Context: comment on a post about Hezbollah leader being killed.
This comment is not calling for violence. It is literally mocking those that think violence is a good idea as the dire consequences are the very subject at hand.
Those mods clearly put zero effort into examining the context and simply prosecute on report alone. Either that or they themselves support some violence and abhor its criticism.
Tbh the phrasing leaves a bit to interpretation… and considering the volume of moderation they need to go through, I can see how this one could be flagged incorrectly.
I disagree; it’s rather clear what Cephalotrocity is arguing against violence, even if I happen to outright disagree with his views when it comes to the state of Israel.
EDIT: on the other hand I’m not sure about the other comment flagged as misinformation.Further EDIT: nah, the mods were spot on with that one. “Zionism is simply [the state of] Israel existing peacefully.”?Zionism as a concept is about Israel having a right to exist. People are conflating bad actors taking this simple concept and employing violent means to achieve it, with the core concept.
It is the same as someone saying “Islam is a religion of peace” and having that flagged as ‘misinformation’ because there are radical islamists that employ terrorism.
It’s a concept rooted in ethno-cultural nationalism, about Israel having a right to exist at the detriment of the Arabs in the region. The omission of those pieces of info that I’ve highlighted misleads the reader towards an incorrect conclusion, and that’s what makes it misinformation.
I fully agree however with the comment you mentioned in the OP not being a call to violence, but the opposite.
right to exist at the detriment of the Arabs in the region
This was not, nor is it now a prerequisite, nor part of the definition. There were and are solutions that could benefit both Israelis and Arabs if they would sit down and settle it peacefully, which was my whole point.
