If sharing Luigi’s manifesto is glorifying violence then so is sharing the Declaration of Independence.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.
If only Thomas Jefferson had somehow managed to cap a member of English Royalty. Instead, then Jefferson crossed the pond to suck up to Louis XVI, shortly before the man went full Ropespierre’s Necktie.
Stop using Reddit
They really couldn’t figure out that that first [indecipherable] is “fourth”?
I filled in “fucking” for a little extra oomph
And the second most likely something like “parasites”
Fuckers. Bastards. Cocksuckers. It’s like manifesto Mad Libs!
Anyone with half a brain can see that it isn’t “glorifying” violence, it’s merely giving an explanation of why Luigi did what he did. Glorification would play more into pathos, but the manifesto is mostly ethos
the most dangerous thing to a government isn’t the people. it’s not the external forces.
it’s an idea so relatable to the public that the government loses containment of it and it spreads like fire in a grainery.
r/combatfootage has glorified violence for years now. That’s the only reason it exists.
Depends on the context in which you’re sharing it.
If you share it with a title like “We need more of this”, then yeah, because you’re encouraging further acts like it. If you share it with a title like “This is the manifesto written by the alleged CEO killer”, then that’s not inherently glorifying violence, you’re just sharing something you found and being informative. But if you share it in response to the question “Hey Reddit, what are some fun things I can do in NYC this weekend?”, then you’re back toward the “glorifying” side. Context makes all the difference.
Whether or not anybody gives a shit about that distinction, though, is a different question.
Maybe they should take it as “glorifying justice”? No, of course that doesn’t align with Reddit’s ruthless ruling.
My understanding is it’s being removed regardless of context.
That’s the point of their last sentence.
Whether or not anybody gives a shit about that distinction, though, is a different question.
I think that statement could be interpreted a few different ways but regardless I think it’s helpful background information to know that they aren’t considering the context at all.
No, it’s not.
It’s an acknowledgement that there’s a massive problem.
These companies are literally willing to bankrupt you to death. Their behavior is inexcusable. They profiteer off of human suffering.
We live in a country founded by people who were unhappy with the status quo and were willing to pick up a gun to change things. We shouldn’t act surprised that it still happens. I don’t think we should celebrate it, because it’s sad that this is happening in the first place, that someone feels they need to do this. This problem is solvable, and it can be solved civilly, or it will be solved uncivilly.
Thats exactly how I feel “Its sad that this is looking like the solution”
Like, it had to come to this? You couldnt just set up your little racket and keep the golden goose fat and happy? Or atleast adequately provided for and left alone?
Yeah at this point I’m like “political action? Yeah we tried that. You said no to that. Wealth and power, like everything else, will always seek equilibrium. You’re the ones who decided it was going to be by guillotine.” I just got certified to teach violence deescalation classes after taking those same classes for years working in mental health. There’s one quote in particular that I’ve heard throughout multiple classes through multiple certifying agencies over that decade of working; “Violence is the language of the unheard” -MLK (you know, the “nonviolent protest” guy).
We’re are explicitly given the right to bear arms as a check to tyrannical governance.
Our government outsourced their tyranny to corporations.
Corporations should be well aware of strings being attached.
Agreed! Sad that all the debt and death these companies allow is ignored in these discussions.
I mean, lots of .world communities will censor it too, and they’re still FEDerated.
A mod said that the manifesto would be allowed
If it’s confirmed, I don’t see why not. Depends on the community, of course. I’m sure !lemmybewholesome would remove it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
People can try. If it gets removed, report it on [email protected]
I literally found my way here because of lemmy.world bullshit. No, discussing jury nullification isn’t inciting to violence.
A mod said that the manifesto would be allowed
If it’s confirmed, I don’t see why not. Depends on the community, of course. I’m sure !lemmybewholesome would remove it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
People can try. If it gets removed, report it on [email protected]
Reddit said so because it’s CEO is known to be a greedy bastard who threw everything and everyone Bunder the bus for money. Luigi would not approve
Glorifying violence is A-Ok when the government awards people the Medal of Honor.
Reddit needs to come up with a more accurate excuse for their censorship.
Their excuse is monnney. Look at Twitter, people are pulling their ads because they are not happy with what’s happening there. Keep the people who give you money happy and everything is fine. No matter if you would have to sell your soul (like Disney in China, to not get banned and miss millions of subscribers). Since the ad companies usually are big corporate, you can imagine what reddit their stance is.
They must have some data that this time some thing is awakening against the corporate greed.
Stick and stones…
Why would it be? The only actual reference to violence is the fact that it happened (“[…] faced it with such brutal honesty.”) and the reasoning behind it.
does it seem a little…wordy… to anyone else
It’s pretty concise, actually.
Especially as far as manifestos from high profile cases go.
While I am certain you can cite lengthy manifestos from other killers and I applaud your work, it won’t be necessary. The length of those works is irrelevant.
It’s not.
Okay I’ll bite
What is the point you’re trying to make
I think it’s like 262 words or something.
Can you name a single “manifesto” that’s more precise?
Also for what it’s worth communism has been tried at a social experiment in several countries.
It’s always led to brutal trampling of human rights in those respective countries at the time of the communist regime
Care to comment on that?
How are you measuring precision? And what qualifies as a manifesto? If you tell me your metrics I’ll provide appropriate debate material.
You’re the one making the assertion that it’s wordy. The onus is on you to try and qualify that.
It’s not, really. Have a day.👋
No.
Are you sure? Your position that it’s not wordy to anyone else can be defeated by even a single person whose position agrees with mine. It’s indefensible. If you want you can wait to see your position defeated publicly, or quietly accept defeat. Let me know what you pick (silence is an answer :) and I’ll be sure to celebrate appropriately. Have a day.
Sounds like a fun Sunday.
So far, I have not seen anyone other than you express this position in any discussion of this document. You have not demonstrated that there are others who agree with you.
Based on this I am satisfied with my position.
That’s what reddit banned, it’s so innocuous.
It’s pretty shitty as far as manifestos go.
4/5 stars.
I appreciate how quick a read is it. Much more likely for random people to read it and start thinking and then you can jump out of the bushes and go “surprise, you just read a manifesto!”
You agreed with a murderer, now what?
I mean, he claims responsibility, confirmed the existing evidence, then states his motives which aren’t hard to understand for even those out of the loop. I think the brevity and simple reasoning speak volumes louder than some maniacs scribblings found in a cabin. The fact that even those considered Semliterate would be able to grasp the bulk of his message was likely intentional.
Its actually not shitty at all, presuming his purpose was to inspire a shift in public discourse around the topic.
If he wanted it to be the centerpiece of a dramatic documentary miniseries, then yes, it was shitty.
They didn’t ban it because it was dangerous or violent, They banned it because the anti-corporate and spez is a musk wanna be
Thiel is one of reddits earliest investors. spez is a Thiel boy.
This whole time I can’t believe how reddit managed to hold up a facade of being a cool progressive college student platform. They pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. It’s as if they put lipstick on /pol/ and /b/. And everyone was like, alright a hip liberal platform. Sure if you ignore the iceberg of right wing bootlicking shit beneath the surface of the default subreddits.
barbara streissand has taught them nothing apparently
There are like 50 sentences of basic reality in there, but I suspect that a lot of the moderation challenge comes from one small phrase dropped into the middle: “it had to be done.”
With the inclusion of that, the 50 sentences of reality are recast as not just true but a valid justification for murder, even an argument that it was a duty, and that’s the rub.
