you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IdleHands 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Sanctioned suicide?

Watch people die?

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Neither openly advocate violence

[–]IdleHands 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Suicide isn't an act of violence towards the self? It's literally murder and they're discussing the finer details. On the other hand you ban a sub because "someone said it promoted violence" according to your other post.

Did you check? Did you make a judgement? Was it a friend that reported it to you? What are examples that justify the removal of a whole sub, or is it feels-based?

[–]magnora7 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

It's researched, I didn't just listen to one person. The sub is literally based on the idea of throwing communists and gays out of helicopters.

[–]Drewski 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Physical Removal is a concept which was coined by Libertarian / Anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in which certain people would need to be expelled to have a Libertarian society. I don't agree with many of Hoppe's claims, but I think do that open discussion should be allowed to root out bad ideas or philosophies.

As for promoting actual violence, AFAIK the helicopter / Pinochet memes are meant as a joke (even if they are in bad taste) and I don't think banning the sub without any warnings or proper explanation sets a good precedent.

[–]magnora7 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It is a "joke" that is not really a joke.

The saying "Let's throw communists and gays out of helicopters, so to speak" is hard to read as anything other than advocating violence. Also the worship of Pinochet is not helping the case that it's a joke.

It's literally advocating violence.

[–]eaterjollyarmy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You hadn't refuted this point:

Physical Removal is a concept which was coined by Libertarian / Anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in which certain people would need to be expelled to have a Libertarian society. I don't agree with many of Hoppe's claims, but I think do that open discussion should be allowed to root out bad ideas or philosophies.

I'll add I suppose allowing for a "club ground" differs significantly from allowing for open discussion.

When an ethic generates information entropy, the ethic tends to root in the mind regardless of how immoral, unjust, or incorrect. That depends more on the worthiness of the individuals to integrate with each other, than any specific title or topic. Whether they advocate violence or not: if doing so without comedy infavor, then comedy out-of-favor would justify their ethic.

Creating an independent thread for each banned sub or account to deliberate on their ideology within enforcing (what I'd call) a hypofae frequent mode allowing only one comment per a preset period. A long wait requires more information entropy from external sources to maintain ideological stance paired with attachment to a critical thread.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saying "I think we should kill/eliminate those who disagree" is not a legitimate point of discussion that needs to be had on saidit. There is not a lot of complexity to this discussion.

[–]IdleHands 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

While the basis for /s/sanctionedsuicide is to support people who want to commit suicide TO COMMIT SUICIDE.

The basis of /s/watchpeopledie is to share usually illegally obtained videos of scared people, often humiliated, in their final moments before a usually gruesome death.

I think you are being hypocritical.

[–]Zombi 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think the clear distinction here is between advocating for something and passively watching. Sanctioned suicide isn't advocating for people to commit suicide, it's supporting those that have already made the decision. Watchpeopledie is also passively watching death, not advocating or trying to incite death.

The clear difference in u/magnora7's judgement of these three subs is right in his post:

Neither openly advocate violence

Please notice neither ADVOCATE violence, meaning none call for others to commit violent acts. From what he said, s/PhysicalRemoval was openly calling for violent acts. I don't really see how there's confusion here, he said it pretty clearly already...

[–]wizzwizz4 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with neither of those subs, and would ban them if I were running Saidit… but technically /u/magnora7 isn't being hypocritical. He's just working from a fundamentally different framework, which ranks things in a different order of "badness" to us (and we probably also disagree on how to rank certain things).

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The basis of /s/watchpeopledie is to share usually illegally obtained videos of scared people, often humiliated, in their final moments before a usually gruesome death.

That's just not true. Some videos fit this description, but that's certainly not the basis of the sub. I wouldn't be opposed to WPD having additional limitations, for example, no glorifying or celebrating the content.

[–]papiersackratte 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I guess the main problem for /s/Sanctionedsuicide is that it seems unmoderated.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As a person who once suffered so much that I tried to commit suicide several times, and having gotten past that torture, I don't regret it. And I would have liked to have had better resources and options available. I am better prepared now. Fortunately my problems then were not terminal. In the future I fully intend to commit suicide before I die of natural causes in my old age for many reasons. Firstly to minimize unnecessary suffering, if I have something like cancer or Alzheimers, secondly, not to be a burden, thirdly to not waste resources that my family could have - just to draw out a miserable death "naturally".

I'm won't watch /s/WatchPeopleDie, but I'm also not against it, according to their rules.