Taking a look at the recent modlog, as well as other comments around here, it looks like they’re trying to find the right balance for what’s okay and what has crossed the line.

There are an alarming number of comments that are actively encouraging murder and the amount of upvotes that even the worst of those comments receive is sickening.

I think, at this point, anything the health insurance companies do that actually looks good, will make us jump to that conclusion.

Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?

Judging by the picture in the article, the judge wasn’t just a passive participant who was standing nearby and watching, or sitting in an office and signing a document.

Depends on where you live. There’s a very similar case in Germany from 2 years ago compared to what’s going on now.

In Germany a cop was murdered and someone posted on Facebook: “Not a single second of silence for these creatures.”

The courts have ruled that even “liking” a comment/post like that could be a crime.

https://winfuture.de/news,131418.html

The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.

I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.

Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.

For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.

I’m speaking in general terms here for any corporation which is why I commented in the way that I did. You’re the one escalating this to an extreme and retroactively applying that to my comment.

Calling for someone else to be killed for any reason is just revenge, it doesn’t solve anything. If any CEO is responsible for the death of a spouse/kid then throw them in prison.

Literal mob mentality? I’m not the one calling for a lynching here.

Someone will always be upset about something.

Stooping so low to kill someone just because you’re dissatisfied with the way they handle business doesn’t fix anything. Continually killing CEOs is not going to “train the system” to be better.

In a world like that, you would just have extremists on different sides killing CEOs for whatever reason they felt like.

Killing someone isn’t going to fix anything. Someone else will just step up and take their place.

Well, there is the Budapest memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

In exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal, we’re supposed to help them in the case of a nuclear attack.

I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.

Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?

I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.