How deep are they willing to guzzle that Nazi boot?
Well duh, its the same group Jefferson fought.
Reading JL’s comments in this thread reminds me of this excellent quote
“A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war and supports all civil rights movements except the one that’s going on right now.”
So they’ve gone from “we don’t have a first amendment so shut up” to “we don’t have any ethics so shut up.” Cool.
we’re talking about quoting the guy who put slaves in secret cupboards and trapdoors under tables and shit right
what’s the name of this shitty movement that guy ended up founding anyway? why quote him?
PTB
Time to post some quotes
Others I like:
Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
JFK
Riots are the voice of the unheard
MLK
I continue to maintain that the best individual policy is to instance-block .world and let the redditor hoi polloi who end up there self-select onto smaller and better instances as they wake up to what a crappy place the default is. If they aren’t capable of eventually waking up to that, then I don’t really want them in my feed, so .world is a good place for them to be contained.
PTB. Like always for .world lol
Well ayy, you beat me to making a PTB post on this, but uh yeah…
.world?
collaborating with and covering for fascists?
People should move to other instances and mods of popular communities should migrate the communities as well.
happy cake day!
Sadly, we have rules we must follow as well.
The rule in this case is a site-wide rule:
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#1-attacks-on-people-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 serious threats or calls for violence.
We do not tolerate serious threats or calls for violence.
Are you saying that famous quotes are a serious threat or call for violence?
Thank you for checking in, your attention is noticed and appreciated (really!). I will start by acknowledging my heavy snark. To address your point: Which group of people was seriously targeted by threats or calls to violence by the Benjamin Franklin quote?
I can’t say, as I wasn’t a part of the action. I’m at the hospital with my kid right now, but when I have time, I’ll dig further
A rule of thumb: message the top mod (first person on the mod list) when you have a problem.
Everybody else defers to them, and we tend to not override them, as moderator powers trickle down - meaning if you look at the list, the person at the top can remove all those under them.
If you see a top mod abusing their power, go to the instance home page, and on the right, you can see the admins. They have god tier power, and can right wrongs mods can’t.
Unless demanded by local legislation, that’s a clear PTB in my book.
So. You have a link about the usage of force by the dogs of some broligarchic junta. Clearly unnecessary, unless someone thinks people in wheelchair are such a violent threat that it demands such measures. The group was arrested mostly for “Crowding, Obstructing, and Incommoding” - i.e. some “quick, find some law that fits this situation, so we can get rid of those things! Heil Chrump!”.
Then you have a commenter (the_q) correctly pointing out shit won’t progress unless people actually fight back. And another (PancakesCantKillMe) clearly quoting something; I don’t even know (or care) who this Thomas Turbano guy is, but the second comment is clearly a quote.
So, let ask me the following: accordingly to the LW mods, is self-defence violence?
- If it is not, then those comments should not be removed as “advocating violence”.
- If it is, then they’re effectively promoting that people should lower themselves from human beings to punching bags of their local junta.
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t even think they’re doing this “intentionally”. I get LW mods are full of Good Intentions®, and for the sake of some idyllic vision of pacifism, where tyrants will magically stop being tyrants if you say them “tyranny bad! EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD, KIND STRANGER!”. However Hell is full of good intentions.
.world sucks ass, it’s a reddit clone
There are a few news related subs on .world with shitty moderators, the rest of the instance is as chill as anywhere else. If you see .world mentioned here, it is probably the News community.
I wish i could find a better instance. :c
You can. This community is on a good instance.
…have you expended the slightest bit of effort to do that? Because there are plenty.
I’ve researched a few dozen.
Every time I dig deep there’s something unreconcialable I find in usually the community or the admins’ unfair moderation practices. Or it’s really small and weird and I don’t understand what it’s about.
.world is cringe and corporate feeling, like reddit, but the admins are more consistent than the smaller communities I’ve tried.
Please update here if you find one! The draw of lemmy (and fediverse in general) should be that if something like this happens we aren’t beholden to the instance and can switch, but unfortunately I share your experience with other instances 😔
Im in the same boat :/
Lol says the “reddthat” user. Actually it’s a good instance name, but the irony …
Reddthat disables downvotes, so quite different from Reddit
Is it? There are plenty of subreddits who have taken downvotes out of their community. Badly, but they have. /r/CanadaPolitics will outright ban you if you ever admit to downvoting something in the community.
The removal of downvotes alone is not remotely sufficient evidence of being “quite different” from Reddit in that regard. Honestly it just reminds me of /r/Conservative and their flair system too. I don’t understand why downvotes are being banished.
Reddit basically removed downvotes as well since the EA comment. You still had the button, but it was inable to change the trend of the first few minutes.
What a bunch of snowflakes.
I mean, in fairness, Thomas Jefferson was a big advocate for violence. As far as he was concerned, if someone was infringing on your rights, the answer was to get some friends with some rifles and go to work.
Who do we need to be fair to? Nazi sympathizers?
That aside, does that mean libraries in NL aren’t allowed to carry books that quote Thomas Jefferson? I doubt they have any risk of law enforcement beating their doors down over that…
who shoukd we be fair to? nazis?
