... That seems fair.

In a tepid half defense of BPR: I didn't realize I was in pele's comm, that he moderates.

I... didn't realize he was a mod untill he banned me.

I don't have the best eyes, and I lost my glasses a while back... I just saw his name in blue, figured that meant he was the OP or it was his lemmy birthday,.not the mod.

I don't really have a filter, I tend to just be me, and then some people have problems with this, and apparently, sometimes they are mods and I am in their comm.

So... oops, on that front, but I also don't care to self censor for... anyone, really.

Like I said, tepid, half defense, haha.

'Surviving within a context means you are personally at fault.'

'Damn, why don't these stupid powerless libs we blame for everything rush to the ideology we take for granted? We're on their side!'

In context, you said, if you don't help me attack the people in power, you are among the people who must be attacked.

Nope.

You are reading in hostility and violence where there is none.

I am just as complicit as anyone else not doing everything they can to overturn or at least greatly modify a system.

You are right though, that I don't give a shit about you or anyone elses insecurities more than any other particular person.

Everyone has them.

Most people just aren't very honest about them.

And then they read in hostility into what could be read as simply criticism, with no intent to cause personal harm behind it.

I will again note that I did not explicity call for any violence.

I did not call for anyone, any person, to be attacked.

You just read that in, made up some context in your head, assumed it was in the text.

It wasn't.

Just like I did not say 'if you are not with me, you are the devil.'

Like I said earlier... I am just as complicit as probably everyone else reading this.

I am just more aware that I am complict, have accepted that I am, and am trying to spread this awareness to others.

I do not think I, or anyone else, is 'the devil'.

However, in my view, if you cannot accept your complicity, if a community can't... then they are in the cult of civility, as you put it.

Polite Nazis, as you put it.

Or at the very least, people who are polite to Nazis.

Overthrowing a government is not necessarily violent.

being nice to each other has nothing to do with violence directed at outsiders

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.