
"Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better."
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
...
Good ole' civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
414
Comments326
I'm just here to point out that everyone's going to use the downvote button as a "disagree" button and the upvote as "agree," and there's nothing anyone can do to stop us. You can't hold back the tide.
Yes.
As an anarchist, I am keenly aware that rules are merely suggestions, and are utterly meaningless when no system exists to actually enforce them.
The whole thing is all just made up. There are no "rules" written down like there are for software systems. There are just shared habits and models of the world, and traditions for how to react. In general, people agree and keep it all consistent enough from day to day that the rules in their heads translate into behavior and dependable systems in the real world. But it's all just made up. It's just people deciding what to do, every minute, in every society, based on what they decide in their brain, no matter how strict the "rules" that supposedly exist are.
Like how we could 'make up' having a healthcare system that provides universal affordable care to all citizens, but instead ... we ...
(not actually all of us, actually the extremely wealthy and influential people who control government policy and all the media that tells us what to think about government policy)
... 'we' make up a horrible, unjust system that perpetuates suffering, violence and death, so that a tiny minority of people can profit!
What I'm saying is that there is no mechanical system that puts those particular people in charge.
We had the gilded age, we had the labor battles that laid the foundation for the working economy of the 20th century, we had the New Deal and prosperity for a lot of people, then we let it get away from us and the crooks took charge again. But it all can change. We can make it different. People have fought their way back to good government from places a million times worse than modern-day America.
I'm not sure what you mean by mechanical.
Obviously there is not a physical machine like a 3d printer that produces a sociopoliticaleconomic system.
But there are absolutely empirically verified theories within sociology, political science, and economics which describe why historical events happened with a pretty good degree of accuracy, and a lot of them do function pretty mechanistically to predict likely future outcomes, though with a wider margin of possibility than physics predicting a physical machine.
I'm saying that nothing enforces these particular people being in charge, other than everyone agreeing that these are the people in charge, and that can change.
It has, in huge ways, for better and worse depending, all throughout history.
Is this a joke?
You're saying there's no military, no police, no jobs that take all our time just to stay alive, no media that reinforces the desired narrative, no corruption, no broken electoral system, no economic stratification, no relgion and bigotry used to convince people to support their own materially worsening lives, no intentionally broken education system... none of that enforces who is in charge?
I could go on for actual hours about ludicrous this statement is, you have to almost entirely ignorant of history, poli sci, sociology, econ, a whole number of other fields, to be able to say something like this.
I saw that old tired "It's not a disagree button! Only downvote comments that don't add to the discussion!" thing time and time again on reddit, but I've never seen it here. I hoped that it was accepted and understood that they are indeed agree/disagree buttons.
People might think that they shouldn't be that, but it's immaterial. That's how people are going to use them, so other people might as well get used to it.
Honestly, I've never seen it be a problem for them to be like that. Whatever people were afraid of, it clearly wasn't a big deal. They work fine.
dios mío, A LIBERAL!
::: spoiler I think they should make a post addressing this but it is pretty funny to see people's reactions :::
PTB, comments celebrating a person who's horrible are not encouraging violence. This is clearly an attempt from the mods to push their agenda. Their replies here in this thread support this theory.
I think this comment snippet speaks for itself honestly.
looks like most of the mod actions you are looking at were done by little_cow (do not tag or harass) who has actually been fairly decent and understanding in my interactions with them.
very likely these actions are being done by threat of the .world admins, who cannot be replaced or swayed as it’s their property (servers) that host the content. not getting in on either side of this because honestly idgaf but if any of this upsets you:
vote with your activity and registration and stop using lemmy.world. i was here before they essentially made lemmy a centralized platform and trust me it was way cooler back then, it could be that way again.
Additionally, people who moderate communities there might consider to either create or join alternatives elsewhere. Because, seriously, this shit is .ml/Reddit tier.
I can't really discuss the actual topic here intelligibly bc I always block ![email protected] as one of if not the very first action for every new account I make anywhere across the Fediverse (I simply prefer the alternatives like ![email protected] and ![email protected]), nor have I looked into the modlog as you have. But may I make a tangential observation, if it's not too annoying for it to be off-topic like this?
Have you seen the actual - albeit dog whistled - calls for violence, naming actual names and showing actual faces? I just saw one in Shitpost (https://lemmy.world/post/22802422), another in Memes, and there are additional cross-posts as well. Similar content or others that likewise extoll the virtues of violence include Comic Strips (https://mander.xyz/post/21552536) showing up in communities all across Lemmy, like here's one that's not the post itself but rather the comment section in Not The Onion (https://midwest.social/post/20083880).
I thought that such calls for violence - as Admiral Patrick calls it somewhere here in the comments of this post, a "lynch mob mentality" - would die down quickly after the election, but it seems quite the opposite instead. So it's a very emotionally charged issue right now. And I even get it, though aside from rightness or wrongness, people each have their preferences as to what they can stomach, and e.g. someone with lived experience through such (like a school shooting event) may not be able to handle all of this.
Anyway I'm glad that you are sharing alternatives, bc no matter what, we need to not be dependent upon a single instance. But I do see where - again, setting aside right vs. wrong - there's a real split across Lemmy right now about how such matters "should" be handled. At which point I agree with you in spirit that there NEEDS to be transparency in the moderation practices (even if, as others have suggested elsewhere here, this particular situation seems to be the result of a single moderator who may have acted overzealously to protect people from the rhetoric). Perhaps you can write a post to the mods or even admins of that instance asking for such, though it would probably be better to wait a week for this all to die down - perhaps the mod in question will apologize, or even be removed, though what you may want instead (but don't let me put words into your mouth) is a clarification to be made to the wording of the community or instance rules. We really can affect the changes that we'd like to see, much of the time. And if/when not, then at least you know that you did your absolute best to try:-).
Edit: even a few hours later, the process has already begun, see e.g. the apology from the mod at https://lemmy.world/comment/13815531.
https://lemmy.world/post/22802422 has been deleted.
https://mander.xyz/post/21552536 is hard to interpret as praising violence IMO - no explanation is given why the pigeon (a typically passive animal) is burning the house.
https://midwest.social/post/20083880) is mostly people cheering on the current events. It does praise violence, but at the same time it acknowledges that CEO as a source of suffering for people.
I do think that mob mentality plays a role, but I don't think that it's the main factor here. People (not just you all in USA, but everywhere) are getting pissed; the ones in power always babbling that things will get better, and yet we don't see it.
I think that the issue is mostly on an admin level, not on a mod level. And based on previous interactions with one of those admins... seriously, I'll pass - at least that one was a bit too eager to distort things to their convenience.
Plus you know, I'm awful at writing this sort of thing down - I write a full wall of text for what would need two lines.
They have their moderation style, you would do differently, and regardless of right or wrong the goal is to match moderation activities to the community desires. But that probably will require additional volunteers to really get off the ground, so that's perhaps something that you could do? Ofc I cannot speak to your condition wrt your life status right now, I just hoped to point to whatever I could to help you realize that you are not powerless nor alone in wanting a sense of justice to be enacted - the trick being whose justice, especially when dealing with global cross-cultural values.
Wherever we go forward from here, it will require effort. And making that list is a good start:-).
I think that it's less about different styles (like being laxer/stricter, sticking more/less to the letter of the rules, etc.) and more about bringing bad habits from Reddit. In Reddit neither your typical non-mod user nor your typical mod gives a damn about the rules - one expects to be able to go rogue unpunished and then punished for something random, while another wants a bullshit reason to get that feeling of power over the others. (Note that I'm talking on typical grounds. There were plenty decent = exceptional mods there, too.)
And, when I say that one of the admins was too eager to distort things to their convenience, I wasn't even referring to my interactions with them as an admin, but just as another user. From Canvas 2025 times [I can give you further context if you want.]
I do know that it'll require effort and a collective one, and I think that we [users in general] should work in that direction. I just think that I'm the wrong person for this specific job, I'm probably better at gathering info - like the lists.