Yep. And nobody else. To do otherwise would be illiberal and amtisemitic and communist.
Look out, pointing out that abiding by their rules will lead to no change will get you downvoted to hell because people want to feel like their ineffective actions mean something.
I’m not agreeing with the mods, I haven’t even looked into the details. I’m pretty sure it is legal to advocate violence in books (or, for that matter, on the internet), it’s just that in the weird quasi-legal regulatory space that is moderated forums it is a universal no no.
I’m just saying that if the mods are accusing Thomas Jefferson quotes of advocating violence, they are probably right, because he was a big and unapologetic advocate of violence in some circumstances.
It is illegal only if it is reasonably going to trigger or calls for any immediate lawlessness. Like straight up trying to get a bunch of people together to knock-over a convenience store or actually organizing a murder.
Saying “man, I wish this evil son of a bitch took a round in the face” is not such a time. Niether is quoting someone else suggesting violence as a path towards liberty.
Correctamundo. It’s called the Brandenburg test.
it’s just that in the weird quasi-legal regulatory space that is moderated forums it is a universal no no.
Where the fuck did you get a nonsense idea like that?
Which side of it?
The side that it’s not actually illegal to advocate violence? “To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test.” Unless there’s a decent likelihood that me talking on the internet will actually lead to whatever I’m talking about happening, it’s okay to talk about, which leaves a massive grey area.
Or the side that threats of violence are not allowed on most moderated spaces on the internet? I’m not sure how I could give you a citation for that one, would you settle for citations from like 5 of the biggest social media platforms as a stand-in?
The way you phrased it made it sound like social media was somehow being forced to do it rather than choosing to do it themselves.
Opposite. Was clear to me; excessive cya, or just wanting to.
To you, it sounded that way, maybe.
Or, it’s possible that you didn’t really care whether it “sounded” like I was saying that weird and not true thing (who would even be forcing those social media platforms to do this? “The” government? The devs? The server owners? The corporate owners, of the ones that are corporate which wasn’t what we were talking about?), and just wanted to play the favorite Lemmy game of pretending someone said something everyone knows is false, so you can waste time and typing of all people involved by pretending that absurd thing is what they said and then starting to curse and be hostile at them about how stupid they are for saying that absurd thing they never said. It is fun to do that. Popular too! Have fun with it. Any time you want to join us in the conversation we’re actually having you are welcome to do that too, though.
How the fuck else was I supposed to interpret “weird quasi-legal regulatory space,” asshole? Jeez, bite my head off for an honest mistake due to your unclear phrasing, why don’t you!
based.
First, not the mod who removed it.
Second, they weren’t quoting Jefferson to be quoting Jefferson, they were MANGLING Jefferson so they could make a call for violence.
The full quote:
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Removed quote:
“The Tree of Liberty needs watered from the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. I fear we are there.”
Saying “I fear we are there” is a direct call to violence, it’s not in the OG quote and that’s why it got removed.
Saying “I fear we are there” is a direct call to violence
No it’s not.
it can be interpreted as such, I could say the same about those numbers people associate with Nazism
“The situation in the world is becoming so tense that I fear an outbreak of violence is inevitable.”
Now, was that a call to violence, or simply an observation on the state of things? Because what I said is essentially the same thing as the original comment.
The mod who removed it disagreed, I also disagree and would have removed it as well.
When ascertaining a threat, agencies use “immenence” as a primary marker. So saying something like “Hey, every now and then we need to guillotine these bastards.” Is fine.
Saying “Hey, every now and then we need to guillotine these bastards, how does Tuesday sound, does Tuesday work for you?” has a level of immenence that the first statement lacks.
The call to action is shedding blood, immediately. That’s removable.
Yea, God forbid we make statements that would be unappealing to advertisers.
You do know there is nothing illegal in most countries about talking about violence, right? Like, that rule is not for any legitimate legal reason, it’s there to keep websites sanitary.
Why the fuck are you so afraid of calls to action?
Its kinda funny to me, its like you can talk about how shitting is necessary for humans to live but don’t you dare say you’re gonna go take a dump.
Did the removed quote use quotation marks to indicate where the quote ended and the personal thoughts of OP began?
Because there is a considerable difference in intent depending on where quotation marks are used.
Similarly, it’s the difference capitalization makes between “helping your uncle Jack off a horse” and bestiality.
No offense, but it feels like OPs comment was removed because you considered it bestiality / a call to violence, when it very likely was just a poor usage of grammar.
I pasted the removed quote from the modlog and added the quotes around it to make it clear I was quoting it, the original removed comment had no quote marks at all.
Thanks for the explanation. That is what I was thinking. His failure to use quotes is possibly no different than someone failing to capitalize the first letter of their uncle named jack.
Imo, this was far more likley a grammar error than an intentional alteration of the original Jefferson quote.
Like Abraham Lincoln said, those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it. Of course that God being Jake Paul, Ohio rizz phantom tax.
Dude, Jefferson literally advocated for violence. They’re not wrong in the slightest with that.
