We all have a right to be angry, and there is much evil in this world deserving of justice. But due to the nature of our society, open calls for violence are not strategic.
Open calls for violence only jeopardize our community, not because they're morally wrong, but because they're illegal. We have to be strategic.
Find another way to release your urge for vengeance. Channel it into something productive. Frame it as a need for self-defense. Let's always remember that we must prioritize the need for a stable community.
There is also another really important strategic reason.
We obviously wish to be a growing movement, both as a forum and socialist thought in general. It's important to recognise that a growing movement's rhetoric will leak into its actual ideology. A good leftist wishes for a better world and sees that violence is necessary to get there. But if we glorify that violence too much, we will attract people that are more into just violence with leftism as just an excuse, and repel people that want a better world but do not yet what it will take to achieve it.
Adventurism is bad, folks.
Great point. Someone on another post linked to Lenin's Revolutionary Adventurism
Safe to assume LE will have eyes on this board eventually in some form or another. No reason to hand them free ammo.
Yeah, and on top of that, violence and anger will repel those who do not understand it.
If they're not feeling a little violent and angry after reading about the things people will share here, they're a lost cause anyway
That assumes people will be reading theory before they read "kill all landlords", which is rarely true.
tru.
but most importantly, the vast majority of those kind of posts are cringe and toothless anyway
Counterpoint: advocating for violence is legal in the USA.
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "N•ggers," "Jews," and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July.
Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – proscribed "advocat[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
[...]
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
Many kinds of advocacy for violence are indeed legal in the US. Specifically if there is no specificity to make it an actionable threat or prohibited language in the vein of inciting a riot.
You can say for instance, "I wish Osbourne would get killed, his music sucks" that's legal, you can't say that you personally would like to do so next Thursday and you really can't say that and add a location you know he'll be that Thursday. What's more sketchy is saying you'd personally like to without specifics such as a date or time, you may not be able to be successfully prosecuted but it is often enough to get an initial warrant for information and a police car roll to your house for them to intimidate you while assessing the threat. And that means you're on their radar and you have failed.
Broad threats are the most legally protected and least likely to get any kind of court approval for more information. Saying "I wish all Green Day fans were rounded up and put in camps" is not anywhere near a real threat or incitement.
One issue I notice with this website is it is incorporated in the US, specifically California. The best legal move would be to base it outside the US, ideally in a country less friendly to US legal and law enforcement requests. If you based it in say Russia or China or any number of places that aren't the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada you're a lot safer. Of course the problem is having a person outside the US for that purpose. Hosting it outside the US is also best because it means legally the path for them to get information on a user is so troublesome they'll probably just ignore it. It doesn't mean they won't monitory the board if it comes onto their radar but them having no recourse to grab user IP data would be very comforting to know as an additional safeguard.
If there are multiple people with access to the back-end and/or tools that can grab IP addresses I would suggest any warrant canary have each of them sign their name each month at the bottom of a provision stating the "following persons have not personally received any contact from law enforcement or intelligence or national security organs or agencies regarding the content of this website and its users".
I apologize for my bourgeois tendency of not wanting CTH getting banned again