I am trying to break things down into their component parts.
First, your lists are absolutely helpful, for many reasons even those unrelated to this incident, but for helping the Fediverse become less decentralized overall - so thank you for them:-).
Second, I have mostly avoided thinking about the actual admins yet bc I haven't heard anything from them directly yet - though indirectly from the mod in question I did hear that the admins plan to modify the ToS to increase its transparency in relation to such things. It does valid to me that they need to worry about the police 🚨 knocking on their door 🚓, hence panicked a bit when they all that stuff. It's also hard to figure some of that stuff out bc even if Lemmy.World is in - I don't even know where, Germany? UK? France? somewhere in the EU I would suppose - if the USA feds were to ask them to remove it or else face some troubles, what kind of pressure would that place upon them?
Third, the actions of the actual mod in question have given me strong hope for the livelihood of the Fediverse in general - she apologized immediately, rescinded the bans, offered an explanation, and also her reasoning besides, and explained what she should have done and promised will do in the future instead.
I offered more depth on these matters in a recent reply to this comment from Blaze.
Except .ml would not ban you for these specific comments
But they would ban you for even remotely crtiical of NK, China, Russia, or Cuba. They're terrible for different reasons.
No, it wouldn't ban you for these specific comments, but it would ban you in the same exact scummy way: listing one rule, enforcing another, then lying that you violated the listed rule.
[Edit: I said "emphasis mine" and then deleted the quote. I'm a moron.]
I don't even disagree with any of the mod actions here, and I fully agree with this.
I abandoned lemmy.world communities except for a handful of things, mostly the PugJesus communities and [email protected] which for some reason is fine. Everything else, I found replacements for that seem like they're way superior.
So much better.
big facts, especially for the worldnews community. for some reason my instance doesn’t see this quokk instance but i have to imagine that any mod team is better than the ineffectual nepotism heap of wilty lettuce that is [email protected]’s
![email protected] and ![email protected] are so strange. It's just baffling. I haven't even checked to see what's currently going on, if MBFC bot is still around or if they've found a new troll to take under the protection of the mod team and ban people for arguing with. I don't know, and I don't want to know.
Looks like it's ![email protected] and not worldnews
@[email protected] got me sorted. https://lemmings.world/comment/12313516 i just didn’t troubleshoot very hard lol
I'm not at all surprised by the negative talk, but removing the thread is a terrible look.
The news is still relevant, current, developing, and of interest to many people, including me.
Let people be jerks. If I recall, the first comment to be removed was about guillotines. Bad taste, yes, but c'mon.
Nobody removed the thread. There was one repost removal, but other than that, all I see in the modlog is comment removals and bans. The relevant, current, developing, and of interest story is not exactly a secret as of right now.
A thread I was following in [email protected] is deleted. I had it saved and was referring back to it and other searches in hopes of updates as it's very relevant to me personally.
Not a huge deal of course, but I know at least one conversation was nuked, even if this post doesn't refer to that incident.
It looks like there were a handful of reposts that got removed. I don't know why I had only seen the one.
I get what you're saying now. It sucks to have an active thread of conversation suddenly get nuked. On the other hand, it's not a good situation to have 5 different duplicate posts of the exact same story cluttering up the feed for no reason.
It's not related to the calls for violence. It's just from the reposts. I think your irritation should maybe be directed at the people who don't check if a post is a duplicate before posting it. I'm not sure what else the mods could do in that situation that's any better than what they did, since Lemmy doesn't have functionality for redirecting comment threads from multiple duplicate posts together into one, or anything like that.
A 24 hour temp ban for celebrating violence is actually pretty reserved. Certainly not power tripping.
Counterargument: no.
E: To elaborate, the terms of service say:
"**We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature.**"
Merely expressing glee is not calling for violence or threatening a living creature. Banning someone for a rule they didn't break, for any duration, is overreach.
CEO isn't even living anymore so they're not breaking the rule just based off that.
Except that it very much is. How can you not see that?
These gleeful comments are very much what? Celebrating violence, as you originally said? If so, sure. However, celebrating violence is not against the rules. Go to any Ukrainian-on-Russian drone strike video and you'll find plenty of people celebrating death. What is against the rules is making threats or calling people to violent action against another. These are very much not the same thing. In the insurace CEO thread, the overwhelming majority of removed comments were not making threats or trying to incite more violence.
Celebrating violence is a method used to call for more violence. And the reason the war isn't heavily moderated is because it's a war. It's already at the worst state, and further violence is a foregone conclusion. That's a massive difference to celebrating a murder. Being popular doesn't mean it's okay suddenly.
I expected empire apologia in your comment history, and you delivered. Classic.
Oh god you made me snort.
There's still a clear distinction between celebrating violence and calling for further violence.
You're making a leap between the two.
They are explicitly and literally not the same thing, even if celebrating can be, and often is, used as part of a call for more.
Every cat is an animal, but not every animal is a cat.
The problem is you guys want to lawyer this like it's legislation. You're not wrong about the dictionary definitions. You are however absolutely wrong about how the English language is used and how violence is propagated.
Class war is a war too, and it's not one that we the people started. Condemning the CEO's death is saying that he should've been allowed to keep killing millions of more people through coverage denial, a form of social murder that ends their lives prematurely the exact same as gunning them down. Further violence is just as much a forgone conclusion, it's just a question of whether it will be resisted or left unchecked.
Class war being an actual hot war is both highly debatable and highly inflammatory. It's a fringe ideology of an already minority ideology. Expecting that to be a moderating standard on one of the largest Lemmy Instances is ridiculous at best.
It's not really about ideology, it's reality. People are being killed every day by people like Brian Thompson. If you actually cared, it's pretty easy to find countless stories of people losing loved ones because their insurance company sacrificed their lives for profit. Nobody really pays attention to those stories though, because the violence is so common, frequent, and normalized that we've become desensitized to it. In contrast, when violence happens in the reverse direction, in a highly contained retaliatory strike against one of the people most responsible, it's shocking precisely because it's so rare, because our side is so much more peaceful and restrained than theirs.
But whether for good or ill, as long as the system keeps backing people against the wall, more of this will happen. It's inevitable, you can't expect people to just accept it as conditions get harsher and more and more intolerable. If you commit social murder, you're putting your own life on the line.
I don't really see what's debatable or ideological about that. When people get fucked over, they will fight back.
The person is no longer liing so you cannot call for violance aganst a living person for expressing glee to them
I also feel like wanting death to IDK the bacteria that causes the plague, or taberculousis, should not be a banable office but that is a bannable creature
also does wanting a hamburger count as calling for violace aganst a cow... a living creature?
Not only does what the banns are for not break the rule, but the rule is so broad as to be useless and cripple most conversations
And now you're being absurd.
ok so lets look at his the tos is "We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature." is that correct. so if something is already dead, like a porkchop, we can both agree that I can threaten a porkchop because it is already dead and so not living. This would be the same as a corpse, a corpse is no longer a living thing, so cheering a death AFTER someone died it is not advocating violance to a living creature its a dead creature. There is nothing incorrect or absurd in that statement
now lets look at it agian "We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature." Well, Mosquitos, Bacteria, plants, funguses, are all "living creatures" so I ask in ernistness does using anti-biotics not technicaly qualify as violance on a living creature? what about the Eradication of the guinnie worm? wanting to harvist a field? all of them are violance on living creatures, is this an unorthodox take yes, but it is not abserd, it is simular to the Jade view, and it is consistent with the rules you have set forth.
You cannot argue that an interpretation you do not like is abserd, you can say that is not the interpritation that the mod team follows, thats fine, I already have issues with your moderation policies but that is fair, but to say that following your rules to the letter but not nessicarily the spirit is abserd, that is just bad rule writing.
Denying millions of legitimate claims that directly leads to many people being physically harmed or dying is violence on a large scale. So is lobying the government to keep healthcare in shambles for hundreds of millions of people.
