Advoating violence in Detroit gay pride parade thread

[Aclion]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=466189
I see several people advocating for violence/murder over several posts from page 4 to 7

[NERVUN]

Links would be nice...

[Aclion]

viewtopic.php?p=35795983#p35795983 Have this conversation for starters

[Jakker]

I loomed: viewtopic.php?p=35796068#p35796068

Thanks for the report.

[Aclion]

doing it again
viewtopic.php?p=35802769#p35802769

[Farnhamia]

doing it again
viewtopic.php?p=35802769#p35802769

viewtopic.php?p=35803493#p35803493

[Torrocca]

doing it again
viewtopic.php?p=35802769#p35802769

viewtopic.php?p=35803493#p35803493

Um, yeah, I'd like to appeal the hell out of this. If the 10 or so pages proceeding that post, where I clarify repeatedly that I wasn't talking about committing violence are too much to sift through, then allow me to present some express quotes that should clarify why this ruling's wrong:

You can just say murder lol, everyone knows that's what you're constantly hinting at.

Is your first and only resort for dealing with a household roach infestation to completely destroy the entire house with explosives?

Unironically yes.

Well... I suppose that explains why you think I'm advocating for murder.

This one's really important to the context of that post, in fact:

While I applaud your commitment, I'd say that everyone that opposes your ideology, including Nazis, are just as justified to do the same to you.

If Antifa wishes to do away with any semblance of civility, then they can't complain when their opponents do as well.

The Nazis have already made it abundantly clear they'd kill me (for numerous reasons regarding who I am, in fact) and other leftists. I'd like to avoid bloodshed in regards to protecting society from their tyrannies, if possible, but I have absolutely no qualms in people killing them to defend themselves or others from the murderous shit they'd do.

And, of course, this one's even more important to it:

What do you suggest?

I'm sure there's at least a few Nazis and the like who can be rehabilitated from that cancerous set of ideologies peacefully, so that should be option A: rehabilitating them and deradicalizing them away from that bullshit and correcting their course; in fact, getting them away from those ideologies as peacefully as possible should be the first solution, as far as it is possible. The next step, which should be taken with extreme care and caution in regards to the Paradox of Tolerance and the slippery slope (with a seriously serious emphasis on extreme care and caution), is to either socially or legally dissuade/ban the ideologies from society.

I'd say those are some possible first steps to take.

Simply put, any half-decent look into what I was talking about in relation to that post will show there was no intention of advocating for violence.

[Farnhamia]

viewtopic.php?p=35803493#p35803493

Um, yeah, I'd like to appeal the hell out of this. If the 10 or so pages proceeding that post, where I clarify repeatedly that I wasn't talking about committing violence are too much to sift through, then allow me to present some express quotes that should clarify why this ruling's wrong:

Is your first and only resort for dealing with a household roach infestation to completely destroy the entire house with explosives?

Well... I suppose that explains why you think I'm advocating for murder.

This one's really important to the context of that post, in fact:

The Nazis have already made it abundantly clear they'd kill me (for numerous reasons regarding who I am, in fact) and other leftists. I'd like to avoid bloodshed in regards to protecting society from their tyrannies, if possible, but I have absolutely no qualms in people killing them to defend themselves or others from the murderous shit they'd do.

And, of course, this one's even more important to it:

I'm sure there's at least a few Nazis and the like who can be rehabilitated from that cancerous set of ideologies peacefully, so that should be option A: rehabilitating them and deradicalizing them away from that bullshit and correcting their course; in fact, getting them away from those ideologies as peacefully as possible should be the first solution, as far as it is possible. The next step, which should be taken with extreme care and caution in regards to the Paradox of Tolerance and the slippery slope (with a seriously serious emphasis on extreme care and caution), is to either socially or legally dissuade/ban the ideologies from society.

I'd say those are some possible first steps to take.

Simply put, any half-decent look into what I was talking about in relation to that post will show there was no intention of advocating for violence.

Second Opinion flag raised. I will say that you have to consider the Man In The Street factor, that is, someone idly wandering by who might think that you were, in fact, advocating violence with your post.

