So Apparently

Apparently, wishing death on an entire people is fine, as long as you're a progressive. Bonus if you're using the same actual words that the Nazis are, but clarifying that you're not a Nazi apparently makes that line okay. So let's review: A picture of a Swastika is hate speech, but a blog entitled Death to Israel isn't. Someone trying to explain that the picture of a Swastika doesn't inherently mean support for genocide is ignored, but "When I say death, I don't really mean death" is an acceptable excuse. This particular user has promoted real world violence multiple times previously, and yet nothing; while other users can get temp-banned just because their posts caused arguments. If that's the standard to apply, then apply it equally.

To be clear, promoting "Death to Palestine" should also be a bannable offense, because the sentiment is identical and disgusting. The problem is promoting death, not who you wish death upon, and failing to uphold basic site rules about not calling for the deaths of other people is a disturbing issue that needs to be addressed. Here is someone promoting literal, definitional terrorism, and somehow the mods think it's not worth taking down, let alone the ban it deserves.

Edit: The blog in question has been taken down (after at least 13 hours), but it could well have been a personal choice from the user due to the negative reaction it received, rather than any moderator intervention. I'm still not happy about this situation; there should be no hesitation from the mods to remove such content.

Comments

[The Correspondent]

yeah, that is not ok, it would be much more efficient on resources to negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement for the two nations than it would be for the complete eradication of one, wasting both material resources and living resources.

[Deep]

To be fair, Super Tramp posting videos of his beautiful self is a far worse offense than wishing death upon millions of people

[Pillbug]

It's Tramp.

I'd suggest reporting and moving on; the more time you spend on it, the more time is wasted. He's too ideological to be persuaded one way or another, and he enjoys getting a rise out of others, or he has in the past.

[Narrative Style]

5518941
I did report it. Then, after sufficient time for the mods to enforce the site rules, I've made a post calling them out on failing to do so.

[Pillbug]

5518950
As usual, seems I'm too optimistic. I was hoping that they just hadn't gotten around to it.

[Huk]

He/she got banned apparently, and if I'm not mistaken, it's a permaban, so we probably won't hear from that person anytime soon, if ever.

But, yeah, this whole narrative is scary as hell, and ever since the conflict escalated again, I see more and more people making similar statements all over the world

This is fucked up, and it's coming mostly from people calling themselves progressive

[Narrative Style]

5519765
Well, I don't know the story of what the ban actually stemmed from, but considering this is, like, the third time they've made statements advocating real-world violence, I can't say it's undeserved.

Considering the conflict is, in itself, people killing each other, it's no surprise that other people invested in one side or the other are cheering on killing each other. Meanwhile, the vast majority of deaths from actions of either side so far have been civilians, but so, so few people are taking their side.

I know I've done this before, but I'm worried about WWIII again. Turkey has been urging Russia to step in with a "peacekeeping force", and if that happens, things will get so much worse, so fast.

[Huk]

5519832

Well, I don't know the story of what the ban actually stemmed from, but considering this is, like, the third time they've made statements advocating real-world violence, I can't say it's undeserved.

I'm against banning people for their views, but... honestly, if such a post wouldn't warrant a ban, then I don't know what would. That blog went way over the edge. Calling for violence towards anyone in any form (and using the same words as the terrorists use!) shouldn't be tolerated.

[...] Meanwhile, the vast majority of deaths from actions of either side so far have been civilians, but so, so few people are taking their side.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by 'so few people are taking their side' ?

I know I've done this before, but I'm worried about WWIII again. Turkey has been urging Russia to step in with a "peacekeeping force", and if that happens, things will get so much worse, so fast.

Man, you're telling me ? I'm from Poland. Ever since Russia annexed Crimea and began destabilizing the region, we've been living on the edge here. It's been getting worse since then, but no one seems to care. Add to that China's and Turkey's aspirations, and it sure is not a pretty picture...

That said, I think local wars and takeovers (like the one that happened in Ukraine) are more likely than a large full-scale assault. But that's cold comfort.

[Narrative Style]

5519948
Well, I guess that "so few people are taking their side" statement is from a distinctly American standpoint. Basically every politician and activist with any pull here is either "Israel can do no wrong" or "Hamas can do no wrong", which leaves the position of "hey, maybe anybody killing civilians is doing something wrong" feel very lonely.

[Huk]

5520075

Ah, I get ya. Sadly, that binary viewpoint with no middle ground seems to be a worldwide thing, and not only in this case. If you try to be a centrist about something, then both sides will call you an enemy. I don't understand what the hell is going on, but I don't recall it being this bad ten or even five years ago .

In this case, as always, normal people on both sides will pay the price...