All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said "death, death to the IDF".
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (appearing as "acargitz") pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world had comments removed for being anti-American "(again)", though I couldn't see the first time. It's not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the "DC Comics" removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
Do you really intend to stick to this line? Do you ever intend to address the fact that it has been very clearly pointed out that the comment that got the other user, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca, banned was not a call to violence? Or will you keep deflecting and ignoring that part in order to maintain the facade?
It very clearly was a call to violence in a CHAIN of removed comments. You're attempting to take it out of that context and claiming "Well, they didn't do nuffin".
Fuck that argument. I'm not going to be trapped in the by degrees nonsense like that. They know what they were arguing and you're being disingenuous if you try to say otherwise.
Here's the full context for anyone dumb enough to buy your bullshit framing, read the ALL CAPS FROM THEIR OWN COMMENT.
First in the chain:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=562528
Removed Comment Death, death to the IDF!! by BroBot9000
reason: Call for death
Next:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=73704
Removed Comment I'm advocating for the right of the Palestians to fight for their freedom. Do you deny that right? And for good measure, if I advocate for Ukrainians to fight for their freedom, VIOLENTLY, WITH GUNS, AND WITH KILLING OFF THE INVADERS TO THEIR HOMELAND, am I also breaking the TOS? If I say that my god damn ancestors DID THE RIGHT THING and KILLED WITH VIOLENCE AND GUNS the Italian fascists that invaded Greece in 1940, does THAT break the TOS? by acargitz@lemmy.ca
reason: Advocating violence
Removed and warned a second time, against the rules of the community.
User persists a THIRD time earning the ban:
Removed Comment Death to Israeli apartheid. Death to the institutions that uphold the Israeli Apartheid. Death to the institutions that uphold the occupation, the disposession and the genocide of Palestinians. Death to the structures that maim the humanity of both the colonizers and the colonized. Long live all the people who live in Palestine from the river to the sea. Long live the children, the life, all children, all life, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and other. Palestinian, Druze, Bedouin, Samaritan, Mizrahi, Ashkenaz, Sephardic, and other. "The padrone is dead. But Alfredo Berlingheri is alive and we mustn't kill him. [...] Because he is living proof that the padrone is dead." by acargitz@lemmy.ca
reason: Repeated calls for violence
Not even a permanent ban, like yours, a 3 day ban for being repeatedly stupid.
But I'm sure when it expires they'll be totally rational, right? Um, right?
Based on my mod experience, that never happens, but outside trolls and spammers we give everyone a chance to learn from their mistakes.
My expectation is I'll have to permaban them before the month is over, but we'll see.
I'm only responding here because you're saying "they know what they were arguing and you’re being disingenuous if you try to say otherwise" and because you're making a whole bunch of assumptions about my intent and my ...rationality. Basically, I'm only responding because you're displaying a big degree of bad faith towards me, to the point where you're not understanding what I'm actually saying, especially in the third comment that got me the ban.
The comment with the all caps, mentioning Greece and Ukraine, fine, sure. I tested the line, asking specifically about the TOS and got burned. That's your line. I still think it's a silly line, but that's your line. Fine.
But the comment you banned me for is where I think you completely misunderstood me. Here's the comment:
I thought the last line, the reference to the padrone would be making it crystal clear, but it didn't. It's from the movie 1900 and I guess my mistake was believing that this is a classic that everyone has seen. My bad. Here is what goes on: after the revolution, the peasants want to kill the Alfredo character (DeNiro), who is the padrone, the boss. But Depardieu's character, Olmo, makes the case that they should in fact not kill Alfredo, because his role as padrone is dead and Alfredo, no longer being the padrone is just a regular person now. The padrone is dead, Alfredo lives. Imagine if the Jacobins hadn't guillotined Louis-XV, the line would be "the king is dead, Louis is alive and we mustn't kill him, because his continued existence is living proof that the institution of the monarchy is dead: he is now just a dude like the rest of us".
My argument here is that the institution of Israeli apartheid must die, to free the Israelis themselves from the shackles of being "the padrone". That's why I write underneath long live all life, and list explicitly Judaism among the religions and the various Jewish nationalities (Mizrahi, Ashkenaz, Sephardi). They are Alfredo. May they live! And may their continued existence be statement to the death of the "padrone" role, that Israeli nationalism has been ascribing to them.
When I say "death to israeli apartheid" and "death to the institutions and structures that uphold it with all its horrible outcomes" I am not advocating violence against people, I am advocating the destruction of horrific systems and institutions. I am saying the equivalent of "death to slavery", "death to patriarchy", "death to capitalism". And I'm adding explicitly in the people that will benefit from the death of these horrific systems and institutions precisely the groups of people that are currently benefiting from them. I'm not saying "death to the whites", I am saying "Death to slavery and its institutions so that whites don't have to be slavers".
If, despite what I think, you understood all of that and still somehow construed my writing as "repeated calls to violence", I don't know what else to say.
Edit: in fact I think you're also misrepresenting the context of my 1900 comment. It was not a follow up on the Greece/Ukraine comment. Instead, I was responding at a different branch of the thread, below a comment where someone was making the argument that "death to Apple" is not a threat of violence against the Apple CEO and employees. It was already in the context of discussing "death of institutions" vs of people.
fwiw, I've never even heard of the movie 1900 before, let alone seen it. I think I've only seen 1 Depardieu movie...maybe 1.5 (not sure if he has a cameo/archive appearance in the 2nd film of the pair): Jean de Florette.
But anyway, yeah I think your edit here really hits the mark. The comment is just so clearly not a call for violence. Both the context in which it was made and the content of it make that very clear.
What do you mean not everyone knows the filmography of Bernardo Bertolucci?! /s Yea, my bad. It's a great movie, you should watch it.
So, because an earlier comment was interpreted as inciting violence, a user is no longer allowed to amend their point to more narrowly criticise the institutions that are causing genocide? That's some serious bullshit you're pulling there. If that's the level of logic you're using, I have little doubt you'll find some justification for "I'll have to permaban them before the month is over" to end up being true, that a mod attempting to actually apply rules with a modicum of fairness or common sense would not.