Saying that you feel like the situation allows for lethal violence to be used and that you would bless it is certainly, without a doubt, inciting violence.
> "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing."
This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the serial arson, so it may fall to a militia. You can tell that by “if [...], at this point they have my fucking blessing” rather than any call to action.
Approving of militias using force to stop serial arsonists when the state has failed to keep the peace is an ethical statement — and one much tamer than “America deserved 9/11”. Most people believe that people have the right to protect themselves when the state fails to maintain peace.
I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree.
What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?
> "mowing down dipshit protesters"
... it says it right on the tin.
> I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree.
We don't shoot criminals, dude. Even if you thought there were arsonists out there, you don't just invite random people to come and shoot them.
Sure we do — when society breaks down and the police can no longer maintain peace. As happened in a number of US cities this past year, when police were helpless in the face of Democrat-endorsed arsonists. Apparently, the speaker was from one of these cities that suffered from frequent, organized arson.
Regardless, we’re clearly having an ethical argument: there’s no call to violence.
> "mowing down dipshit protesters"
Your example is clearly not a call to action, it’s an example of an act the speaker would approve of if it happened — which is an ethical statement.
The speaker is not saying people should or asking people to mow down protestors: just that they’re okay with militias shooting arson gangs if that’s what’s required to stop their serial arson attacks.
Oh, will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest!
I've probably engaged way past where I should, as you aren't here to discuss calmly and rationally, but what you describe is an extremely common rhetorical technique. The streamer all but said, "will no one rid me off these meddlesome protestors?"
On the contrary, they made a clearly ethical statement you’re trying to misportray, in a way which defames the speaker.
You say “calmly and rationally”: I’ve talked about the structure of the comment and the societal breakdown/violence in which it occurred — have you?
I think understanding the violence the speaker experienced from serial arsonists is important to understanding why they’d give an exasperated endorsement of violence to resolve the situation.
> The streamer all but said, "will no one rid me off these meddlesome protestors?"
No, they didn’t — you’re just emotionally and irrationally misinterpreting them.
Since you want to talk about rhetorical techniques: defaming people with false accusations is much more common than veiled orders.
This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it.
Whether it is tamer or not than "America deserved 9/11" is a matter of opinion, I won't pronounce myself on it but I totally understand that opinion. It is categorically true that while "America deserved 9/11" is a statement of ethics, saying that you personally bless mass murder to prevent property destruction is incitement of violence.
Saying “America deserved 9/11” and “I’m okay with arsonists being killed by militias when the police can no longer maintain the peace” are both moral statements about mass casualty events — but neither is a call to commit a violent act.
> “if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop [serial arsonist gangs, when the police fail to stop them], it is justified”
This is clearly a statement of personal ethics — it’s discussing the cases in which the speaker believes violence is just, not calling for specific acts of violence.
I think you know that.
> This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it.
“If [...], then justified” is an ethical statement — and as you say, there’s no two ways about interpreting it.
You simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit your own summary of the statement plainly shows it’s an ethical statement, not an incitement to violence.
You disagree with the statement, so you’re making emotional, inconsistent arguments to try discrediting it.
The only person “weaseling” is you — who are contradicting yourself and refusing to address my points.
Please don't create accounts to do that with.
I believe that you censoring in support of defamation (knowingly false claims an ethical statement is incitement) may incur liability for HN. Incitement has a specific legal meaning (which this is not).
You seem to be directly supporting defamation on your platform, as an administrator.
If you want specific examples you could start with "Be kind" and "Assume good faith".
The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options.
But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.