You're viewing a single thread.
If you are in proximity to this fuck and aren't hitting him in the face then you're not only a class traitor, but you're a traitor to humanity.
And if you get on a jury over someone hitting him, you need to nullify.
Is this advocating for violence? If so id like to ask a mod why rules are being applied unequally?
Careful not to choke on that rapey boot your deepthroating there! It'll never get him to notice you exist, nor care, you're just telling on yourself.. Β―\(γ)/Β―
Please explain as logically as you possibly can how calling out someone literally calling for violence to be enacted upon another human as rapey and boot lickering? Are you fucking retarted? Are you too godamn stupid to see how fucking dumb you are? You my simple mindless friend are the only proof i need that god is dead, purly because no intelligent creator would ever willfully will into existance a moron as fucking moronic as you. Your head must be so far up your own ass that ur beginning to feel it tickle the back of ur throat. Please for the love of anyone who is subjected to your pitiful existance think about if you want to be that guy defending someone calling for violence. I dont fucking care if its the Jews the Palestinians or fucking elon musk stop defending the people calling for violence to be enacted.
It hasn't been proven unequivocally that Musk is fully human.
Hitler had a simmillar opinion of Jews do you really wanna be the guy using the sub human argument?
Godwins Rule in 3 comments
Yeah homeslice was apparently speedrunning this shit.
Some pictures suggest that he's at least part cybertruck.
That's more for advocating violence towards other users I think, like if I advocated for violence towards you, that would be a reason for a ban.
I wonder if you experienced the violence you defend with your what about bullshit if you would have a different perspective.
Im literally calling out somone advocating for violence how is this violent?
Your coming to the defense of a rape threat. You are now a cosigner of the rape threat. Suffer.
No i simply dont think its ok to be advocating for violence in any caoacity.
Caoacity
Fuck off we don't like you
Well, you know, let's be clear about something here. This person youβre talking about? Not a good person. Toxic, actually. And you can tell, because, much like the lobsters, we have these dominance hierarchies, right? We can perceive when someoneβs behaving badlyβwhen theyβre undermining trust, or poisoning the environment around them. And thatβs what toxicity is, fundamentally. Itβs disruptive. And what do lobsters do with disruptive behavior in their hierarchy? They push back, hard. They establish boundaries. And you should, too.*
Well, I banned that motherfucker just now, and let me tell you, thereβs a difference this time. All of my other bans? They were temporary, even tongue-in-cheek. But this one? This one is serious. You have to know when to draw the line. Itβs like lobstersβthey engage in these dominance battles, and sometimes, you need to make a decisive move to protect the integrity of the social structure. Thereβs no room for ambiguity when someone is undermining the whole system.
Tell me how it was captaining the University Debate Team, if youβd be so kind. /s
Just report it if you think it's violating rules.
I see you are being unfairly downvoted, so here goes my support.
Violence is never the solution and anyone advocating for it is an ahole
Always an option never a solution
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ;)
So, the Hitler problem could have just been resolved with words and policy?
Wow that was a quick appearance of the Godwins Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
If you cannot distinguish between WW2 vs. Lynching a person, then I don't know how a communication between you a and me is going to be possible.
Iβm not sure how you expect to deal with people on the right that actively want to kill off anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately, violence must be met with violence. And no one mentioned lynching until you just did. Are you ok?
I think you missed the message that started this conversation about the lynching and advocating for violence "If you are in proximity to this fuck and arenβt hitting him in the face then youβre not only a class traitor, but youβre a traitor to humanity."
In my opinion way to deal with violence, and that is why I quoted Asimov, is by being creative, educating, reasoning and having the moral high-ground.
Anyone that is violent for me is indistinguishable from "the people on the right".
Lynching in the US is broadly seen as an extrajudicial killing by way of hanging. Historically, thatβs what it is most of the time.
You are wrong in saying that we must fight by βbeing creative, educating, reasoning and having the moral high-groundβ because these fucks lack the ability to reason. The state of things is that it is a cult, a disease within our system and must be fought with tools they understand. Punching a nazi is not even remotely the same as a lynching, and is more akin to defense of the community.
I believe your inability to tell the difference between a nazi and historical victims of lynchings is a problem. We shouldnβt even have nazis anymore. Your line of thinking that being creative is gonna solve things is the same kind that the anti-vax idiots that have brought back eradicated illnesses have. The vaccine for nazis is violence, not horse dewormer or moral high ground.
U had that wikepedia page already copied on the clipboard didnt you lol.
So you say violence is never then answer then just now say that well actually sometimes it is with your "ability to differentiate" comment.....
You're an idiot