I am against having such a rule. I guarantee that I will vote No when Rule 7 (how ever it is reworded) comes up for a vote. I read a hundred posts a day on various forums, both political and non-political, that go way beyond a vague, hypothetical post about “ethnic cleansing” Republicans. I have explained previously that I am an advocate and proponent of political rhetoric, and, yes, that extends to “violent rhetoric” as well.
Those posts don’t bother me or concern me in the least, and I think it would be absurd for a political forum in 2019-2020 to try to prohibit them. The obvious issue of potential mod abuse is the deal-breaker for me.
I’ll consider writing something. For now, I just want to get thoughts on the idea that there is a gulf between advocating violence and condoning it and that the line should be somewhere in the middle.
Violence is a part of politics and it is hard to discuss politics without it. Something as simple as advocating enforcement of the law is an implied threat of (legal) political violence if one doesn’t comply. I think one line is between legal and illegal political violence.
I think this is a subject where we want to discuss edge cases. How do people view endorsement/support of antifa, without any qualifying statements about disavowing violence, even if some violent action has recently occurred? How do we treat advocacy of war or of military action short of war? What if it is something that some but not all people think is a war crime?
From my POV the discussion of whether or not political violence is good or bad is missing the point. We can entirely set that question aside. In fact, let’s just concede that it’s obviously true that violence is often necessary (WW2, ya ever heard of it?). The point that all pacifists and revolutionaries alike should be able to agree upon is that the Black Panthers (or insert your fav here) sure as shit wouldn’t be posting their thoughts, tactics, advocacy on a forum like this. It does nothing to advance the cause of justice, yet it puts real people in harm’s way.
I call NBZ a cop because his style of posting is exactly what an alt-right cop instigator would post here. It does no good, but does some harm. There is a cost to this rhetoric (being on watchlists, visa holders being denied reentry to the country, etc) but there is no benefit. You don’t see Earth First and similar groups organizing on Facebook for God’s sake. Get over your need to vent in this particular way and go do something productive (non-violent!) in the real world.
That view misses the larger picture that JT and others have mentioned. This issue is not really about prohibiting NBZ from posting “violent rhetoric” on this forum. It is far larger and more important than that.
I should not have to list all the hateful views towards minorities (and many other groups) put forth by members of the “other side” in a constant stream over the past several years. Dear Lord, everybody on this forum is well aware of the vile filth put out over the internet on a daily basis. It seems like on a regular basis we read stories about some “alt-right” police officer, military person, or just some nut who has stockpiled a multitude of weapons and has ideas of killing a whole bunch of liberals/Democrats/immigrants/hispanics/muslims/etc. People have mentioned a “civil war” if Trump is impeached or voted out of office.
Many people believe things are going to get worse before they get better. I don’t think it would surprise anyone on this forum if Trump-related violence dramatically increases over the next 12 months. So enacting a rule that prohibits vague, non-specific, non-credible mentions of political violence at this time seems absurd.
Is a prediction of violence and a description of what might happen an example of “entertaining” violence? I can see how some people might interpret prophecy as wishful thinking.
No, I don’t see why it would be if the prediction or description is in fact a good faith prediction or description. Of course there are ways of skirting the rule by *wink *winking a “prediction”.
I thought this needed more discussion. Especially in light of (I think it was a US senator) threatening a civil war if Trump is removed from office. The grim fact is that things could get violent and it might be necessary to at least discuss it
Many here seem to be pacifists, which is totally cool. And I don’t think this forum should in any way be used as a strategic war room for violence if it comes to that. But we’re well past simple political discord and divisiveness. The ideological chasm between far right Nazi racists and the progressive far left is palpable and in many cases exudes a sheer hatred. I think some discussion is necessary and the topic at least requires further review
Grunching from the OP for now. This is what I had to say about this rule and how I’d like it changed in the other thread:
Discussions of violence. Posts that entertain the demise or serious harming of a specific person or political groups for any purpose (whether it is to express anger, incite a rebellion, or to troll people) are subject to heavy moderation starting with deletion, warnings, temporary bans, up to permanent exile. If your post contains a violent scenario (or a scenario designed to create an opportunity for violence) in which a person or groups end up dead or seriously injured, make it as fantastical and preposterous as possible, post it at most once in a while, but ultimately, consider not posting it at all.
The reason for the suggested change is that I don’t want to see arguments like “I said they should be shot, not killed,” or “I just hypothesized about a scenario in which somebody else could maybe do something, I didn’t actually hypothesize about a violent scenario.”
However, if you have advocated it (specifically or generally), then you start saying stuff like, “I would never do this myself, but hey wouldn’t it be great if…” You’re not expressing that you’ll be glad if it happens, you’re advocating it. We can all infer the wink-wink nod-nod without it being explicit.
This is stupid. Like, NBZ, hate to break it to you, but Trump isn’t getting shot if he decides not to leave office. He’s an unarmed 70-something powerful rich white man who happens to be the current (in that case recently former) president. If he refuses to leave office, his worst case scenario is getting tackled and arrested.
You know that, so this is just your chance to advocate/fantasize about some violence against 45.
Anyone who thinks NBZ is trolling should just read this post. The dude believes in violence, he is advocating for violence, and he’s even researched the legal bounds of how far he can legally edgelord to advocate violence.
This is accurate as well.
We don’t need to stoop to their level, it will only hasten any potential descent into violence.
Right, which NBZ has already shown is a method he’ll use.
I’m actually not a pacifist, but I do believe in using every non-violent tool at your disposal irst, and only after that is done weighing the morals of the situation. Specifically in this case, I am aware that violent rhetoric on the Internet can inspire radical acts, and I don’t want that to happen here.
Brandenburg is a top ten free speech SCOTUS case. You haven’t spent a serious level of thinking about the First Amendment if you are not familiar with it. I knew how far I could go back when I was much less radical because I had a basic understanding of constitutional law and judicial history.
Also, make up your mind. Do you think I am serious about violence or do you think I am just saying thinks for shock value (edgelording)?