All from in this thread in [email protected] about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said “death, death to the IDF”.
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @[email protected] (appearing as “acargitz”) pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @[email protected] had comments removed for being anti-American “(again)”, though I couldn’t see the first time. It’s not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the “DC Comics” removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
So not all facts are encouraged after all? 🤣
If you can state a fact without actually attacking another user, sure. For some folks that’s harder than it seems.
Where people get confused is we do allow attacking the subjects or authors of the articles, that’s A-OK.
Some article about the new “Big Beautiful Bill” and someone goes off on how everyone who voted for it is a fucking idiot who’s destroying our country? That’s fine. Suggesting they’re traitors who need to be rounded up and killed? Not fine. Suggesting they’re traitors who need to be rounded up and placed under the RICO act? Again, that’s fine.
A lot of folks just report bad language, which is ignored most of the time. The only time it’s actionable is when it’s directed at another user or obvious slurs like “r-redacted”.
So if a mod is a fucking genocide apologist or a “fucking maniac” , he cannot be called as such?
Let’s assume he is constantly lying about answering question - can he be called a “fucking liar”?
Let’s also assume he has nil understanding of international law or self defence yet he claims otherwise - is calling him “arrogant stupid bastard” permitable?