I’m on the record numerous times in thinking you’re serious about advocating for and/or condoning violence. Perhaps I chose my words poorly in the post you quoted, but I think it was clear in context what I meant.
Where are we at on some sort of a vote on this? Are we ready for that step? Discussion seems to have fizzled.
I think we’re still doing rule 6, it’s probably best to see how that ends up before starting this up in earnest
In an effort to kick-start my mind regarding this proposed rule, I see five separate but related issues here:
-
Where is the in/out line on a spectrum of Mention/Entertain/Support/Advocate/Threaten/Incite violence?
-
What violence are we are disallowing from posts: breaking windows, punches, bodily injury, death?
-
Does it matter who are the recipients of the violence (unnamed individuals, one or more unnamed members of a specific political group, named individuals, etc.)?
-
Bright-line rule vs. mod judgment/abuse
-
Site liability/consequences (watch lists, border crossings, possible future negative ramifications for job prospects, political prospects, etc.)
My views on the listed issues:
-
Out = Threaten/Incite (which are prohibited by Rule 6)
-
Out = Serious harm/bodily injury and death
-
Out = Specific named individuals
-
I am a strong proponent of bright-line rules and am extremely wary of rules which rely upon mod judgment
-
I think this would be properly addressed if the rule is governed by my in/out lines given above.
1 Like
What if you had a wish that Thatcher would rise from the dead so that zombie Thatcher could be dispatched?
3 Likes
That’d be beyond the pale.
We shouldn’t allow posters to support it, and we shouldn’t allow it to be entertained in such a way as to possibly incite it.
Serious injuries or death. Punching a Nazi isn’t a problem, and violence against property is not an issue I’m concerned with here. Like to be clear I’m not saying people reading this should go pick up a brick, but I’m not going to pearl clutch about it… and discussing when the time has arrived where we should all go pick up bricks to chuck through windows is a reasonable discussion to have at this stage, because that time could very well come in the next 1.5 years depending on the events of 2020 and Jan 2021, and depending on the response to mass peaceful protest.
I don’t think it matters much who is on the receiving end.
The rules should be as well defined as possible, but obviously mod judgment will have to be used in any specific case.
I think this should all be considered, but most importantly the risk factor of the words published on the forum here. Not just the chance that something actually happens, but the degree of what happens. So a 1 in 1,000,000 chance someone kills someone is IMO way worse than a 1 in 100 chance someone punches a Nazi. Hence my concern over these issues, regardless of whether the real number is 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000,000.
This is a good way to go as well.
I think one in a million should be treated as effectively zero chance.
I think the target matters.
Like say
“I’d be happy if Trump had a heart attack” fine imo
Vs.
“I’d be happy if AOC twisted her ankle” instapermaban imo
3 Likes
I don’t know if it’s conceding anything to the people who do not like the rule, but the part with all the mean stuff a mod can do to you if you violate it may be taken as implied and does not need to be enumerated specifically.
There are some objections that it’s too vague and/or ambiguous, but I don’t know if that can be fixed by working on the language if the the more fundamental objection is that some may want people here to feel unhindered to express support for? approval of? serious violence in the current political context, so long as it’s legal/not incitement.
We definitely need some rule on this issue since without a rule one of the current mods has repeated that he will use his own judgment (which he has clearly stated is on the “prohibit” side of the ledger).
Here’s a tighter version of the rule we could vote on (and I could very well vote for):
“Posts that advocate the demise or serious harming of a specific person or members of a political group are not allowed.”
Note the verb advocate and note the removal of the superfluous moderation verbiage.
4 Likes
If it’s really that big a deal, someone should do more to demod Cuse. I really don’t care enough about NBZ to care much about it. He’s playing around/trolling. It’s hard to think of a poster I’d be less interested in defending - even that npc78907890 dude.
Above is what I had to say above about a slightly different version. Quoting since JT asked for submissions again. I’m also making a couple slight changes below to remove “political” before groups and add “causing” toward the beginning and “could” toward the end. Also we could simplify it and remove the moderator stuff, given that any rule on the list is something that’s not allowed and repeat violations of any rule could lead to all the stuff listed. So my version would turn into:
Discussions of violence. Posts that entertain causing the demise or serious harming of a specific person or group for any purpose (whether to express anger, incite a rebellion, or troll people) are not allowed. If your post contains a violent scenario (or a scenario designed to create an opportunity for violence) in which a person or groups could 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.
I don’t know enough about what’s going on in Bolivia to be able to give a good take on that, but I have no problem supporting the HK protesters. They started out peacefully, the Chinese government has violently assaulted them and shot at them and killed at least one of them, so they are within their rights to fight back and defend themselves as they continue to demonstrate and demand their rights.
How we could word the rule to account for that, I’m not sure, given that we don’t want the rule to allow people to call for QAnon protesters to shoot people. Maybe just stating that exceptions exist for recognized ongoing conflicts based on the circumstances?
How about
Discussions of violence. Posts that entertain causing the demise or serious harming of a specific person or group for any purpose (whether to express anger, incite a rebellion, or troll people) are allowed on a case-by-case basis left to the judgment of the moderators. If you have a problem with that, start a poll to remove the moderator you disagree with.
because it doesn’t seem like we’re ever going to nail down what is or isn’t acceptable violent rhetoric and have to rely on the “you know it when you see it” vagueness.
2 Likes
This isn’t about Bolivia or China, let’s discuss/refine and then vote on whether we will allow people to express advocacy of throwing Molotov cocktails at people doing ICE raids or whatever.
I see a difference between approving of existing riots/violence and calling for a riot/violence.
And what about approving of violence that occurred in the past? Is that ok?
Depends. Storming the beaches in Normandy was pretty awesome. Sicking dogs on civil rights protesters not so much.