Are calls to violence allowed on saidit?

submitted by Blackbrownfreestuff from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jamesK_3rd 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I disagree with this ban and I'd like to explain why.

The founding fathers and citizens of the USA for generations after them, threatened politicians with stupid ideas be tarred and feathered and sometimes actually did the act. Discourse and politics are generally raw and often uncivil. A battle is will be waged either way, in the arena of words thoughts and ideas, or in the arena of the streets with guns, knives and fists... Harsh tones and angry discourse are part of life, while I hate to cite them, even the supreme court in the past has stated as such.

We continue to silo off things that aren't narrative approved. Not just here, but in our society. Here is really just a reflection of the culture at large, or a certain section of that the founders like M7 and derr agree with.

You can't say men can't be women, you can't say God in schools. Ban links to content we deem unworthy. We allow protests now based on permits and land use and move them to the somewhere they don't interfere with the important people's lives. The RIAA controls what content a lot of people can and cannot see, under the guise of "copyright" or "theft".

Socks made a stupid comment. Obviously unable to win in the realm of ideas, but I'd argue the taddle tale nancies were just as bad. Instead of mocking such a stupid statement, it turns into "get help" and "please ban them", which I find lower IQ than the statement in question. As if we all don't get angry, we all don't have such thoughts. I still find my blood pressure boiling when I think about Trump and Fauci, and their horrific lockdowns, mask mandates, forced vaccinations for the past 3 years, and the future.

Additionally, I disagree with the policy of deleting posts of users, unless it is a seriously egregious violation. The best disinfectant, as musk says, is sunlight.

Again, I don't care for socks. Generally, I think they're trolling others, and their ideas aren't based in real life. In fact most of the time I feel their posts are good for the practice of mockery and scorn, as well as patience and restraint... But again I disagree with the ban as I don't believe the user was inciting violence, or even directly threatening it. Of course, the mods, including M7 have a tough, thankless job. I still appreciate and thank all of you, regardless of everyone's stance on this or any other issue, it takes a lot to do such work.

Did anyone take screenshots?

Yes https://ibb.co/1r2dy1R

[–]Chipit 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Those who abuse their free speech to advocate for the abolition of free speech can't be tolerated, even on a free speech site.

Deliberately breaking TOS can get the site shut down, as all the professional troll posters on this site know quite well. It's their go-to tactic to get sites shut down. AHS did it all the time on Reddit to censor subreddits they hated.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If this site allows advocation of violence toward specific individuals, it will get shut down.

[–]FediNetizen 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Lol, no it won't. Saying "someone should do x to y" isn't the kind of imminent credible threat that you can get criminally charged for, and Section 230 means site owners aren't liable for what their users post, with only very narrow exceptions.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Tell M7, he seems to think this can't be allowed on saidit.