Moratorium on Luigi posting.
Moratorium on Luigi posting.
I don't fucking care about this guy he is probably not the shooter and you all taking the feds/NYPD word on this need to check youself. You are fucking disgraceful. Any and all Luigi posting is banned from this comm going forward. Do some self crit.
You're viewing a single thread.
Are we all supposed to just accept the idea that Luigi could not possibly be the guy who did it, and that's that? And if we don't, we're "disgraceful"?
Does every mod in this comm agree with this?
Come on. This is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
these mods are brainwormed as all hell
bro is surprised when the ideologically motivated mod team on the ideologically motivated forum does something about ideology
Yeah, this is conspiracy brainworm nonsense. Log off, make yourself a nice cup of tea, take a walk outside.
Luigi most likely did it. Did the cops plant evidence to deny him bail? I'm almost certain, but I'm not going to call other people "disgraceful" if they don't agree, or even spout that claim without ample proof. I might believe something to be likely true, but It would be irresponsible for me to say you ought to believe it as well, if I don't have evidence.
Either way, whether he did it, or not, is immaterial. A guy killed a health insurance CEO and the working class is fucking stoked about it. Use that an excuse to raise coherent class consciousness among your community. Memes are one way of doing that, but far from the only. Talk to your friends and family.
Anything other engagement with this topic is a waste of time, and should be discarded as such. He did the deed. You do the propaganda. Take of the tin foil hats and start talking to people.
Innocent until proven guilty
Also, could you please not insult the people who doubt what the fucking NYPD says
Innocent until proven guilty
That's expressly for legal proceedings, not shitposts on the internet.
It (presumption of innocence) is also recognized as a human right under article 11 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If you really want to get into rules lawyering:
a) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely understood to be non-binding and lack any actual enforcement mechanism
b) The United States of America never ratified it
c) Even if the above were true, it still doesn't have any reasonable application here. I as an individual am not infringing on a person's human rights if I believe they're guilty of a crime and express that belief, nor is any internet forum that hosts said expressions.
Think about it, it just doesn't make any sense
You are the one who started rules lawyering by taking something that is broadly accepted as a useful axiom and claiming it only has value in a legal setting. What does the US ratifying it have to do with the value of presumption of innocence as a concept? Doesn't this reinforce my point that it is valued outside of the judicial setting? That being said I agree you are not infringing on his human rights by believing they are guilty of a crime, and wasn't insinuating you are. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I just don't understand why so many people are so willing to ascribe culpability without demanding proof.
Sure presumption of innocence is a nice thing to do, but I think considering it a broad axiom is a little generous. Its overwhelming application is to prevent the legal system from branding someone as guilty before conviction.
To me the implication of bringing up the UN declaration is it's something I should hold myself to as a matter of human rights, but like you say I'm not really infringing on them and it doesn't affect anything in the first place
I'm not super concerned about whether he did it or not because I don't think he should be punished regardless, so it doesn't change the calculus for me
but I think considering it a broad axiom is a little generous.
I guess I am compelled to agree, based off of the discourse (not our convo, just broadly.)
To me the implication of bringing up the UN declaration is it's something I should hold myself to as a matter of human rights, but like you say I'm not really infringing on them and it doesn't affect anything in the first place
Yeah, I am frustrated with all the drama and not communicating effectively, I could have been more explicit in my reason for bringing it up in the first place similarly to my interaction with jaywalker further up.
I'm not super concerned about whether he did it or not because I don't think he should be punished regardless, so it doesn't change the calculus for me
The thing that concerns, or rather frustrates, me is not about him being punished rightly or not so much as the way people were so willing to take up his standard with 0 investigation and claim him as a revolutionary figure. Although, I suppose I shouldn't even be dragging the lionization shit up again and am just gonna let it go and log off for the weekend.
Logging off is good! I'm gonna try to do that too
Citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights in a forum discussion about whether its OK to shitpost about a hot Italian named Luigi is incredible.
I am not having a conversation here about whether or not it is OK to shitpost about a hot itallian named Luigi, I've already made it clear over many threads the last few days I don't care about the memes as memes. I am making the point that the concept has value outside of a judicial setting and many find presumption of innocence be valuable. People assumed that Luigi was both the guy and guilty from the first headline with zero supporting evidence other than police statements and articles from outlets we would not find credible in any other circumstances.
It's not about doubting the NYPD. Its about the way we go about it. We should doubt the NYPD. We should not simply reject everything as false, simply because it's coming from the mouth of a pig. Bad people can say true things. Bad people can say true things, and frame them in dishonest ways.
What I'm getting at is that a kneejeek reaction which wholesale rejects everything the feds have said isn't helpful, and isn't the cool, based, radical thing people seem to think it is. It just portrays an unwillingness to use critical thinking skills. We need to be thoughtful and discerning, rather than screeching "NO MOAR FUN! I KNOW LUIGI DIDN'T DO IT CUZ COPS BAD AND I'M A BASED COMMIE!!"
We're all nerds on a web forum working with off the same information, no one has all the answers right now, and distracting from the core class war component of this is a waste of time.
I just want my fellow Hexbears to chill tf out, have some fun, log off for a bit, and actually talk to people in your community about class consciousness.
"You must believe the cops or you are a tinfoil hat conspiracy dumdum with no life"
Innocent until proven guilty with real evidence
"anyone who doubts the cops' narrative is a nolife tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist"
i am a self-proclaimed (unofficial assistant to the) mod(eration team) and I do not agree with this
who are you
I ask myself every day
Yeah, I feel like folks astral projected themselves really hard onto this guy and when they found out, he was just another run-of-the-mill "highly intelligent right-wing guy" they got real sad about it. I frankly don't care if it is or isn't him, it honestly doesn't matter, but recent history shows us that people who take any kind of "direct action" against perceived enemies are all right-wing types.
Like, people got real parasocial with this dude real fast.
well, luigi didn't do it - there's no proof now, and there's unlikely to ever be proof from a credible source
I think the idea is that we can't come to a conclusion either way until we learn more about Luigi himself, hence a moratorium on going along with the official story put forward by the cops.
That's not what I'm seeing, but okay
It turns out that if op assumes you think the guy is guilty cause they're bad at reading you can also get your post removed.