It's a less visible, less gorey form of violence than a gun, but violence that begets mass suffering and death nonetheless.
If you define that as violence then everything is violence and nothing is legitimate. Overly broad definitions meant to paralyze society are a form of violence because people will die if we take no action, but we can't take action because Vent defined that as violence.
100% agree, this is a propaganda tactic used constantly by politicians and the rich and powerful. For example, if one were to broaden the definition of "illegal immigrant" to include more people, then use that definition to incite racism and mass deportation, I would consider that rhetoric a form of violence.
Would a military commander at war be considered non-violent because they only order subordinates to shoot but don't do the shooting themselves? Is the president ordering a nuke non-violent because they don't drop the bomb themselves?
Now, what if someone were to order the denial of life-saving medical care to thousands of civilians that have already paid for it?
When did I say we can't take action against violence, or that violent actions don't sometimes call for violent responses?
That's the joke. If you define violence as broadly as you have then you end up in an ethical trap that has only one exit; violence is moral and I should use it to protect my values before it is used on me.
I simply didn't highlight the exit in my previous comment. But I can see from yours that you've already decided this and decided this excuses people from following any rules about not propagating violence.
There's large differences between violence being immoral, having qualified exceptions, and being moral. Most people are in the middle. Every really shitty period of time, like when commoners were being executed en masse in the French Revolution, lives in the violence is moral category. I don't know about you but I'd like to avoid living in a time where my neighbor can report me to the secret police and I get sent to the gulag, or where educated people are rounded up and shot because they "can't be trusted".
That's where celebrating mob violence leads, on the left and right.
I'm hearing that you believe violence is never moral, correct? Is Ukraine amoral to use violence to stop Russia's invasion?
I never said that so I don't know why you would believe that.
All I'm getting from this is that you're fine with people needlessly dying as long as the death wasn't a direct result of violence.
Of course not. But more death isn't the answer. Because we've seen that route and it doesn't end the cycle. Check out France and Russia. They didn't solve anything with their incredibly violent reprisals against their ruling classes. The only way to end this cycle is to end the existence of a wealthy elite. Which you can do by taking their money away.
What about WWII? The US Revolution? The US civil war? The Haitian Revolution? Is France really worse off now? Ukraine?
Violence / death is very rarely the answer to anything, but it's a cold hard fact that sometimes it is, especially when you start bringing war and revolutions into it, lmao.
"Hand over your money, please!"
To be clear, I'm not advocating for killing anyone in the streets, and vigilante justice like this is not something I'd like to see, but the blanket response of "violence bad" is plain wrong.
The US Revolution wasn't anything like the French and Russian ones. Haiti was but it wasn't Haitians that screwed them over afterwards, it was the US. So maybe they could have been the one time where an orgy of violence worked?
Except you're here defending exactly that.
Based on your arguments here you're basically saying that celebrating (or maybe even even simply not condemning?) this act of violence means that you must tacitly endorse this type of violence, correct? That's a very long bow to draw.
I think most people, myself included, would much prefer a non-violent way to prevent capitalists from profiting directly from the physical and financial misery of sick and dying people. Like maybe some stronger laws, better regulation and enforcement, and active prosecution of non-compliant companies and their bosses, for a start, right? But in the seeming absence of that possibility, why not let folks have their schadenfreude moment in peace?
24 hours for chearing someone who is responsable for the death of thousands, is not refusing someone life saving medical care not violence? Is this not the paradox of tolarance you folks always harp on about?
I'm sorry but, "come back tomorrow" really doesn't have the dictatorial energy people seem to want it to have.
Look it is not the time, sure the time is reasonable, the issue is what you have chosen to do this over, your reasoning for it, not only has it not technicaly violated the letter of the TOS snippits that have been posted, it is also the moral call, which side are you on, when the CEO who made a fortune by letting others die ... is killed, do you let the people discuss it and cheer the death of someone who caused so much suffering, or do you assist the Capitalist class, and supress that sentiment, YOU have to make the choice.
the issue we have is not its a day, its that you chose to help the capitalists
Do you want a TOS the size of a novel? Because idiotic arguments like this is how you get that. They will pay for a few hours of a lawyer's time to create an honest to god TOS if you force them. The only reason you don't want to see this as a violation is because you agree with the actions.
I mean, are you saying that me following the rule and not the arbitrary spirit of your TOS is a stupid argument, no its not stupid, yes its in grey or bad faith, but its not stupid. Rules should be able to cover atleast grey faith arguments, or atleast attempt to. If your rules can only work if read in good faith, and we can all understand the sperit it is written in they are worthless
Welcome, we have (mostly) free speech over here.
::: spoiler here look I'll test it 🖕 :::
I'm not your buddy, pal.
🥳here as well
come on over and join us sh.itheads.
lmao just realized the initialism for shit just works is also for ‘social justice warrior’
Sorry for the double reply. I'll create a list of alternatives to .world communities here; I'll also add the ones you guys suggest, as long as not from .ml (as .ml and .world are apparently peas from the same pod.)
technology: ![email protected]
politics: ![email protected] (UK), ![email protected] (USA), ![email protected] (Canada), ![email protected] (Oz), ![email protected] (allegedly world, in practice USA)
news: ![email protected] , ![email protected]
comic strips: I couldn't find any general comm, but there's ![email protected] and ![email protected]
microblog memes: ![email protected] , ![email protected] , [email protected]
political memes: ![email protected] , ![email protected]
memes: ![email protected]
ask lemmy: ![email protected]
movies and animattion: ![email protected] , ![email protected] , ![email protected] . Specifically for Japanese anime there's ani.social (the whole instance).
EDIT: apparently the moderators apologised, including in this thread. So what I said that both are peas from the same pod might be inaccurate - it's a matter of scale.
::: spoiler . It's funny that, when I created a list of .ml alternatives, some entitled prick was lying/assuming/bullshitting that I was trying to kill LW - since I didn't list any LW comm. If the prick said the same now it would be true. [Still blocked because I got no time for assumers.] :::
I find it very good that this community is becoming the de-facto central point to ensure mods are kept in check and that such comments can be made and found.
Ditto; I don't know if you planned this role for the comm, but it feels like a natural evolution - from complaining about mod abuse to acting against it.
I love me some emergent order.
Thank you - I'll add those to the list!
They are not peas from the same pod though: Lemmy.world mods have already apologized, made some changes to the rules to clarify their points (apparently? I haven't tracked them down yet), and resolved to do better.
Among other places, here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13815531.
In contrast, Lemmy.ml admins have only ever doubled down on their decisions, afaict.
They overlap ever so slightly, yet are worlds apart, imho. Still, it's so good to have options bc if someone doesn't want to be in a particular community, it's great to have the option to jump and be elsewhere. That said, I appreciate many things that Lemmy.World offers to us: especially ![email protected] for funsies, but moreover entirely free access to the best parts of the Fediverse, as well as volunteer, unpaid devotion to moderate communities hosted there. Beggers cannot be choosers, but also, these mods are not billionaires - they are regular people just trying to improve things in their corner of the world, as best as they see fit. Which if we don't like, we'll need to step up and help out ourselves to aid and create new communities to replace those on that instance. That's my 2¢ anyway:-D.
I'll edit the comment addressing it, since not doubling down is a thumbs up in my book.
So are you saying that in those communities celebrating murder is encouraged or what?
I'm saying that those communities are not in an instance where the admins enforce hidden rules, unlike .world and .ml. At least, not as far as I know.
Is this clear now?
It's a ban fest!
Glad I got in an "eat shit, mod" before I was banned.
I'm wearing my ban with pride. Fuck those bootlickers.
My removed comments keep getting upvotes.
Streisand has entered the chat and she is not happy.
I wonder what the mods would have done in 1947.
I'm not sure how any of this works but I can still read deleted comments and comments from banned users. Maybe only on certain instances? Like I said I don't know how this works.
