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.
You said "overthrow the government." That is inherently a violent act. You also shifted blame for the actions of said government to anyone not actively partaking in previously the mentioned act. Additionally, "no calls for violence" is generally the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be explicitly written (a "don't drink the things you find under the sink" rule), but regardless, would easily be covered by "be excellent."
A permanent ban may not be called for, but overall, YDI.
So if you're living under a fascist regime, you claim that saying "overthrow the government" is a violent act and deserves sanction? U for real?
To "overthrow" something has an inherently violent undertone unless you're talking about literally throwing an object too far. Additionally, most public spaces don't enjoy being host to calls for violence or calls to bring down governments because things like that can easily result in sanctions against them. Passing blame to the people is also absurd, just as I don't blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government and I don't blame all Germans for the actions of the Nazis.
It seems like common sense to me that "Be excellent" would extend to things beyond the immediate list, and "Overthrow your government or you're a fascist," is not excellent.
In short, yes, overthrowing a government is inherently violent, no it is not inherently wrong, and yes, I believe it is fair a public space might not want to host that.
I overthrew the ball and it went over the backboard.