5 ms·

Even as a moral absolutist myself that's a laughable oversimplification bordering on deliberate obtuseness. Obviously all hate is not the same. You call for t

Even as a moral absolutist myself that's a laughable oversimplification bordering on deliberate obtuseness. Obviously all hate is not the same. You call for the extermination of covid-19 and nobody will disagree with you. You call for the extermination of mosquitos and most people won't disagree with you. You call for the extermination of destructive invasive species and a majority of people will agree with you. Some reasons for hate are acceptable and some are not. Hating someone because of their race is not acceptable. Hating someone because they invaded your country and bombed your fleeing women and children is acceptable.

gruez 5y ago
> Hating someone because of their race is not acceptable. Hating someone because they invaded your country and bombed your fleeing women and children is acceptable. But the regulations apply to "Russians and Russian soldiers", not just the invaders. Would you be okay with calls of violence against saudi civilians because of their government's involvement in the 9/11 attacks?
- causality0 5y ago
  They said the calls for violence against Russian soldiers were allowed because this was being used as a proxy for the Russian military, and said it would not apply to prisoners of war. Again, this is deliberate obtuseness. If a pack of grizzly bears break into my house and I scream "Kill the bears!" I'm obviously not calling for genocide against ursus arctos horribilis.
  - gruez 5y ago
    I find it strange that you accuse me of being "obtuse", but you respond with the most softball examples. What about calls of violence against "russians"? Is "let's find russian nationals in ukraine and lynch them" okay? What about "let's invade russia and kill women children as payback"? I would hope not, but based on a permissive reading of the article it certainly seems allowed.
    - bobthechef 5y ago
    - causality0 5y ago
      This was directly addressed. They said the calls for violence against Russian soldiers were allowed because this was being used as a proxy for the Russian military, and said it would not apply to prisoners of war. It's not permissible when referring to anyone but Russian soldiers actively involved in the invasion, not even ones who were involved but are no longer. I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit.
      - gruez 5y ago
        > I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit. The exact wording in the first paragraph was: >Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion Which would suggest call for violence towards "Russians" (presumably all russians, not just russian military personnel) would be allowed. That said, the article was later edited and clarified that the exemption did not apply to russian civilians, so the question is largely moot.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

> Hating someone because of their race is not acceptable. Hating someone because they invaded your country and bombed your fleeing women and children is acceptable. But the regulations apply to "Russians and Russian soldiers", not just the invaders. Would you be okay with calls of violence against saudi civilians because of their government's involvement in the 9/11 attacks?

causality0 5y ago
They said the calls for violence against Russian soldiers were allowed because this was being used as a proxy for the Russian military, and said it would not apply to prisoners of war. Again, this is deliberate obtuseness. If a pack of grizzly bears break into my house and I scream "Kill the bears!" I'm obviously not calling for genocide against ursus arctos horribilis.
- gruez 5y ago
  I find it strange that you accuse me of being "obtuse", but you respond with the most softball examples. What about calls of violence against "russians"? Is "let's find russian nationals in ukraine and lynch them" okay? What about "let's invade russia and kill women children as payback"? I would hope not, but based on a permissive reading of the article it certainly seems allowed.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
  - causality0 5y ago
    This was directly addressed. They said the calls for violence against Russian soldiers were allowed because this was being used as a proxy for the Russian military, and said it would not apply to prisoners of war. It's not permissible when referring to anyone but Russian soldiers actively involved in the invasion, not even ones who were involved but are no longer. I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit. The exact wording in the first paragraph was: >Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion Which would suggest call for violence towards "Russians" (presumably all russians, not just russian military personnel) would be allowed. That said, the article was later edited and clarified that the exemption did not apply to russian civilians, so the question is largely moot.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]