Banned users don't necessarily have their comments removed. Removed comments are what you can't read. (You can if you view the modlogs or use certain scripts or addons and such - maybe some instances or apps do that)
Only my comments about just desserts and dinner for the rest of us - eating the rich (celebrating violence) were removed.
They also got me banned.
Sync for Android puts a 🚫 next to deleted comments but I still see them or else it says "deleted by creator."
I want to say that this is a case where it's not clearly either a PTB or a YDI situation. The mods seem to be enforcing their comm/instance rules, albeit their rules in this instance seem over the top.
I wonder what kind of acronym would fit this description. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.
TBD - Tyranny By Design
I'd say PTB but I guess TBD will do.
Who does it benefit to have instance rules like this? On LW you are not allowed to promote or celebrate any form of violence, so no matter how oppresive the state is, and no matter who the object of violence is (rapist, murderer, genocider, Nazi). The LW view seems to be that it would be uncivil to resist your own systematic exploitation and oppression in this way, and that it is always wrong to promote violence, even agaist literal Nazis. I've noticed most of the liberal instances have a similar policy. With a soft liberal underbelly like that, I dread to think what sort of milquetoast resistance to fascism the US population will be able to muster over the next few years.
Hah, catchy!
Can we please not turn this place into acronym soup like Reddit was in places?
You don't even save that much time.
Power tripping bastard
You did it yourself
You save quite some time
That time being spent searching through the comments trying to decipher the acronyms.
They are in the sidebar, if people come here even once in a while they'll know them.
Heh, I got a good chuckle at that comment removal. So glad I moved from there to db0.
I'm torn between 🐰 and 🐇, but that's clearly a case of PTB.
All those comments boil down to "yay, he died!". This is not a call for violence dammit - the violence already happened, and it was done by an unrelated party. It is not a threat either, unless you expect the person to be resurrected and killed again.
If you don't want to see people to cheer for the death of shitty people, then create a rule for that dammit. Be transparent. LW is following the steps of
.mland Reddit to enforce rules in an obnoxiously opaque way, and calling its users a bunch of gullible trash - "I'm going to ban you and claim that it was for something you didn't, and the other morons/users/trash won't even notice it! lol lmao".It's worse than that. Someone who's too gullible to follow the conclusion Popper reached there would simply watch it and do nothing. They [likely the admins; I'm not sure on who, let us not witch hunt] are actually defending the intolerant.
It's celebrating death and murder. Which is reprehensible. If you need a rule that says "be a good person" then there is something very wrong.
The admin team did not claim "it's celebrating death and murder", but specifically that it violates the terms of service. Go read the ToS - it does not.
And, if you're OK with admins that list one rule, then lie that the user violated it to enforce another, hidden, rule... then you're probably better off in Reddit.
If there was such a subjective rule, and the grounds for a "good person" were anyhow sane and humane, the ones getting banned would be the ones wishing the continued existence and ability of someone like that CEO, to decide "Those poor 'people' can pay enough to satisfy my greed. I'd say to let those things die."
But a good person is not the one who wants the poor to live, right? Or apparently that's what you consider it to be.
A good person doesn't wish death upon anyone. It's that simple.
Quick question, how did you feel when Osama bin Laden died?
What a stupid thing to write or believe.
Less stupid than believing people deserve to die.
In this situation at least someone would die. It's like the trolley problem; not playing it is playing it for one side.
Not wishing for the death of that PoS is effectively the same as wishing the death of his victims.
So, following your (frankly stupid, oversimplistic, short-sighted) reasoning, there's no good person.
Things are never simple. And the only ones who claim otherwise are the ones who are OK being a dead weight and a burden to the others, due to their short-sightedness.
Like you are doing - you're effectively praising the death and suffering of poor people because of some "alas, poor CEO".
If you think the company will somehow magically stop denying people simply because the CEO died, then you are naive. This isn't a trolley problem. You are celebrating someones death, good people do not do that. It is simple. You just want it to not be, so you can tell yourself "I am a good person" and carry on as you were, with hate in your heart.
Someone got a crystal ball! They claim to know what others think! No, wait, it's just a liar/assumer/bullshitter putting words in my mouth, while changing the goalposts from "the morality of cheering some PoS dying" to "the impact of the PoS's death".
But answering your bullshit, no, I don't think that the company will stop denying people because the PoS kicked the bucket. Or because people are cheering his death. And this does not change the morality of cheering his death or, in your case, effectively cheering the death of his victims. Is this clear now?
Side note: your "it's that simple." can be safely rephrased as "it's complex but the complexity inconveniences me, so I'm smearing mud over my eyes to not see it and I expect others to do the same". The morality behind the value of life becomes a bloody mess in situations where the dead is responsible for other deaths.
You literally called it a trolley problem as if their death would magically change how the company works. You talked about the impact of his death, not me.
Even if it did, cheering for someone's death is bad. It comes from hatred. All you are doing is convincing yourself that an objectively bad thing to do is good, so you can sleep better at night. That's why you feel the need to insult me. It's not a complex situation with nuances. You want to hate the person that died, you want to celebrate their death. That makes you a bad person.
You cry when you learned Hitler died or are you just upset because this guy's still warm?
Paradox of tolerance again. The guy actively helped kill people via his policies, why should we not celebrate his death?
There is a difference between "tolerance" and "murder"
The guy murdered people. The guy was murdered. He literally died how he lived. Are we then supposed to be in mourning for him?
There is a difference between mourning and celebrating death...
Lets go back to the start. The person murdered was a horrible, reprehensible human being. Why should we not celebrate his death? As somebody else asked, would you not celebrate Hitler's death? The same principle applies here.
Why shouldn't you celebrate death? Because a good person doesn't celebrate someone's death.
This asshole had far more blood on his hands than the guy who shot him. That fact doesn't change just because he was hiding behind a ton of bureaucracy to kill. His death is objectively a good thing for the world. Now the rest of these dickheads have something to think about whenever they're considering new policies that will deny people healthcare.
People celebrated when Sadam Hussein got killed, so clearly some deaths are fine
No, they aren't. The death penalty being abolished in most of the civilised world is evidence of that. Public deaths are a result of hatred - and making decisions based on your hate does not mean you are a good person - quite the opposite actually. So is celebrating the hatred of other people.
meanwhile on bluesky, there seems to be a celebration
Lemmy.world’s handling of this is a bad look. They don’t represent Lemmy as a whole no matter how much they want to.
Even on my side of TikTok, there's a celebration.
Good Lord most of those don't even come close to being against the rules of that community.
No, but they hit close to the personal opinion of someone who enforces the rules :/
That's always what it seems to be.
TOS you say?
The bans seem to be lifted.
yes i only banned for 24 hours so that more information could be found additionally there were directions that people encouraging, cheering, making joke of, discussing payment, or of jury nullification are against the terms of service for lemmy.world. as of now there is new information regarding this section of the terms of service which will be announced and explained by the admins. i am sorry to those that feel i was excessive we have discuss this among the moderators and will use the lock power to reduce the moderator workflow. for me i consider human life sacred and despite the mistakes of this person only God may judge us. i recognize my bias in this and will work to be more restrained going forward.
You should stop being a mod. For so many reasons.
Agreed, this is insanely concerning.
What in the world? Discussing jury nullification is against the terms of service of lemmy.world? I'm so glad I decided to skip getting an account there. SMDH
Now or always? That server always seemed a bit out of wack for a variety of resaons since I first learned about it in my early days on Lemmy after the Reddit exodus. My initial impression has been repeatedly reinforced and I keep wondering why it's the largest instance. I guess for the same reason that MacDonalds is (one of?) the most popular restaurant chains in the world?
I'm judging you right now, for your inability to keep your religion to yourself.
Lmao I don't know which god you're referring to, but pretty sure based on the lore available they don't give a fuck about human life
If you're referring to Yahweh, per the bible he's a far more judgmental asshole than your average social media user.
יהוה
aka, YHWY isn't even his original name. He was a Canaanite god of War and Death. Those were the entirety of his divine portfolio. That particular "God's" original name is EL.