He said people dying in a violent battle (in pursuit of something) is the “natural manure”. And killing lots of people is pretty much peak violence.
Got it, so we’re allowed to post news articles on .world discussing facsists advocating for and directly enacting brutal violence… at a grand scale…
But unspecified, indirect references to the concept of violent resistance, self-defense, on a similar scale… nah, users can’t do that.
You do not see a hypocrisy here?
A blatant and glaring double standard?
I’m just stating what fact is here. This was an easy question. I certainly hope people report the other calls for violence you mentioned as well. They definitely should.
But this isn’t even the interesting question. I think your question with the double standard is far more interesting. Or whether Jefferson was right. Or if OP could quote him if they were using apostrophes or a bit more clever wording.
… What?
I can post a news link to an article that is reporting on fascists violently absuing people.
That doesn’t get reported, or banned.
I cannot, for instance, say in a comment:
‘someone should kidnap and ‘’‘deport’’’ these ice agents’
or
‘someone should tie them into to a wheelchair and throw them into a jail cell’
… Those are much more direct and specifc calls for violence than uh, quoting an American founding father talking about generalized forceful resistance of tyranny… and even those comments got deleted.
It is blatantly obvious biased censorship:
Discussions of the State commiting literally illegal, unjust violence?
Totally allowed.
Discussions of justly resisting said unjust violence, with the force required to be actually effective?
Forbidden. Cannot even allude to it.
This is not complicated or even interesting.
This is an obviously blatant double standard, like … I can walk up to you and punch you in the face, and if you take a swing back at me, actually, you doing that is assault and now you go to jail.
Maybe this is lost on non Americans:
The fascist goons currently running around being violent thugs are routinely breaking all kinds of fucking pre existing laws, all the way up and down their chain of command.
Literally thousands, tens of thousands of times a day.
I know. I mean you’re pretty spot on with your first assessment. Reporting on violence is okay, calling for violence isn’t. There is a difference between the two. The first is allowed per the rules, the second is forbidden.
And yes, this is some form of censorship. It’s outlawed in most jurisdictions, including from the First Amendment in the US. I believe they call that “Imminent lawless action”. And there’s a bit more to it.But hey. Again, I’m just stating how it is. If you want to argue with me on a personal level about violence… I also think self-defense is okay. I’m kind of opposed to violence, but it might be necessary in some cases. I just don’t understand why you’d like to use a Jefferson quote, when the MAGA people tainted it by printing it on their t-shirts. If I were opposed to the fascists, I’d pick a quote that isn’t used by them as well.
Ok, lets say theres a news story about people calling for violent resistance against fascists.
Can that be posted?
Can commenters make their own statements of support for this, in that thread?
This is basic logic, these rules do not make any damned sense, they are obviously contradictory when applied in the manner you are suggesting.
Also uh no, no .world does not actually have any specific rule that deliniates the distinction you’ve invented about violence being ok in news posts but not in comments.
Find me those rules.
Also… if? IF you were opposed to fascists?
Implying this is a stance that requires deliberation and contemplation?
Pretend you’re a brown skinned American citizen who just got fucking illegally kidnapped on fabricated charges and deported to a foreign death prison complex for the rest of your life, which will probably be quite short.
This has already fucking happened.
Does this remind you of any historical events…
… Hendrik, from an obviously German lemmy instance?
Anything involving gas chambers, ovens, work camps?
Anything ringing a fucking bell?
Dude, calm down a bit, we’re not enemies. I’m on your side, we just talk a bit differently and probably live far away from each other. I’d send you a big stick or even help you cudgel the fascists if I were in the States. And yes, as a German I know how nazis look like and I can recognize them easily.
Here are the rules: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#1-attacks-on-people-or-groups
It’s the first one: “[…] We do not tolerate serious threats or calls for violence.”Concerning your first question:
lets say theres a news story about people calling for violent resistance against fascists. Can that be posted?
I think yes.
Can commenters make their own statements of support for this, in that thread?
I think you’re trying to shoehorn something in here. It’s complicated. Is this “support” a call to do something? Is it intended to motivate people to join in as well and it includes violence? Then no. They cannot do that. Otherwise yes (unless it contradicts another rule.)
Btw, here’s
yourMAGA shirt. I wouldn’t wear it: https://www.amazon.com/Tree-Liberty-Thomas-Jefferson-T-Shirt/dp/B094H1VR7ZIt’s the first one: “[…] We do not tolerate serious threats or calls for violence.”
Cool.
So anyway:
Also uh no, no .world does not actually have any specific rule that deliniates the distinction you’ve invented about violence being ok in news posts but not in comments.
You’re not proficient enough in English to understand what I’m saying.
You’ve suggested I buy a fascist shirt, while at the same time saying you would help me hit American fascists with a cudgel, when they all have body armor, military assault rifles, and armored personnel carriers.
… Despite the fact that I was not even the person who said the tree of liberty quote at all, but you keep acting like I did.
You’ve repeatedly insulted me multiple times by way of your poor grasp of English, I am bailing out of this conversation before I am as rude to you as you have been to me.
The libs are libbing again
