Post Reported for: Rule 6 - NSFW Content
Post Flaired for NSFW - Violence. Even with censoring this is not something you should see at work.
Please note that this is obvious rage-bait and to keep calm in your response.
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
You're actually fucking insane. You think that you can resort to mass violence because you were denied a theoretically lowered maximum quality of life. 'I didn't win the lottery, therefore I can shoot the gas station attendant.'
I mean, jesus, it doesn't even make sense from a racist's perspective. If you institute segregation, then blacks have every right to commit a genocide because they didn't get to sit on the stool at the diner. Worse, at institutional level they can't sit at the stool on any diner ever. Mass murder is the only justifiable solution to that because, somehow, sitting at the booth isn't acceptable.
And again, it's theoretical, explicitly because your quality of life absolutely can go down. You could take classes at Harvard and fail. You could stop going to class because you aren't learning anything. You could chose to stop attending because it isn't worth the money. Hell, you could quit because you didn't get on the football team, or your girlfriend is going to a different school. You could find that your classmates are shit and the teachers are worse. Yet, you reject all of these outcomes and assert that you MUST go to Harvard where you can ONLY get a quality of life increase, or you'll kill everyone.
Also, you threatened me because you're a fucking schizo that thinks I'm a jew.
Fine, I'm sorry for snapping at you.
First, you didn't violate any rules.
The issue is about a leftist racialist ideology or an eternal race war where blacks are a dependent slave race controlled by jews. Even the concept of "white culture" is at best a bastardization of wildly different cultures and ethnicities. This is why, typically, "white" only meant "european" to the Americans, and prior to the 40's it didn't typically even mean that. White was much more closely aligned with the concept of British, or WASP. When Enoch Powell gave his rivers of blood speech, he didn't argue that it was okay to import 20 million Albanians because they were of European descent. He was effetely just referring to British.
So, when we're talking about the destruction of culture, we're talking about the destruction of western cultures. Not "White Culture". Such a term is as meaningless as "Asian Culture". Even in anti-whiteness trainings that have been put out, the culture they are targeting in America, Canada, and Britain is typically just "The Protestant Work Ethic". The "X Country has no culture" has also been applied as a rhetorical warfare strategy to France, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, ect. Each of those are wildly different cultures. Those cultures are being intentionally undermined to insert a Socialist narrative and the use of a multiplicity of migrant dependent classes can create a balkanized state, that operates off of a party-boss system to secure the established power structure, much in the way that Tammany Hall did in NYC.
So, for the sake of understanding Rule 2 & Rule 16, let's take every typical race out of it, and just use Indian tribes because the rule is meant to be generic. Let's go with Iroquois, Navajo, and Cherokee. Let's say there is ethnic tensions and violence between them. Rule 16 would apply if you claimed that the Cherokee were an inherently violent race who were hell bent on exterminating the Navajo. If you said that there were more attacks on the Navajo by the Cherokee, then vice versa, then that's fine. If you said that the Cherokee were destroying Navajo culture, then I'd probably ask you what you mean. If you are just saying that the Cherokee raids are destroying or disrupting tribal ceremonies, then fine. If you say that the Cherokee are by definition bloodthirsty savages, then there's a Rule 16 issue. If you say that the Cherokee whom are raiding the camps are acting like blood-thirsty savages; then that's fine.
Now, if you say that, "The Navajo have a right to defend themselves from Cherokee attacks", there's no issue. If you say "I'm glad the Navajo speared that dude from the latest Cherokee raid", that's glorifying violence in the form of self-defense. It's close, but I accept the praise of self-defense, because if it is self-defense, it is an inherently moral action. If it's not readily apparent, I may remove the comment via Rule 2, because we do not want to glorify what amounts to criminal. offensive, violence. But what if the Cherokee declare war on the Navajo. I am not prepared to cuck to pro-genocide & pro-jingoism, as Reddit did, and accept that glorifying violence against ethnic Russians was okay. I'd have to stick a case by case basis of each comment or engagement, or ban the whole war topic entirely if it became impossible to moderate. I'd rather keep the same sentiment that the violence has to be observably defensive in nature if you are going to praise the actions. You can explain the rationality for a controversial engagement (ie: "that horseman had to be killed in ambush because otherwise he would have reported the position of the baggage train"), but we'd have to just not allow praise.