John Brown did nothing wrong
This Shoter did nothing wrong
If you consider human life sacred, then you would consider that CEO evil, and then would ballance that his death is a net positive.
Personally I would've much rather he just rot in prison for his crimes. I won't celebrate murder but I'm not the least bit sad he's dead
How does it feel sucking corporate, and status quo, cock for free?
BTW: יהוה, aka YHYW, aka Yahweh's original name is EL. He's a Canaanite god of War and Death. I'm pretty sure that this follower of Iehova, same god different name, would be pardoned by his "God."
Edit: in case you missed it, the letter "I" was the Latin language character for "J" until the 4th or 5th century.
I will be finding a new instance that actually encourages discussion, going forward since this instance is run by censors that do not like free speech
Edit 2: in case you also missed it another group changed EL's name to Allah, and a further group than that one declared that ELhovallah has said that science is more real than any "divine doctrine."
Fuck you, and fuck my god. He created entire communities that I probably should be chastising because most American Baha'i's are the "moderate white people" that MLK Jr. talked about so eloquently. They will say all the right things, but I have seen too often that they are merely talking. The saddest part is that because most of these people aren't white people, so when they get off their asses and do something, it's generally successful.
Sorry for the big off-topic. I just can't help when it comes to etymology.
What changed around the 4th~5th centuries were sounds, not letters - the Latin words using the sound [j] (as in yes) were being pronounced with [d͡ʒ] (as in jazz). Even everyday words like iocus (game) or iam (already).
But people kept spelling them the same - you'd use "I" for [i ɪ j ʒ dʒ] (as in beet, bit, genre, jazz), and let context tell them apart. For any language using the Latin alphabet, not just Latin herself, as shown by Shakespeare:
At most you'd flourish some "I" with a downwards curve, for easier reading; such as when you got 2+ "I" in a row. This mostly affects numbers (like XIII being spelled "xiij"), but also a few words like Old Spanish "fiio"="fijo" ("son"; modern Spanish "hijo").
It's more like both sides changed it. Without going too much into detail:
[ʔill], spelled ⟨إِلّ⟩⟨إِل⟩.Well done on being both pedantic and informative. Yes you're absolutely correct on both points, I didn't feel the need to get that far into the weeds trying to explain that my own personal beliefs are tied into all of that historical pedantry. I just wanted to illustrate that such assholery is entirely possible by following the earlier ideas.
Sorry for my burst of pedantry. I couldn't help it, I love to dig through the origin of the words.
...for a reason that is actually related to your Baháʼí faith: it shows that humans - those in the past, us in the present, and probably the ones in the future - are still the same. You see the same processes working on those words in the past as they do now.
[I agree with your main point. And I'm aware that what I said is unrelated to it, it's only marginally related to the example.]
The word "EL" was just a label, like the word "god" itself (which literally means "creator"), and not a name. It meant "mighty one" or "strong one".
For example, phrases translated as "God Almighty" is El Shad-dai.
When angels are referred to as the "sons of God" the original Hebrew is beneh' ha-Elo-him.
Elo-him is also used to refer to other gods, and even human judges in Israel.
There are many more examples of the etymology, but "EL" is not always referring to the God referred to by the tetragrammaton. And it never refers to the Hebrew/Christian God in it's singular isolated form. It always has a qualifier, like "God Almighty" (El Shad-dai).
The main difference being that the other Canaanite gods didn't all have the EL prefix, in fact, he was the only one that had that prefix, and denominated him as the specific god of Death and War.
You can attempt to claim that isn't true, many biblical and judeaic scholars have attempted to claim the same thing. The archeological evidence doesn't support your claim
That doesn't change linguistics. As I mentioned, there are examples in the Bible of other things, including humans, that were referred to as El.
Another example is Ba'al. Ba'al was both a generic word for pagan gods as well as one specific god. But that doesn't mean so the various pagan gods were the same.
You also missed my point about the qualifier. The fact that the Canaanite god of death and war had no qualifier denotes a difference. The Hebrew/Christian God whose name is given as Jehovah in many translation, always has a qualifier with the word EL. Specifically qualifies like "God Almighty", Most High (el'yohn), and never appears in isolated form except when referring to others.
The word EL even makes up many biblical names like Dani'el (God is my judge), El'isha (God is salvation), and Micha'el (Who is like God?).
The fact that there was a Canaanite god whose name was just "god" means and proves nothing, other than if there ever was a name attributed to that god it was lost to time.
El means "the" as far as I know. As he is "the one" and it is not part of the name, it is the title, basically it is not "a(ny) god" its "the god". At least it was explained so to me from my bro, who "speaks" the old Hebrew. But I don't know why it is the discussion here. Isn't there better places to discuss etymology where there are people who speak the language?
As far as I am aware, EL didn't mean "the" in Canaanite society or language. That happened later with the other tribes of the Canaanites forming completely different civilizations.
You're spineless
What mistakes? Those were all intentional outcomes.
I was with you until you mentioned that god thing.
We understand that you'll repeatedly choose to selectively enforce or break the rules to ensure the predetermined narrative is served, then cite your religion as the reason.
Thanks for letting us know.
no? i was asked to enforce the terms of service and the celebration of murder encourages others but i have now been asked to not consider these a violation anymore
And you, apparently.
Maybe stop using ancient, inconsistent collections of fairy tales and psuedo history to inform your world view.
Grow up lol.
yes? i would remove comments and posts celebrating the death of those people i pray for them as i pray for you and the family of the murdered person you celebrate
I don't know if temporarily muting those accounts was the right call or not - I did not even look at the pictures of the modlog here much less elsewhere - but entirely separately from that I wanted to say thank you for offering your explanation here. Whatever you end up deciding, your willingness to be introspective is already a powerful thing.
thank you
i was asked to moderate anything that is illegal specifically mentioning "jury nullification" and "financially supporting" this has been changed now until a larger announcement is made
many admins and moderators at .world including myself are not american, i pray that the others who are angry at me and hope they consider there are more countries with laws that are different from them.
Jury nullification is one of democracies' systems of checks and balances that protects against injustice. It's also not illegal in the US to talk about as a topic for the general population.
Banning discussion about it is like banning people from talking about voting or civil disobedience. Banning discussion of it is a disservice to the public good.
That's the thing - if someone wants to go to all the trouble to step up and expend actual effort to create an instance, or aid by moderating a community, or even make posts to existing ones, then such a person imho has more of a right to speak up than merely a lurker. Otherwise, it's just whinging, and the people may even have had to do the same if they were in your shoes, following the directives that you were given, regardless of their personal beliefs.
So again I haven't studied the issue enough to know whether it was the right call or not, either by the admins or by you, but I hope as you make that determination in your head that you aren't unduly influenced by people who choose to see only what they view as the extreme negative (as in result) without bothering to look at or acknowledge all the positives that you do as well. Making a judgement is hard work!
Please keep in mind that many people, perhaps out of fear of retaliation (if only by downvoting) may not take the time to express any positive sentiments about this (or, as I am considering doing, may take a break from social media a bit bc all of this news, in every single community it seems, is getting to be a bit much). Thus before I go on that break for a few days, I wanted to express my support for at least trying to help and be there for your community - even if you ultimately feel that it was the wrong call (and I'm not even so much as hinting here that it may have been - I truly don't know nor at this point even care), you did at least try and I wish more people would see that. After some cooling off, I think some will. And for those who choose to remain perpetual entitled children, dependent upon others to do all their work for them (in this case I mean moderation EFFORTS to keep a community going and livable), who even cares what they think.
I dunno about the actions you took here, but I do at least support the efforts you go to on a daily basis to support keeping your community alive and functional.
Are you justifying power tripping?
Not at all. Though she merely did as the instance admins instructed her? (mostly) And they seemed to be worried about police knocking down their door, as laws vary from country to country.
