Modlog: Will not tolerate blind alignment with Luigi Mangione
mod
Removed Comment Did nothing wrong by sunzu2 reason: Rule against wrongful advocacy
mod
Banned sunzu2 from the community Ask Lemmy reason: Will not tolerate blind alignment with Luigi Mangione expires: in 3 days
Alright good folk, what's your take here.
You're viewing a single thread.
Needs clarification.
Maybe they just don't want people to promote murder as a form of political action, although the log is not clear.
That would be a pretty common position, probably aligned with the rules of most communities on Lemmy and can be completely unrelated to protecting corporations, the system or whatever other people are jumping to.
Health care executives sentence millions to death because saving their lives isn't profitable. If you kill someone attempting to take your life, that's self-defence.
I am on board with promoting self-defence as a form of political action.
In my country, physical self-defense is relevant to the moment of the aggression and is required to be proportional (which is complicated, I concede). If you later go look for the aggressor to exercise your right to "self-defense", that's vengeance and personal justice, not self-defense anymore. This is usually forbidden in democratic countries because it could have a lot of negative effects of society.
Overall, unless the laws and logic are very different in the USA, I don't think this could be considered self-defense. This is also not going to stop the abuse by insurance companies since thousands of people can replace this guy, so it's more about sending a message, isn't it. What do we usually call the method of killing people to send a political message?
What do we usually call the method of killing people to send a political message?
âweâ is carrying a lot of weight because one manâs âterroristâ is another manâs âfreedom fighterâ
You're right, I should have said "some people" instead.
How is my opinion on his actions "promoting murderx?
Has has not even been convicted of anything and you are going off what teevee told you for this analysis.
Same response as the one you already received by someone else for the same question, so I didn't add to it. https://jlai.lu/post/14533062/12060318
When Nazi's come, don't ever fight back because you would cause violence, mmmkhay
Sure buddy đ€Ą
The fact that the idea of defending yourself is being censored and bootlickers cheer this on is prolly the reason why owner class feels this brazen to systemcally kill peasants for profit.
"Moment of aggression" is an interesting point, especially when the aggression is drawn out over a period of months. If someone puts an explosive collar on your neck, then every moment until the collar is disarmed should count as a moment of aggression.
I will accept that the attack was not proportional, but not in the way you think. The initial aggression took thousands of lives, drawn out over an agonising amount of time. Luigi took one, and it was quick.
The message was supposed to change how healthcare is dealt with, and to save lives as an extension. The hope is that one of the thousand will accept the message and change their behaviour to protect themself. It's the same as the hope that a punch will make your attacker stop punching you. That punch is self-defence, even if it doesn't work.
Final note? The fact that "stop letting innocents die for profit" is political says a LOT.
The point of the "moment of aggression" is that there is no way any democratically legitimated power can protect you immediately in the moment of a physical aggression. Unlike an unfair insurance system where you should be able to get legal protection and sue to claim your rights. If the system doesn't protect one's rights enough, then one should work on improving it through getting involved in the democratic process. Are they voting? Are they demonstrating? Have they done everything they could to support the politicians that defend their values, or risked themselves to carry the burden of becoming one? Killing people is just going to illegitimate your opinion, and also probably negatively impact the other people who share it too.
Any intervention on society, with a goal to impact it, is political, I don't know what surprises you there.
You implied I "promoted murder" which requires you to go through all these wall of text.
I merely expressed support for a public figure.
I don't see people get bent out of shpe over people supporting other "murders"
We don't even know yet if Luigi even did it...
The entire censorship is is done based on implied intent that mods had to make up to censor speech.
You can your unpopular opinion without being censored, why can't I have my for once popular opinion without being censored?
Funny how this system still operates on decentralized social media?
That's a less popular but more rational take on this matter than just calling them boot lickers and sycophants.
I understand other people's takes, but to me that's just jumping to conclusions.
Did you read my comment as promoting murder?
What does this even mean?
Also, but even if we accept your theory as true, ain't there is a lot of selective enforcement with respect to "murder promotion"
Why does Brian Thompson get this special treatment on fedi of all places?
The chain of conversation was:
There is absolutely no reasonable way to interpret that other than "Luigi Mangione did nothing wrong when he killed Brian Thompson, and that's how you seriously fight fascism". I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying own your words rather than doing this bullshit dance around them
Thank you for answering him on my behalf. This expresses exactly what I thought.
Luigi Mangione did nothing wrong when he killed Brian Thompson, and that's how you seriously fight fascism
How is this "to promote murder"?
Post or comment can't be seen
Seems like another mod took things a step further than I did. I don't blame them, although I simply locked the discussion.
you literally permabanned me because I said luigi then mentioned you have a bad source, lol. Can you power trip less?
...as opposed to you outright making it explicit your aim was violence?
It would be one thing if people complained about moderation but were fully transparent about all the things that went on from their end.
That was a bait though and he never explicitly called for violence.
Why are mods so inclined to waste their time doing this?
Hmmm
Even though he says so in the screenshot that's right there?
And why do you call it bait like that's a plus?
What does he actually say?
Mod said violence and he made a cheeky retort. Them he got sanctioned. That's what a bait looks like. Mod behavior was in bad faith here.
I will let others make their judgement call but this is a common tactic used by mods on world to censor unsanctioned opinions.
The speech in question didn't rise to threat of violence, just memeing Luigi. Y'all trying to make it into something it really wasn't to justify censorship.
Their house and their rules but people should be aware what they are dealing with. Seed lemmy.world is bad for free speech and hard hitting discussions that we as society face. Only neo liberal agenda is permitted. Classic wolf in sheep coat issue.
When a conflict is being resolved, the message, the intent, and the context are taken into consideration. So suppose you have someone "bait" and cause it to slowly escalate into something that breaks both TOS and several places' laws/rules and you do something about it, only for the same exact "bait" to show up elsewhere verbatim, initially with good faith taken into consideration but then with the "baiter" revealing he fully intends the thing the people enforcing the rules fear in the first place (which, yes, if you look at what happened, entailed the violence you are denying), ruling out any hope for intent, all while everyone is piling up on a thread that has little to do with the topic they are being passionate about in the first place. What, then, do you expect would happen?
"Free speech" is seldom considered to encompass conspiracy or encouragement/incitement to engage in lawbreaking behavior, both of which are against said laws in even the most free places. At that point, someone might as well argue spying on people is free speech, based on the same "everything goes" mindset that goes into the topic, but then (emphasis on "then") you run into the people who cite their freedoms while invalidating the law saying they have boundaries on what they consider to qualify.