Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it.
It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and side with the people who aren't openly homicidal.
But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it? It may be accurate in this case, but someone saying we should go kill all the Nazis in WW2 because they're actively genociding their people would also fall under that umbrella.
Yeah, wishing someone's family to be chopped to pieces isn't actually homicidal.
While saying no such thing and not acting in such a way that suggests as much is deeply suspicious because that's just being "polite and closeted about it". And thus the totally not homicidal brutal-murder-liking-people who are absolutely not wishing death and destruction on people not sharing their ideology are the ones to support. because the others are fascists, because they don't say they want the families of others murdered.
Weird take.
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable.
That came in a thread started with a now (justly) removed
> might wake up to their family chopped to pieces
This sets the tone I (and possibly others) interpret that message.
I know we are supposed to charitably interpret what people write on here, but a thread like this makes it really hard, given the tone.
But it's also worth considering exactly what the mass surveillance state we've got is directly leading to - deaths of many people. How many people have been disappeared or killed by ICE because of technology like this? That's just one group actively targeted by surveillance tech, and the government intends to go after millions more, as they've publicly stated. That's not to mention how many millions of people have had their lives worsened or ruined directly or indirectly because of tech like this.
These sorts of things aren't an innocent startup consisting of a few nerds in a garage, they're shaping the world and setting the stage for the expansion of horrible atrocities. This is ultimately what I mean - you have to look at the effects of what they're doing and the actual consequences. Once you see that and know people who are more directly affected/targeted by these technologies, it becomes a lot more clear why people are so angry at them.