Her part was, as she said in her own words, to have removed the comments and banned people (no matter that they were extremely short-term, are already rescinded, and no more will be forthcoming for some of these issues), when she should have locked the post with a statement that the admins were issuing a moratorium on discussions of the topic for 24 hours and/or when they can get the ToS modified to provide transparency and consistency in what their want to see done. It's their instance - they can do as they please. But her part in this seems only a small one, it's the admins - who I haven't heard anything from yet - who seem the real issuers of these edicts?
And as for myself, I am seeking a more nuanced and subtle form of argumentation beyond simply "my side always right, their side poopy buttface". Though I do have sympathy for those who may have been affected by the underlying healthcare issues, and yet it seems like a proper diagnosis with full acknowledgement of all not just some of the factors involved that would serve us all best as we move forward here?
And I meant what I said at the end:
There may be bad parts about all of this here, but in retrospect it will become easier to see how well this conflict ended up being resolved - the transparency that I'm seeing here gives me strong hope. Like, where are the admins here in this thread, explaining their actions? If it's here I haven't seen it yet, but this mod came forth immediately and owned up to what she did, her explanation as to why, and even exposing her underlying reasoning process - she didn't have to do any of that?! And she's taking a LOT of flak for it too, especially her belief structures. Maybe we'll find out that the admins are being PTBs here, but that's not the vibe I get from this mod in particular, who seemed only trying to be friendly to everyone, and again, already having admitted her mistakes (in removing+banning rather than locking with explanation).
So, what am I missing here, about this mod in particular I mean? (The admins I don't have sufficient information about to even make a guess.)
I'll reply to you later, had too many drinks at this very moment ha ha
Can't comment on bans/deservedness. Lemmy is infested with mods/agents/bots that are pro empire/CIA/military paid protectors of disinformation and said empire.
Not even a conspiracy. They spend billions every year trying to control the conversations online. The executives for many social media companies are former Mossad or CIA. Reddit admins used to have a post up acknowledging the astroturf farm at Eglin Air Force base as their highest traffic source.
Which is why both neoliberal and conservative politicians are pushing for strong social media censorship laws right now, and calling for repealing or modifying the first amendment.
Liberals don’t support the 1a nor 2a. They’re fascists.
Leftists are strong supporters of both, though.
Paradox of tolerance? Are insurance companies on lemmy defending letting people die?
United Health has the highest claim denial rate in the US and denies over 30% of claims by people trying to be healthy.
They don't have to go on lemmy to defend, they just do it and they have let thousands of people die.
"Erm, tos 🤓👆"
Me holding the TOS in my hands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XEwA8A5SE0
I looked at the logs myself, and it absolutely was power tripping. Jury nullification discussion isn't even illegal for fucks sake.
You can appreciate something without celebrating it.
I appreciate the work of these strangers.
The policy is happening at the lemmy.world level, not the individual mod level.
It's right there in the Terms of Service (which nobody actually ever reads):
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
"1. Attacks on users or groups
Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other people or groups of people. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to harass them. Discuss ideas and be critical of principles. Show the respect you desire to receive.
We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature."
We faced the same problem in the Politics community when Henry Kissinger died.
So lemmy.world forbids discussion about hunting?
About fishing?
About organized industrial agriculture?
About austerity measures?
About prison systems?
About police?
...
I'll give you that my comment about hoping more corpos die actually breaks those rules, but uh, I'm using lemmy on mobile, through an app.
It would be helpful to list this rule in the instance sidebar that mobile users can actually see.
...
But anyway, this says nothing about celebrating or joking about a violence that has already happened.
Celebration and jokes, on their own, are not threats nor calls for violence.
If you wanna say that you're not allowed to celebrate or joke about violence that happened to a person or thing, without threatening or calling for further violence (like my smiling comment, and many other recently deleted for tos comments) it would probably be a good idea to actually have a rule for that.
... Also, can you harass or perpetuate violence against a dead person?
... Is it considered violence if you mock a dead person? Harassment?
Yeah, that’s some lib shit if I’ve ever seen it. There’s no reason to write the rules so narrowly, but if you do and you coincidentally only enforce it against people threatening power, you deserve the vegan police in your reports constantly.
But I’m not calling for violence. It already happened. And it’s not against something living, at least not anymore.
A fox attacks a hen house.
Reporters: The foxes have been eating the hens for decades. Here's why that's good for the hens.
...
The hens fight back
Reporters: looks like the hens are beginning to eat the foxes. The hens look angry, yet with a sense of joy about them.
Judges: straight to jail.
(Made a little edit for fun)
seems odd to remove posts with this rule, as the creature is already dead 🤔🤔
Ok, challenge accepted: every instance I come across from .world that has any indication of violence against anything living, well, I'll be reporting that, and I expect the mods to follow up on it quickly.
I'll start with the gardening instances, since plants do feel pain, and thus any pruning/harvesting/etc is an act of violence, and I'm surprised the .world mods haven't shut down such a violent instance.
Wait, they need to be banned outright, actually, because in order to garden, users are going to have to suggest that people dig into the dirt, and that's a pretty blatant call of violence against all organisms, including those at the microscopic level.
Better delete the woodworking instance too, since the only way to work with wood is to kill a tree and dismember its body, often skinning it immediately after it's been sawed off at the knees, juuuuuuust fresh enough to feel all the pain but not enough to fight back.
What an absolute joke.
Many of us .world mods had nothing to do with these deletions and bannings and I would caution you against this sort of flag abuse in the communities I moderate. It looks like you have already started.
If you have an issue with what happened with the mods in c/news, don't take it out on the rest of us.
We hardly ever even delete comments in Ten Forward, let alone ban people.
Or you could clarify your instance wide rules, which were apparently the justification for deleting a lot of what just got deleted?
I'm not gonna go around report flagging everything, I'm not that petty, and I don't know who's in charge of instance wide vs community specific rules, but maybe the core lemmy admin/mod crew should all actually clarify that you're not allowed to joke about or celebrate people's deaths, and that you don't actually mean that any threat of violence toward any living thing is actually against TOS.
How are they my rules? Do you think I wrote them? Do you think I'm even an admin?
I can't clarify shit about what I didn't write and had no input on.
Sorry, I realized that and edited my post, but you replied very quickly.
I do not mean to call you out personally.
Point I'm trying to make is:
It would be cool if whoever is in charge of the instance wide rules made those rules actually reflect the kinds of 'violations' that are enforced, when those rules are specifically, and largely nonsensically, cited as explaining how and why certain comments are violations.
It's not flag abuse. It's clearly written in the instance TOS.
"We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature."
Dude, do you think a meme with Jean-Luc Picard holding a gun is a threat or a call for violence in any form against any living creature?
Because I hate to tell you this, but Star Trek isn't real and Picard can't threaten anyone or cause anyone any violence.
Cool. And if you do what this person did in communities I moderate, you will be banned just like they are. And if you were uncivil to someone like this in a community I moderated, the comment would be deleted.
So if you prefer "this is a fact" to "I caution you," go with that. I was trying to be nicer about it.
And now you’re lying. I am not and have never been a Zionist. You’re only saying that because I am a Jew. I have been working with Jewish Voice For Peace since this war started. What have you done other than insult people on the internet? Have you done anything at all other than attack random Jews because you think Israeli and Jew are synonyms?
I reported things that belong to the .world instance, and therefore fall under the .world rules under the .world Terms of Service we all agreed to.
I have nothing against you or your community, and hope you're doing well healthwise.
But I've also seen you rail against "not all cops are bad" as the lie you know it is in various comment sections, and now you're using the same excuse as to why your forum shouldn't be criticized. "We're not part of that, bring it up with them, even though we belong to the same org."
The rules apply to all of the forums on the instance, or it should apply to none of them. And if such radical thinking, the notion rules should be applied evenly and not be so broad to allow anything to meet the definition, results in me being banned from .world, then I welcome it.
Dude, you're pissed off at one group of people (actually, it looks like one specific person) and attacking a totally different group because of it. That's what is going to get you banned. But it also sounds like that's what you want to happen, so I guess enjoy that.
