Ok, on a thread about how psychiatric hospitals are getting gobbled up by private equity, and treatment standards are plummetting, I say, that if you actually wanna stop this, you have to overthrow the government and abolish corporations, otherwise, you're complicit.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to get into a discussion about tacit vs explicit consent to be governed, or anything like that.
Here's the post url again:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/46618629
But uh, yeah, jawbone all you like, don't change nothin' in a fascist state.
So, then after a brief exchange, where I remind pele that his retort he tried on me last time I said something like that of 'Where are you from / You're not American', I remind him of the last time we danced that dance.
Here's that older exchange, for context:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/45775934/20923933
He then thanks me for that reminder, deletes my original comment, bans me from his comm.
Problem: He banned me for "rule 5, promoting violence".
Here's rule 5 on the sidebar:
Here's the instance rules:
Nothing about advocating violence.
I would also go so far as to say that uh, he intervened and made an uncivil comment.
... Am I... missing some hidden rules... somewhere?
Also... did I explicitly promote violence?
By saying:
"Overthrow the government. Abolish corporations."
???
Is it impossible to do many nonviolent things to pressure a regime to change, a major policy to be reworked, with a sufficient amount of people?
Anyway, yep, there we go, I submit this to the evaluation of fellow m@teys and any other interested passersby.
bonus
pele, if you show up here, I Iiterally do not care what you have to say, I have blocked you to improve my lemmy experience.
The broader meaning of their rule 5 of "be good to each other" and your comments make me think YDI.
Saying "but it doesn't say violence is against the rules" has the same energy as if you put a finger in front of their face and saying "I'm not touching you". You went against the spirit of the rule they banned you for.
Saying "yeah overthrow the government or your complicit" is so hostile to so many people. Even if you're right you were an asshole.
Overthrowing a government is not necessarily violent.
Do explain. The first thing anyone thinks of with that phrase is armed violent conflict.
Uh nope.
Not me, not others in this thread.
Sounds like a you problem.
You, presuming to speak for apparently, anyone and everyone.
I would provide you with examples of non violent means of resisting a fascist state, but you wouldn't care, as exemplified by you refusing to look into the extremely relevant historical context I suggested you look into, so that you might understand the very real possibility of a literal genocide against mentally disordered people in a fascist regime.
Yeah, again, because it has nothing to do with this thread. Save your time.
If it's so relevant, the OP should probably amend his post. It didn't seem relevant enough to include originally.
Uh huh.
being nice to each other has nothing to do with violence directed at outsiders
How.
"each other" refrences a finite group, in this case everyone in the community. The rule does not apply to people definitively outside the community nor unkindness towards them.
"Be excellent to each other."
'So the outgroup has no rights or moral value.'
I wanna throw you a monkey's paw, then sit back and watch.
It is a wild leap to go from ‘we don’t have to be polite to politicians not present in the discussion’ to ‘kill all the others, they have no rights.’
It's a wild leap to go from 'be kind, god dammit' to 'only people on this website count.' Fuck's sake, the expanded rule makes clear it's about vast groups. You gotta bend over backwards to insist 'each other' only means 'those present.'
Never talking badly about anyone, anywhere sounds great for oppressors 🤷♂️
Never talking badly about assholes on this website isn't a great idea either.
I love paws, I hope it's soft
I strongly disagree.
That rule lists a number of kinds of bigotries, hatreds and cruelties targeting specific groups of people.
Advocating violence is not the same thing as varying kinds of bigotries.
It can be an element of bigotry, but not necessarily.
I believe you've made a category error.
Your interpretation of Rule 5 is 'be good to each other'.
This is an interpretation.
It is not stated.
It would easy to state 'advocating violence' as another rule.
Beyond that, supporting a system that fails and harms people, as faceless machine, is not being good to each other.
Me pointing this out is not promoting violence.
I am autistic.
I generally do not read subjective meaning into things where there is no clear context to imply such a meaning.
I read what is written, and what those words mean.
I do not even attempt to follow rules that are not written, are not explicit.
If you think that people such as myself are assholes, and are hostile to so many people for stating objectvely true things, well then I guess you'll soon not have hear from people like me, as we will all be thrown into those woefully inadequate psychiatric systems.
But that'll be ok.
Because then you won't have to hear from with hostile assholes who don't want to be forcibly traumatized against their wills, and charged for that 'privelege'.
Or worse.
I would suggest you look up the history of aspergers, autism, and what the Nazis did to people they diagnosed with those.
Ableism. As part of their broader genocide.
I'm not going to go research Nazi and ableism. Its not relevant to your OP, you weren't banned because of ableism.
I was banned for stating what has to happen to prevent ongoing and worsening ableism.
If you don't care to learn about why that is the case, that that is what has to happen, then you have no conception of what ableism actually is, as exemplified by the literal Holocaust.
This further solidifies that your idea that 'I was banned for not being good to other people' is astonishingly hypocritical, conditional, selective, arbitrary and uninformed at best, outright duplicitous bad faith rhetoric at worse.
You are saying that I am not being 'good to people' by suggesting that people do what is historically required to be done avert a eugenics campaign, a genocide, against the mentally disordered... you are saying that is me being 'not good to people', by saying that if they do not do this, they are complicit in it.
You have this perfectly inverted, and you refuse to even attempt to learn that is the case.
I was banned for promoting effective anti-ableism, which was misconstrued as promoting violence.