Groomer excited for the new Ranma anime
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (72)
sorted by:
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Rationalizing mass executions
Why don't you fuck off for another 5 or so days, faggot?
"Mass Executions" given those were labor camps you're a bit off the mark.
I'm supposed to believe that the "It didn't happen but it should have" crowd is going to know or care about the difference?
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
If you want to argue for executing groomers, try arguing for judicial, rather than extra-judicial means.
Sounds based as fuck.
Why does rule 2 exist?
To undermine fed-posting primarily. Secondly because mass murder, or specific murder, is not part of a reasonable discussion. Thirdly because it poisons conversations. Fourthly because you shouldn't be treating each other with such hostility as it promotes flame wars.
These are all bad reasons, but the last one is the most egregiously outlandish by far.
For real though, if discourse is limited solely to pacifism then it is effectively not engaging with reality and is therefor worthless, which is I suspect the point.
There is a difference in discourse between the passions of argument and screaming for someone to "kill yourself". There is no discourse in arguing that your opponent should be murdered. It is, in fact, the appeal to ending an argument; not in exposing the truth in an argument. The argument is an explicit argument from violence, which is (by definition) an argument from power. There is no discourse in an argument from power, this is the basis of the Melian Dialogue. No debate can be had, no argument can be made, no counter-argument can defeat it. It is a demonstration of imminence in violence, meant to end the argument and intimidate the opposite side.
It's old now-a-days, but I remember the championship debate team arguing that white people should kill themselves under the topic of "should the US adopt a renewable energy strategy". They won the debate, because it's not a debate. It is, in fact, an appeal to power. It is "might makes right" which is neither a defeatable, nor debatable, nor falsifiable argument.
So no, Rule 2 stays, because an argument to violence is not anti-passivity; it's an argument to power to end the conversation and engage in violence.
Then just ban fedposting, it's really not hard to have that be a rule instead of muh identity attacks, plenty of purley NS places I inhabit have that as a rule.
Rule 16 is different from Rule 2.
What would be the precise definition of 'fedposting'?