If it's one specific person, shouldn't the rest of you, y'know, do something about it?
What do you expect me to do about the one specific person they are pissed off at? Even if they are justifiably pissed off, what exactly do you think it is in my power to do?
I'd assume that the rest of the mods could stop a rogue mod from blatantly abusing their power. But if you can't, nevermind.
And enjoy Lemmy's further decline into Reddit 2.0.
Or is that going to get me banned too?
Oh, you can fuck right off with that bullshit. I'm going to go swat the fly buzzing around in my kitchen and I hope that others will join me in swatting flies and even squishing ants in our houses.
...See what an idiotic policy that is?
kill every single bot fly.
Policy isn't the problem, it's the biased and overzealous enforcement.
I can't see which mod is doing it in the modlog, but just a quick glance found 5 removed comments that don't break any (visible) rules.
You ever notice that you only circle the wagons to defend the worst? Always seem to go out of your way to do it too. I don't see any threats in that picture. Nothing that even could be reasonably called a threat. Yet up pops Jordan to save the day. Almost like clockwork.
Best or worst doesn't enter into it, it's simply policy. People might not LIKE that it's the policy, more likely they never read the policy in the first place.
Seems more like opinion than policy to me.
As somebody else pointed out, the policy is calls for violence against living creatures. What is the connection with being happy that somebody has already died?
Calls for violence? Like the 3,473 daily posts about guillotining billionaires?
Any way, I'm glad he's dead.
Modlogs are public...
They're being waaaaay stricter than that.
LOL - this you?
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=11119076
Ouch
No, it means users with a track record of uncivil comments can simply be dismissed with a subtle jerking off motion.
Your opinions are always the same, have no value, add nothing to the communities in which you pretend to participate.
Case in point. Kisses!
So much for "freedom of speech", unless you're rich or a CEO i guess...
The First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the USA applies to the relationship between citizens and the government's authority. Lemmy servers are not the US government, and Lemmy users must abide by the Terms of Service on the Lemmy servers they use.
It's that simple.
You still have the freedom to create your own server and host whatever content you want on there. Lemmy is open source I believe so you can go right ahead and federate your own free speech.
Side note, I'm not saying this to defend health insurance crooks. I'm currently dealing with several insurance problems with denied coverage myself. We can all see the motive of that hooded man clearly.
And the problem currently under discussion is that OP did not break any of the ToS, but was banned anyway for saying something the admins disagreed with.
Everyone gets that part. The relation to "freedom of speech" is what, then?
I dont think you wouldnt be banned if you celebrated anyone elses murder
The problem with the bans is that most users think the murder of someone who caused people so much pain is justified, while the mod believed that celebrating murder is wrong. It wasnt about the money
So glad i went to Divide by Zero
I left after World said they would federate with threads.
Not familiar with the guy, and all the current news articles are filled with quotes from people who obviously have reason to say sweet nothings about him. Anybody care to fill in his bio for us non Americans?
He ... was... the CEO of UHC, one of the largest private healthcare providers in the US.
The dude himself was facing a DOJ investigation into insider trading.
... He didn't even have a profile pic on his LinkedIn. He did not want people to know that much about him, pretty odd for the CEO of such a large company.
UHC as a company has a long history of scandals and extortion style bullshit, much of which he oversaw.
Huge, huge data breach, which UHC compensates those affected by basically saying 'lol, not our problem.'
Used AI model to automate the process of denying people's medical claims.
(Remember how we were gonna have Death Panels if we gave in to ObamaCare or better alternatives? Yeah uh turns out the free market just builds its own fully automated heartless machine that acts as an uberefficient Death Panel, whoops)
Tons of instances of UHC harassing doctors for having the gall to attempt to get their patient's needed care covered by their insurance, denying needed care to chronically ill people for bullshit reasons.
Not like a doctor knows anything about what medical care their patient needs, obviously a number crunching, penny pinching person with mo medical degree whatsoever knows better.
I'm sure that they saw that as a feature, not a bug.
The CEO got the treatment he gave his customers.
The whole "X instance are censoring users" was always projection lol.
It means "I believe in a magical world where the most important thing is official rules and social norms, decorum and tone, and even though those rules and norms are consistently broken and manipulated by bad actors, and now those bad actors make the rules, and they have no decorum and consistently use the most uncouth tones consistently to their own massive benefit, the rules will save us from the barbarity that they did not save us from, because my holier than thou, morally superior attitude will at least make me righteous in my uselessness at protecting and bettering society with rule magic."
Funny, coming from 'Dark Thoughts'.
Anyway, please continue enjoying using lemmy (on your computing machine almost certainly built by slave labor) to be aghast at an apt description of modern liberals, who also fully support drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, arming an ally committing a genocide, etc.
Yep, no murder or violence involved in being or supporting modern western liberalism, no sir.
Bang-a-rang! You love to see it, folks.
The point was to illustrate that liberals, at scale, in their preffered national and world order, despite their claims to support equality and fairness and social justice, are actually fine with routine murder and exploitation, just as long as its obfuscated and justified through layers of organizations and bureacracy, done indirectly...
...whereas actual leftists, at bare minimum, acknowledge that this is the actual reality, that modern society ultimately just has a bunch of byzantine rules which justify and minimize the deaths and exploitation of some groups of people, such that others benefit from this.
The point was not to shame you personally and myself moral grandstand personally for existing and functioning in this world.
But you missed that and took it personally, and then switched into your venomous, hateful, vindictive, true self, after first doing the (i guess more moderate?) tactic of implying i am a dangerous person who may potentially murder any random person.
I could not have asked for a more perfect example of liberal narcissitic two-faced hypocrisy if i tried.
The right wing has done a lot of work to make the left believe that liberals (people in support of equal rights and social justice, to give the actual definition) aren't leftists in order to turn the left against itself. And people like OP actually believe them. They claim liberals are useless, but people like them are actually detrimental to the left.
Also worth noting that OP's rant wasn't about liberal ideas, but about pacifism.
Tankies support right-wing ideologies and a right-wing government, but Russia told them they're left-wing and they're dumb enough to believe them. I see you also believe them. Not sure why.
And no, that's the general definition. Liberalism places importance on personal freedoms, whether that's freedom of trade, speech, belief or expression. There are branches focused on trade and branches focused on expression, and they are ALL liberals. Not all fruits are lemons, but all lemons are fruit.
You don't get to be a leftist just because you claim to be one. There's a whole dang ideology. Authoritarianism is about as right-wing as you can be, which is exactly what tankies support. What makes them left-wing besides their own dubious claim?
I make an effort to support my claims. You just try to appeal to the fallacy fallacy without even addressing what I said.
Don't get me wrong, I feel as though these CEOs shouldn't be surprised at all. But those are toxic responses. With that said, I'm still laughing at the memes. Keep'em coming.
It's a fucking paradox.
It honestly amazes me that damned near everyone seems to miss that part, even though it's in the fucking name.
It's a actually a philosophical argument against tolerating the intolerant, against giving those who do or would destroy an equal voice in the name of tolerance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The actual 'paradox' is just used as a starting position for an argument, and that argument has a definitive, non paradoxical conclusion, according to Popper, the guy who came up with the whole thing.
Somtimes there's more to a term than just the words that constitute it.
the paradox of tolerance is stupid (e: as a rhetorical tool) anyway because why on earth is a paradox a suitable foundation for any argument, much less an argument with life and death involved? literally wish i could wipe that shit from the history of the internet.
(edit: obviously i still agree with the sentiment of the paradox but it could be argued so much more efficiently.) real ones conceive of tolerance as a social contract. infinitely easier and less chronically online “um-akshually”-pilled.
You sound like a flat-earther with this argument. "How could the behaviour of the sky possibly tell us anything about the shape of the ground?". Well, it does. And just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
These aren't my opinions, these are facts.