[Torrocca]

Um, yeah, I'd like to appeal the hell out of this. If the 10 or so pages proceeding that post, where I clarify repeatedly that I wasn't talking about committing violence are too much to sift through, then allow me to present some express quotes that should clarify why this ruling's wrong:

This one's really important to the context of that post, in fact:



And, of course, this one's even more important to it:

Simply put, any half-decent look into what I was talking about in relation to that post will show there was no intention of advocating for violence.

Second Opinion flag raised. I will say that you have to consider the Man In The Street factor, that is, someone idly wandering by who might think that you were, in fact, advocating violence with your post.

That's a fair point to consider, I'll concede, and I should've certainly clarified from the get-go, but I'd imagine the Person In The Street would give more to that thread than just a cursory glance at that one given post considering how deep into the thread it is and especially given the time between it and the report.

Thanks in advance, regardless of how the second opinion goes.

[Scomagia]

I'm not involved in the report but this is relevant:

So you support murder of Nazis?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Torrocca]

I'm not involved in the report but this is relevant:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Might as well keep this post that came from that same exact page, too, then, in response to that post that was putting words into my mouth:

Okay so what did your post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ mean then? Because if I put words in your mouth than that must means you had a different meaning. So please enlighten me.

It was sarcastic dismissiveness toward Scom's bullshit assertion, nothing more and nothing less. Now do I see killing Nazis in self-defense as fine? Sure. Wanton murder? No.

[Scomagia]

I'm not involved in the report but this is relevant:

Might as well keep this post that came from that same exact page, too, then, in response to that post that was putting words into my mouth:

It was sarcastic dismissiveness toward Scom's bullshit assertion, nothing more and nothing less. Now do I see killing Nazis in self-defense as fine? Sure. Wanton murder? No.

Not putting words in your mouth. I was trying to get you to be specific about what you meant by this:

Eliminated how?

By any means necessary, like I said before.

[Torrocca]

Might as well keep this post that came from that same exact page, too, then, in response to that post that was putting words into my mouth:

Not putting words in your mouth. I was trying to get you to be specific about what you meant by this:

By any means necessary, like I said before.

The word "necessary" necessarily implies that I wasn't talking about wanton murder or violence like you were insinuating, but, regardless, let's leave this to the mods, since this isn't a place for arguing the meaning of things.

[Aclion]

Not putting words in your mouth. I was trying to get you to be specific about what you meant by this:

The word "necessary" necessarily implies that I wasn't talking about wanton murder or violence like you were insinuating, but, regardless, let's leave this to the mods, since this isn't a place for arguing the meaning of things.

"Whatever means necessary" is a stock phrase used to make it expect that violence is permissible if nonviolence doesn't accomplish the goal. It does exactly the opposite of exclude violence

[Torrocca]

The word "necessary" necessarily implies that I wasn't talking about wanton murder or violence like you were insinuating, but, regardless, let's leave this to the mods, since this isn't a place for arguing the meaning of things.

"Whatever means necessary" is a stock phrase used to make it expect that violence is permissible if nonviolence doesn't accomplish the goal. It does exactly the opposite of exclude violence

Again, I made it clear repeatedly I wasn't advocating violence by any stretch of the imagination (although I admit I made a poor job in the original post), and again, let the mods decide.

[Luna Amore]

I can see how it can be seen as advocating violence, but given the context provided in thread and the overall vagueness of the phrase ('By whatever means necessary'), I'm going to reverse the warning.

[Torrocca]

I can see how it can be seen as advocating violence, but given the context provided in thread and the overall vagueness of the phrase ('By whatever means necessary'), I'm going to reverse the warning.

Thanks, Luna! Much appreciated; I'll make sure next time to convey myself clearly so we can avoid another one of these :3

[Necroghastia]

Just put antifa and the nazis in an enclosed place, arm them and let them go at it. Sell it on pay-per-view. That way, money is made, two worthless groups eliminate one another and there is no misidentified targets.

[Luna Amore]

Just put antifa and the nazis in an enclosed place, arm them and let them go at it. Sell it on pay-per-view. That way, money is made, two worthless groups eliminate one another and there is no misidentified targets.

Not actionable.