Remote View
So i keep reading .world is against Marios's brother. True or not?
So i keep reading .world is against Marios's brother. True or not?
43 comments
-
Nope.
It's just when people say we should murder people, it's against the terms of service, so the comment gets removed.
So you can say pretty much anywhere:
Insurance is a scam and I don't give a fuck a CEO was murdered
Even:
I hope jury nullification happens for Lugi and anyone else in his position.
But you can't say:
We should murder more CEOs
It's honestly not that complicated, but lots of people seem to be confused.
-
Incorrect. A comment was removed that simply said "Luigi did nothing wrong", which aligns with your first example. The reason given was "wrongful advocacy", which suggests having a positive opinion of Luigi is against TOS.
If it should work as you described, it seems the mods are confused too.
-
A comment was removed that simply said “Luigi did nothing wrong”, which aligns with your first example. The reason given was “wrongful advocacy”, which suggests having a positive opinion of Luigi is against TOS.
Waaaay back when it happened (feels like months but wasn't it just a few weeks?) there was a mod who didn't understand things and removed some comments they shouldn't. What I remember blowing up was removal of a comment just mentioning jury nullification was a thing. The mod thought because you'd get removed from a jury for talking about it, it was against US law to talk about it.
Which is incredibly ignorant.
Going off memory tho admins stepped in quickly and clarified what was ok.
So if you want to talk about a past issue and how it was resolved, that's fine.
But it's a different conversation than what we're having, which is about post admin clarification
-
There was more to it than that, at least in the particular circumstances, that affected the results.
-
Yea uhhh could I get a #1 a #2 and an extra extra large #3 with extra pb sauce
-
Who orders peanut butter sauce from a fast food place?
-
-
They don’t seem happy with “Luigi did nothing wrong” either despite that being a value judgment, not a call to action, imo.
-
In the particular instance at least, it wasn't just a value judgment, there was more to what happened that affected the results.
-
-
Murder is always wrong, of course. This was simply an imperfect self-defense.
-
It's actually not always wrong...
Legally speaking:
In most countries, it is lawful for a citizen to repel violence with violence to protect someone's life or destruction of property.[3]
The scope of self-defense varies; some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat rule that disallows this defense if it was safe to flee from potential violence. In some jurisdictions, the castle doctrine allows the use of deadly force in self-defense against an intruder in one's home. Other jurisdictions have stand-your-ground laws that allow use of deadly force in self-defense in a vehicle or in public, without a duty to retreat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Not saying it's perfect, but it's likely the defense he'll use if not denying he pulled the trigger.
They'd just have to convince a jury that denying healthcare which causes injury and death to a shit ton of Americans is a use of imment force and this action would have lessened it.
If they show that after the shooting less claims were denied....
It probably won't work, but that's the path to jury nullification without saying jury nullification is our defense.
Under the New York Penal Law Article 35, you may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent you reasonably believe such to be necessary to defend yourself or a third person from what you reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
Tilem & Associates points out in an article that the term “reasonably” is used twice in the law mentioned above. Both your belief that force is being used or about to be used and your belief that your use of physical force is necessary to stop the attack must be reasonable under the circumstances if you want to successfully use the defense of justification.
https://documentedny.com/2023/07/27/new-york-self-defense-laws-stand-your-ground/
It's a sound legal defense, and as far as I know it's his only option.
But as always: IANAL
-
Not true. Not only was Luigi never insured with UnitedHealth, but the CEO he killed was on the path to reforming what he thought was a negative system. Go watch the Dateline Tonight episode on Luigi. The facts, when assembled, challenge the validity and true agenda of Luigi's support.
-
-
-
Saying "Luigi" or even that you agree with him: ✅ (Fine)
Using "Luigi" as a verb and/or dog-whistle call to violence (which is a TOS violation on LW and other instances): ❌ (Not Fine)
Edit: Added text in case the emojis don't show up.
-
Honestly, dog whistling using Luigi is generally acceptable if left vague. I've only seen moderation around explicit calls for violence against specific people.
I've made my fair share of Luigi jokes (i.e. Will Luigi be attending the inauguration) without mods leaping at my throat.
-
Well, if you look into the initial complaint about all this and see the responses, that's exactly what is happening. They also stop short of the nuance.
-
-
-
deleted by creator
-
Not that one excuses the other.
-
-
They're not really "against" him as much ad they strictly enforce their tos rules against calls to violence due to legal liability- which, with the wrong "phrasing", talking about the Green Plumber will run afoul of.
-
!luigimangione@lemmy.world is literally hosted there
-
This image has been summarily removed in the past for 'advocating violence'. Based on the bat signal which has been used many times in the past as a general deterrent for crime when Batman was known to be out of commission. The parallel here, when Luigi is currently detained pending trial, is obvious and as such doesn't advocate violence and yet it is close enough the mods intervene.
-
News on .world is, but I didn't notice any other community taking action.
-
They just have a rule against inciting violence and can be heavy-handed when it comes to jokes vs a credible threat or an actual call for violence.
-
Just go check the modlogs. I saw quite a few luigi removals and locks just yesterday.
-
Yeah, well .world is full of neoliberal idiot mods and admins, who have about as much consistency and transparency with their rules as twitch admins, all while being packed into the poor hygiene and body odor of Reddit mods.
-
Yes, but not particularly. By that I mean there is a line to be drawn, a legal one, and most places uphold it. Lines that becoming a rule enforcer are typically associated with the promise of keeping, lines many people do have a good grasp of. The hoopla going on, if you could call it that, is due to the circumstance of what was involved, and it's not the "instance's" fault currently. Defederation is a thing and so are sanctions, and the general expectations of !asklemmy@lemmy.ml are not something many of us are trying to emulate, especially when Luigi was just another Herostratus when you assemble all the facts. Go watch the Dateline Tonight episode dedicated to him.
-
I already thought this list was doing a lot of lifting for capitalism but wow:
- Free healthcare, as most critics of UnitedHealthcare think should replace privatized healthcare, has as many if not more problems as privatized healthcare, evidenced by Canada preventing disabled families from immigrating there so their system can ignore [sic]
It genuinely had me cackling seeing this misinformation included. Firstly, Canada is, by and large, pretty poor at free healthcare. The UK is also a mess. But even then it's not true, here's a source for that: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022
Surely there's a better source than thetoptens.com for this perspective?
-
43 comments