• letsgo@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    11 days ago

    Of course not, it’s just Spez sucking up to the billionaires in the hope that one of them will be dumb enough to toss him a few million for his shitpile.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

      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.

    • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      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

      • spector@lemmy.ca
        0·
        11 days ago

        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.

      • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        12 days ago

        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.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        0·
        12 days ago

        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!”

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    0·
    12 days ago

    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.

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      0·
      11 days ago

      Maybe they should take it as “glorifying justice”? No, of course that doesn’t align with Reddit’s ruthless ruling.

      • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        12 days ago

        That’s the point of their last sentence.

        Whether or not anybody gives a shit about that distinction, though, is a different question.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          0·
          12 days ago

          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.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    12 days ago

    Yes it is. So what. The rich glorifies violence against the poor.

    The leader of the country once said: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”

    So if its apparantly okay to use violence against alledged thieves (which is not okay btw, stealing should never equate a death sentence), then it must be okay to use violence against mass murderer CEOs.

    “When the denying starts, the deposing starts” would be my rebuttal to that phase the ex-president said. Violence begets violence.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      11 days ago

      most CEOs don’t murder, even the health insurance ones simply are committing theft analogs, simply not funding healthcare, not preventing those than can independently afford it from accessing it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      So if its apparantly okay to use violence against alledged thieves (which is not okay btw, stealing should never equate a death sentence), then it must be okay to use violence against mass murderer CEOs.

      The reason violence against “looters” is permitted stems from their violation of the principles of the American caste system

      Contrary to popular belief, you are not allowed to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You are only allowed to help yourself when you’ve received lending permission from a state recognized philanthropic sponsor. Otherwise, you are supposed to quietly drown in your own filth, where it isn’t inconvenient for anyone higher on the totem pole than you.

      The caste system is sacred. Brian Thompson earned his position. Luigi Mangione deserved his miserable fate.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        0·
        11 days ago

        I like that you put “looters” in quotes. After hurricane Katrina, the news would show “looters” and “people trying to survive,” taking food items from grocery stores. I wonder what the difference was?

        the difference

        Skin hue

        Yes, people were also taking electronics, but for food?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 days ago

          Yes, people were also taking electronics, but for food?

          I believe there were a number of people accused of robbing stories when they were actually evacuating them from rising floodwaters. But, again, that boiled down to skin tone.

    • islands@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      When the looting starts, the shooting starts

      That was some fascist cop in Miami in the 60’s. Not the leader of any country.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      0·
      12 days ago

      You get points for honesty, at least. Most people in here don’t even admit this is a call for violence.

      • Ziglin (they/them)@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        10 days ago

        It certainly doesn’t state it explicitly. It just says that the killer was the “first to face it” that way that implies that there is a possibility for more but the way I understood it was that current measures being taken aren’t enough, that doesn’t mean that other people wanting to take action should do so violently.

    • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      12 days ago

      Is anyone with a pulse still on reedit? All I ever see there are AIO/AITA/best of creative writing exercises that reek of ChatGPT

      • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        12 days ago

        On the odd occasion I go to reddit front page, AITA is always at the top with an obviously AI generated ridiculous story.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          12 days ago

          Title: AITAH for calling out my [Friend/Husband/Wife/Mom/Dad/Son/Daughter/X-In-Law] after [He/She] did [Undeniably something outrageous that anyone with an IQ above 80 should know its unacceptable to do]?

          Body of post:

          [5-15 paragraph infodumping that no sane person would read]

          I told my friend this and they said I’m an asshole. AITAH?

          Comments:

          Comment 1: NTA, you are abosolutely right, you should [Divorce/Go No-Contact/Disown/Unfriend, the person] IMMEDIATELY. Don’t walk away, RUNNN!!!

          Comment 2: NTA, call the police! That’s totally unacceptable!

          And sometimes you get someone calling out OP… 3: Wait, didn’t OP also claim to be [Totally different age and gender and race] a few months ago? Heres the post: [Link]

          🙄 C’mon, who even think any of this is real…

      • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        12 days ago

        Reddit was full of false outrage and fake stories long before GPT ever existed. Just the last few people that were willing to post have kind of wandered off. I think we got the best of them here

      • pycorax@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        Some communities just don’t really have an equivalent elsewhere but I’m purely only lurking now. Don’t comment anymore, use a modded third party client on mobile and ublock origin on desktop.

      • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        12 days ago

        I’m there for a couple of videogames and the homelab/selfhosted stuff. Curated subreddits are still active and real.

        • stinky@redlemmy.comEnglish
          0·
          12 days ago

          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.

        • aubertlone@lemmy.world
          0·
          11 days ago

          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?

          • stinky@redlemmy.comEnglish
            0·
            11 days ago

            How are you measuring precision? And what qualifies as a manifesto? If you tell me your metrics I’ll provide appropriate debate material.

      • stinky@redlemmy.comEnglish
        0·
        11 days ago

        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.

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      11 days ago

      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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      11 days ago

      If only Thomas Jefferson had somehow managed to cap a member of English Royalty. Instead, then man crossed the pond to suck up to Louis XVI, shortly before the man went full Ropespierre’s Necktie.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    0·
    11 days ago

    I’ve definently noticed how more and more things are being disallowed to talk about on social media. It’s just a matter of which platforms has which rules, but the rules are also changing as more and more people are complaining about reading things they don’t agree with.

    I suspect we will just discuss memes in the future, and politics, since politics is something that the leaders want us to care about and fight eachother over.