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.
Explicitly.
I can commit outright felonies, stating my sincere opinions, without explicitly calling for violence.
People inferring meaning from the things you write is not some failure of honest comprehension. It's a necessary skill we bring to every online interaction. And it's not some "resting bitch font" situation, where a completely innocuous statement was twisted beyond recognition; you called people complicit for not overthrowing the government.
Complicit. Guilty. Criminal. Directly to blame for the worst abuses of a system clearly gone pear-shaped, because they don't agree with your exact solution to the problems they plainly oppose.
You are calling people polite Nazis for not being 100.0% onboard with your specific political beliefs. Fuck off, guy. Regardless of what those beliefs are.
resting bitch font, I’m dyin 🤣
Came to mind after this baffling exchange.
A dozen people had incompatible takes somehow agreeing I was an absolute bastard. 'Don't sneer about them being wrong!' I was agreeing with them. 'They refuted your argument!' They were agreeing with me. 'Be polite, not snide!' I thanked them? 'You're so mad at them!' Never.
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.
No no, I am calling you a polite nazi.
Because of what you have said here.
See how thats the immediate context of the conversation, where we can actually use that contexr to be extremely precise?
Well, apparently not, you seem to meld together concepts of the individual, the group and the member, you don't seem to be able to hold them in your mind simultaneously yet also seperately.
Which possibly suggests you are highly emotional right now. That and your use of expletives.
Anyway, if uh, you think I made some kind of terroristic threat, well, I guess go for it right? Report me.
It might work, in this current fascist climate where actual objective rules don't matter.
Then you win, right?
All the violence of the state comes down on me for offending you.
But normally... no, it wouldn't qualify.
No specfic or even really discernible group target, no threatened action, thus no reasonably resulting significant damages.
Its too vague.
Oh also it by no means at all comes close to the threshold of a 'credible' threat. That one has a bit higher bar to clear, you'd have to have a way of indicating I have some kind of actionable plan, intent to carry it out, and capability to carry it out.
I have none of those.
But hey, your personal slapdash guesstimate is the same thing as you knowing what you're talking about, right?
You just make up the details of the scenario in your head so that you are right.
Again, like a fascist, an overly emotional bully.
Finally, just so we are clear here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicit
See that or in the middle of the sentence?
Yeah, complicit has a more colloquial usage and meaning, its not soley a legal term.
But it is telling that the legalistic interpretation is the one that you jumped to, and the only one you can hold in your mind at any given time.
Oh
my
god
it is
so tedious
to read your 'well no but yes'
crap.
Oh sorry, casual use of expletives means I'm being emotional and unreasonable, and therefore wrong. Says guy comparing everyone who disagrees with him to Nazis. And chest-beating for consequence, as if getting banned from a website is the same as being sent to the camps. Quoting Webster without a fucking drop of irony, like I don't know what complicit means, in the multiple synonyms-- nope.
Goodbye.
Bye!