If you can't come up with some actual logic as to why we should ignore the tolerance paradox, then it will continue to stand as a cognitive guideline.
Anyway why would you want to give the intolerant free rein? You should be glad you don't have to tolerate them.
Yeah, you deeply deeply misunderstood what you are responding to my friend. Please read it again, or I’ve written another explanation here: https://lemmy.cafe/post/10380507/8770998
My qualms are with the rhetorical language of the paradox. I actually quite agree with the paradox’s sentiment, as I see you also do.
I don’t appreciate the jump to insults either. I’m sorry you misunderstood me but let’s stay kind when responding, hm?
There was no insult intended. Before your edit and response, your argument sounded like flat earth nonsense. I'll go and read your explanation.
There was no insult intended. Before your edit and response, your argument sounded like flat-earth-style nonsense. I'll go and read your explanation.
Edit: can't open your link
I think the question was more about how it's is paradox.
Not tolerating intolerance is in itself, intolerance.
As an example: This paradox is commonly used as quip against people who support things like gay rights that also get pissed off at political parties that attempt to restrict gay rights.
Weird how killing even shit bags is still illegal. Its like it's a crime or something and we're a civilization.
Try to remain part of it, lest that sword's other edge show up.
The other edge has been cutting us all for decades upon centuries, I'm glad you are priveleged enough to have not seen it first hand.
Holy fuck what's wrong with you peole. Two wrongs doesn't make it right
No but hopefully this wrong will make others think twice about being shitty leeches
If you think people screeching, celebrating, frothing at the mouth, and advocating violence is "popular sentiment" then you're part of the goddamned problem. The lynch mob mentality around here is sickening.
If you think there is any kind of other functional way to solve the problem that is a capitalist class which has completely captured the government, thus making peaceful resistance or relying soley on the (captured and controlled) official mechanisms of democratic government an ineffective palliative at best, then I'd say you're part of the problem.
Also, tsk tsk, cursing, no reason to be uncivil.
EDIT: Also, sure I indicated I hope more corpos die, but tons of people made jokes that did not call for more death, they were just laughing about it.
Let's write a letter in a nice, soft, non aggressive tone, outlining our requests (not demands, that's pushing it), with love and understanding for their continued disregard for our wellbeing.
That'll work, right?
Shirley, it must.
That's right, write your representatives, call them, that'll show the politician's who's boss!
Oh.
Wait, whats that?
Empirical, peer reviewed studies going back to the early 2010s show that voter preference, actual voter support levels for a policy have just barely above 0 actual effect on what laws are enacted?
And the most statistically significant factor, the groups that get the laws the prefer passed around 90 to 95% of the time are... special interest lobbying groups representing giant corporations and their owners, who also happen to run 501c3 PACs that donate the vast majority of campaign funds to the vast majority of legislators?
Nah, can't be.
Surely (insert politician here) will give us all healthcare/financial relief/stop the wars/whatever if we all ask really nicely, in writing.
Of course it will.
And don't call me Shirley
Surely, Shirley.
The problem with this approach is that the "corpos," as you say, are way better at killing people than the problem-solvers are. They have a ton of experience and they have all the weapons and money.
Everyone who hasn't been through a civil war says, "Let's just do one! We can kill the bad people and solve all the problems. It's the only way." The people who've been through one tend to say, "Violence is all fun and simple until it starts happening to you and everyone you care about. It's like a nightmare you can't escape, and there's no way to stop it once it starts, just ride it out to the shattered conclusion. And there's no guarantee that the post-conclusion world will be any better. Sometimes it is dramatically worse. Let's try some other things first."
There's a difference between a civil war and a number of high profile assasinations.
They're better at those, too.
I'm saying that if your system for making things better is to just assassinate anyone who's making a problem, it won't turn out the way you think it will.
There are a lot of ways violence can be applied to accomplish a good goal. The civil war was one, the American revolution was one. The 2014 revolution in Ukraine. The labor movement in the late 1800s in America. Those are just some that spring immediately to mind. There are also nonviolent ways of making progress, some effective and some not.
I'm not ever aware of randomly assassinating the people who are making a problem, all on your own, ever leading to a big improvement. There are some obvious big examples of it making things exponentially worse. For obvious reasons.
Has it ever been tried historically, though? Prior to the advent of modern handguns, it wasn't really practical to attempt, and without the internet, there was no possibility of a widespread movement supporting the action. In a way, you could view it as the evolution of the 2nd amendment. Be a responsible pillar of society or get shot if you piss somebody off too badly.
Archduke Ferdinand, JFK, Lincoln, the French Revolution, all come immediately to mind. The Weathermen didn't kill anybody but they did try the strategy of big violence to address societal problems. Guns have been around for a while.
Who decides that, though? Anyone with a gun can just decide on their own who's the problem? I'm saying that has a big track record of causing the problems to get even worse. There's a reason why the American revolutionaries wrote down exactly their reasons, made sure to make the good argument that they were on the right side of history and collaborated in a big group to make sure everyone was on the same page and it wasn't just a pot shots at the bad guys free-for-all.
The whole world got extremely lucky when that guy who tried to shoot Trump missed.
Jury's still out on that one. In a few years we may wish the guy had been a better shot.
Anyone with a gun who's willing to give up their own life in exchange. In that sense, no different from how it already is today.
All the incidents you point to were single, one-off events. If however there was actually a habit of people willing to give up their lives and freedom to take down a billionaire who's severely wronged them, who's to say that billionaires as a whole wouldn't actually think twice about their actions before being an asshole? The catch is that it cannot rely on any one person or small group of actors, but has to become a grassroots movement to have any chance of success.
Let me just say I'd love to continue this conversation, but even talking further about real world examples of things that have already happened, which I have no intention of doing pr emulating myself, would risk ... lets say a kind of moderation from a higher authority.
You're talking nonsense. We are on db0. You can talk about violence to make a political or historical argument. I know, because I just did exactly that.
Even on lemmy.world, I think you can usually do it also as long as you're not calling for or celebrating violence, although the moderation is sometimes weird and inconsistent there. But in this particular community I don't see any kind of issue if you want to say what you mean.
I am posting from a phone.
In the USA.
Without a VPN.
I have no worries about the db0 mod team rofl.
Not sure if /s
If you're a liberal, yes. If you're an actual leftist, no.
If something else, I don't care.
I’m a big fan, brother. 🤘🏽
Stop painting actual liberals worldwide with that 'liberal' brush you Americans use, please.
I read an interesting paper on the French Revolution once. It made a note about how there's so much fuss made about the deaths of the noble class there in the French Revolution and how it's so universally decried in our society. But little note has ever made about the millions of people who were killed in the centuries before the French Revolution by those same Nobles. In numbers that far far outweigh the few Nobles who died in the revolution . How there's no massive outcry or public condemnation of all the peasants that were allowed to starve, or who kicked off their lands, or were thrown into useless Wars for the profit of the few. How all that suffering and human Carnage is just accepted as every day, until it happens to the wealthy.
Do you have any idea how much death and suffering that man has caused in the pursuit of profit?
Like, he caused actual harm and death to people...
But because he does it calmly while wearing a suit, you're judging his victims (or their surviving family) for not giving a fuck he's dead?
Are you just not familiar with the American Health are industry?
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter. All this frothing at the mouth, praising the assassin, etc goes far beyond gallows humor into sociopath/ extremist territory.
And yes, intimately familiar as that is who my work contracted for our insurance plans.
Well...
I dont see that in the screenshot...
https://lemmy.world/modlog/1347
I don't see that in the modlog...
Are you sure what you're mad about actually happened?
Because it seems like you have a different impression on what happened.
It was definitely happening a lot more in the other news posts about this subject. But those modlogs were nuked once the other posts were removed.
It isn't just mob mentality; the person in question is blamed for the suffering of multiple other people, and the commenters here are taking that into account. In an ideal world this CEO would have been judged and condemned, instead of someone taking the matter into their own hands, but we're far off from an ideal world.