All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world 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, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (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 @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world 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.
Right because hes one of the people who it's not okay to call for violence against. So no degree of structure that would harm him is acceptable to endorse.
Whereas for certain other people, suggesting they shouldn't be killed is a de facto call for violence against some of thwse protected groups.
Im just suggesting if you clarified who is on which list, people would be a lot better at self censoring and make less work for you. You can't blame people for failing to obey such complex rules when theyre not laid out clearly.
No, it's not OK to call for violence against ANYONE. Full stop. There is no list of "OK to threaten this person or group, but not these others."
The only stuff that slides are the comments that never get reported. Mods are volunteers and we have lives, we aren't reading every comment looking to fuck with threads.
We DO read every report and take actions based on them.
Are you going to remove comments saying "Israel has a right to self defence"? As Israeli "self defence" means murdering civilians by any means available.
No, because every country has the right to self defense, that is not a call to violence.
Aren't Palestinians having right to self defence?
Sure they do, but their self defense in the real world has absolutely nothing to do with our community rules.
They cannot advocate for killing Israelis in our group any more than Israelis can advocate for killing Palestinians. We DO NOT allow that shit.
We control what we can in the groups we moderate, we don't moderate the real world, that's outside our responsibility.
Do you accept that IDF is an occupying force and therefore Palestinians have right to kill IDF soldiers - and call for IDF to be killed?
They can, BUT NOT IN OUR COMMUNITES.
Get this through your thick head:
Online forums are not the real world. They have their own rules and guidelines. What you do in the real world and what you are allowed to say in one of our forums ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Because you are a Zionist and you only allow Israel to claim "self defence" as per your other comment?
Get it through your thick skull: Palestinians calling for killing IDF is a self defence. Israel calling for "self defence" is not a self defence at all - it is a call to murder yet more civilians including children.
Actions matter, sweetie.
Not a zionist, read my own posts and comments in the communities.
If you advocate to kill Palestinians, your comments will ALSO be removed.
Of course you aren't, sweetie.
You just said you wouldn't remove "Israel has right to defend themselves" statements which is nothing else but advocating to kill Palestinians, so stop lying.
Israel absolutely has the right to defend themselves, and that has nothing to do with the genocide in Gaza. When a hostile country shoots missiles at you, any country has the right to respond.
I guess you weren't paying attention:
Before the current conflict that Israel started:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war
Both countries had been poking each other for decades. Most recently:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus
Which resulted in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel
In turn:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran
and then...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Ismail_Haniyeh
But lets not forget:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran
I'd like to say it would all stop if Israel would, you know, stop killing people, but history shows it won't.
Oh, a genocide apologist.
You now need to ban yourself, hypocrite.
Tell me you didn't read any of the links without telling me you didn't read any of the links.
Again, nothing to do with genocide. When Israel gets attacked by Iran, they have the right to defend themselves. Same when Iran gets attacked by Israel. That's the whole point of being a sovereign state. If you get attacked, you're allowed to respond.
Unless your argument is Israel has no right to exist? You aren't trying to argue that, right?
They are not (yet) trying to commit genocide in Iran. Give it 20 years, maybe. They have their hands full with the genocide in Gaza, then they still have the West Bank, Golan, probably Syria as a whole after Golan, and Lebanon.
Assuming the UN allows it to continue, it's only a matter of time before they get to Iran, but it's not happening yet. But then the UN is pretty fucking toothless when it comes to Israeli war crimes.
It is either lack of comprehension or lack of reading skills?
Read again what "Israel has a right to defend themselves" really means. Slowly.
Now, in Israeli-speach "defend themselves" is the same what in a "final solution" was in German speach.
But you know all that, my little genocide apologist, don't you?
Let me try with a logic gate puzzle:
When any country gets attacked, they have a right to respond. We can agree on that, yes?
Israel is a country.
Israel got attacked by Iran.
Both indisputable facts.
So the response is, Israel has the right to defend itself.
Unless you want to argue:
or:
or:
Then your argument doesn't make sense. You're trying to twist it into being about the Genocide in Gaza, that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about Israel's legitimate response to having rockets fired at them from Iran and Iran's legitimate response to being bombed by Israel.
When a country gets attacked, they have the right to respond. You could even take it a step further and say they have an obligation to respond. If your country gets attacked repeatedly and you never respond, do you even HAVE a country at that point?
Read again. Slowly. You little genocide apologist.
Read again:
Countries that get attacked are allowed to defend themselves. That has nothing to do with perpetuating a genocide, which Israel is doing in Gaza.
It DOES have to do with being attacked by Iran.
One is a legitimate defense, one is an illegal war of aggression. I really don't think you can tell the difference.
centrists are looking at the genocide in Gaza and are using "Israel has a right to protect itself" IN THAT CONTEXT to justify the genocide in Gaza. You know this.
Read again. Slowly:
Israeli "defence" is a code sentence for aggression and genocide. Like "final solution" was previous nazis' code sentence for genocide.
Palestinians have right to defend themselves by killing (and making calls to kill) IDF aggressors. This is their right under international law.
You therefore should remove any references to Israeli "right to defence". Unless of course you are either:
So, which one is it sweetie?