I'm not going to tolerate the batshit fucking insane rhetoric I've seen from the political left these past 10 years since they've gone into full war-mongering mode. We're not doing "there are no good Russians", we're not doing "there are no civilians in Israel", we're not doing "you had one job" from July 13th.
Which gets into the concept to what you were primarily asking about. What if the Cherokee were properly trying to forcibly remove, enslave, or kill the Navajo? Same standard as before. Explicitly defensive actions. "But a counter-attack is defensive!" No it isn't. It's a counter-attack. Counter-attacks, reprisal killings, forced relocations, or any other offensive action is still and offensive action. Even if you claim it's justifiable, that doesn't mean it doesn't violate Rule 2. "We need to go to the Cherokee village, and everyone there should be rounded up and forced out." is a violation of Rule 2. "The Navajo raid rounded up the Cherokee in the village" is not a violation of Rule 2.
Where this might cross over with Rule 16 is if you say, "The Cherokee should be rounded up by the Navajo because you can't trust them not to attack later." That's a Rule 16 post.
Questions?
Those people can respond in self-defense.
You can not call for "communal self-defense" by going out and pre-emptively killing the black 7/11 worker who never wronged you, for "the crimes of his race".
Fuck your race war.
Yeah, he was talking about you, and literally your entire world narrative.
What did you think you meant when you told us we were on the wrong side of history?
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
You appear to be advocating for burning alive other users. Do not do that.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech (x2)
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Be both mentally and emotionally stronger than that. That's what you should do. Call them an idiot and recognize impotent rage when you see it.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
You're not facing the same threat as uyghurs. Not even close.
Certainly it is not the case that "all forms of oppression" should be met with violence if you are comparing yourself to a uyghur. You're basically saying, "If I don't get accepted to Harvard, I can truck bomb them". So no.
An actual genocide with targeted killings, yes.
As a professional faggot, the smell of butthole is intoxicating
All claims that people are deontologically evil will be taken as a call to violence.
So, we have a group with extremely strong innate biases, and a majority of them are part of a political ideology built around hatred of the out-group.
This is referring to an innate hatred of men.
Contextually, as he's said before, this is the kind of hatred where (as he's said before) women want to kill and abort all young boys, including their own sons; and that is the primary attitude of all mothers.
As far as I can tell, you just were biases. Which, frankly, I don't even think is true, but you're looking at a statistical pre-disposition to be affiliated with that in-group. I haven't heard you say that all mothers want their sons dead.
No. Do not fedpost.
Over-ruled. Officially, they are still people.
Okay, fair enough.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
It's close, but not crossing the line, even given the context.
You are not always justified to use violence against your enemies, only when they meet the conduct that requires violent self-defense.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Do not tell users to kill themselves.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks (x2)
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
This comment attacks women as innately morally inferior.
Comment Reported for: Rule 1 - Illegal Activity
Comment Removed for: Fedposting
Comment Reported for:
- Obvious bad actor handshake account
- Entire posting history is trying to incite violent comments
Yeah, I have a major problem with that.
However I also have a major problem with the fact that he legitimately found Rule 2 violating posts, which is frankly more serious.
Okay, troll, I can't let you bait violent comments, but if you see a rule violating post, you are welcome to report it.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Even if hypothetical, this is a 100% glowpost.
Sabotaging railways is wildly different than anything that's been brought up so far. It's significantly more mild.
Any action is not justified. No excuse justifies any response. Same reason that even if someone is firing a gun at you from a nearby street corner, you can't throw a grenade at the street corner and kill a dozen innocent people in defending yourself. So, do not feed me this ridiculous false dichotomy where I either support "genocide in self defense" or I'm "a pacifist that supports genocide over preserving my own life."
Sabotaging a railway is possibly as mild damaging signage. It could effectively be lowered to Civil Disobedience. What's being called for, and what I just had to ban someone for is mass murder in response to theoretically lowering the maximum quality of life achievable. That's literally the single most disproportionate response I can imagine.
Unless you're talking about intentionally causing a train derailment to kill everyone on the training and then people in a nearby village, it might not even be considered violence, let alone violent speech. And again, the mass killing of innocent civilians is not acceptable, nor is the support for it on this board.