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.
Your OPINION is that laws and prosecution are violence, that’s absolutely not the case and really only fringe elements legitimately believe that.
Laws and prosecution are the cornerstones of society, going back to Hamurabi.
You’re welcome to be an anarchist if you want, you’re WRONG, but you have the right to be wrong. 😉
Are you kidding me? It’s not fringe. It’s settled fact. It’s foundational to statehood itself. Please pick up a polysci for dummies book, of ask any LLM. They’ll all tell you that the state enforces its laws through its monopoly on violence and the threat thereof. Deeply unserious.
LOL. The world exists outside polysci textbooks. You’ll find that out when you actually leave college.
I’m older than you, dummy.
Okay, ill just ignore all the dudes with guns and dead/broken bodies, then. Ill forget the rape, the bones that healed wrong, the masdivel increased cancer risk. It’s fine, ill be fine; it wasn’t “violence” so it’s fine.
Citation needed. And i dont read cuneiform. I read snow crash, so you can’t make me.
Not according to your entirely nonviolent men with guns.
Edit: saying pithy shit you don’t believe so you dont have to acknowledge your other lies is not charming or cute, unless youre a cat.
So…
Snow Crash is a GREAT book, but untill you’re better educated we cannot continue this conversation.
Society exists as a series of rules and regulations. Enforcing those rules and regulations is what makes it all work.
Failing to do that results in the collapse of civil order, we’re seeing that with Trump 2.0 right now. Convicted on 34 felony counts, nobody had the balls to enforce it, and here we are.
None of this is an argument that they’re not violence, Only that they’re necessary violence. That theyre good violence. You believe violence is necessary/important/critical to human society. Fuvk you that’s disgusting and the root of so many problems, but you are free to be wrong. Even if its not really the point.
I’ll still indulge your argument here. Even if i suspect it wont stop you being wrong.
Ive seen systems that worked on ‘rules and regulations’, both hovernment and corporate. As a generalization: 20% of the effort was spent circumventing the hard corners of those rules that kept perfectly benign necessary shit from getting done, and 60% was spent trying to do exactly what those rules were put in place to respond to, but in sneakier more convoluted ways. That stuff always always always got done. It just got absurd and expensive. Im sure poorer towns and corporations might have gone bankrupt, but the wealthy bay area shit sticks i knew thrived. They spent as many respurces as it took to do what they wanted to. Which means laws/rules do not stop things, they stratify them by class.
The filthy rich police department and the only slightly wealthy police department are equally forbidden from kicking your door in for literally no god damn reason, but only tge filthy rich police department could afford to convince a judge that the computer that always says yes is reasonable cause.
I have seen functional social systems that stayed relatively on mission, did not bloat quickly, and spent most of their resources doing what they were for.
What cohered and drove these systems was personal relationships, ideals/goals, and rigorous effort to stay coordinated. People believing in things. People being convinced of things. It’s not perfect, coordination has a cost, but even the shittiest of those orgs was more efficient, more on-mission, more pleasant, less wasteful, and less fucking evil than any for-profit, government, or even libshit axiomatic ‘nonprofit’ I’ve ever worked for or with.
And i suspect these were the same basic forces driving the larger organizations, though cannot prove it.
Now don’t try to mansplain social order to me again til you can explain the whole viable system model from memory.