I said something along the lines of:

“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”

Along with

“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”

In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.

Good ole’ civility clause.

Whats the paradox of tolerance?

.world mods have never heard of it I guess.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    22 days ago

    Celebrating violence is a method used to call for more violence. And the reason the war isn’t heavily moderated is because it’s a war. It’s already at the worst state, and further violence is a foregone conclusion. That’s a massive difference to celebrating a murder. Being popular doesn’t mean it’s okay suddenly.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 days ago

      Class war is a war too, and it’s not one that we the people started. Condemning the CEO’s death is saying that he should’ve been allowed to keep killing millions of more people through coverage denial, a form of social murder that ends their lives prematurely the exact same as gunning them down. Further violence is just as much a forgone conclusion, it’s just a question of whether it will be resisted or left unchecked.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        22 days ago

        Class war being an actual hot war is both highly debatable and highly inflammatory. It’s a fringe ideology of an already minority ideology. Expecting that to be a moderating standard on one of the largest Lemmy Instances is ridiculous at best.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          It’s not really about ideology, it’s reality. People are being killed every day by people like Brian Thompson. If you actually cared, it’s pretty easy to find countless stories of people losing loved ones because their insurance company sacrificed their lives for profit. Nobody really pays attention to those stories though, because the violence is so common, frequent, and normalized that we’ve become desensitized to it. In contrast, when violence happens in the reverse direction, in a highly contained retaliatory strike against one of the people most responsible, it’s shocking precisely because it’s so rare, because our side is so much more peaceful and restrained than theirs.

          But whether for good or ill, as long as the system keeps backing people against the wall, more of this will happen. It’s inevitable, you can’t expect people to just accept it as conditions get harsher and more and more intolerable. If you commit social murder, you’re putting your own life on the line.

          I don’t really see what’s debatable or ideological about that. When people get fucked over, they will fight back.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              I’m not really sure what you think is ideological about it. Is it ideological to say that people are being denied coverage? Is is ideological to say that some of the people denied coverage will die because of it? Is it ideological to say that when one group of people causes a second group of people to die, the second group tends to fight back? Because all three of those statements seem like pretty objective facts to me.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                21 days ago

                You can try to be reductive about your own ideology to be disingneous but it’s still an ideology.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  Well, if acknowledging objectively correct things means that you subscribe to a particular ideology, then what does that say about that ideology? 🤔

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    21 days ago

                    That’s the problem though isn’t it? It’s only objectively correct to people who believe in that ideology.

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      There’s still a clear distinction between celebrating violence and calling for further violence.

      You’re making a leap between the two.

      They are explicitly and literally not the same thing, even if celebrating can be, and often is, used as part of a call for more.

      Every cat is an animal, but not every animal is a cat.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        21 days ago

        The problem is you guys want to lawyer this like it’s legislation. You’re not wrong about the dictionary definitions. You are however absolutely wrong about how the English language is used and how violence is propagated.