It’s not against the TOS. You can advocate for violence against the poor and minorities all day on here. But advocating for them to defend themselves is apparently over the line.
I support the idea of giving bunnies to horrible rich people, in order to warm their hearts and get them to change their ways. But it is important to note that even if you successfully bun down one person (that is to say, get someone to stop being evil by giving them a bunny), the system will find someone else to take their place. Ideally, you want to establish a credible promise that you'll provide bunnies whenever they go too far and hurt people with their actions, but that's not really something that can be accomplished on an individual level. That's just too many bunnies for one person to take care of, and if anything happens to you, who will take care of them?
In order to ensure consistent delivery of bunnies, what you really need is an organization and a support network. Of course, not everyone needs to be the one out there handing out bunnies. You might be surprised how hard it is to secure transportation and a safe place to stay when you're travelling with a furry friend, and you might run into trouble if you're trying to leave town after the fact, but your clothes are all covered in fur.
The way I see it, promises are what make the world go 'round. Yeah, you can just pull out a bunny and surprise someone and that's cool and good, but when you only have so many bunnies to hand out, ideally you just want to communicate what behavior will warrant a response so that they can avoid that behavior in the future (in order to avoid ending up getting overwhelmed by joy).
I've got a story idea for a cyberpunk dystopia. Imagine a world almost identical to ours. In that world, some inventive person creates a darknet website that allows anonymous donations to put bounties on corporate executives. Now, this site's creator wants to make sure their site isn't misused, so they implement guardrails like "Targets would be required to have over $10M in assets" and "each crypto wallet may contribute a maximum of $5 so it better reflects the will of the people."
Then, the site admin adds betting options like "who reaches a $1M bounty first", over/under odds, betting on which target gets whacked first, etc, in order to draw traffic to the site. Maybe there'd also be a percentage of the bounty that's paid out to organizations working to heal the damage caused by the target, so for example if a fossil-fuel exec gets whacked then that percentage goes to orgs working to stop fossil fuels.
How do you think it'd play out in this story? Would the site properly incentivize people to shoot up boardrooms rather than schools?
You know, I can see the headline if a Lemmy user used a bun on a billionaire. "Fringe social media platform encourages bunnilence towards innocent billionaires"... Actually has a good ring to it, although it reminds me of how people point to 4chan for the start of Qanon. Ugh
Now that I think of it, would they require instance managers to narc over user data? Admins? If someone on a more extreme instance was to bun a billionaire, would everyone on Lemmy get put on a list or just their instance? Hmmm.
People say China represses free speech, but at least there they recognize the repression and have a rich lexicon of codewords to get around it already.
The shaping of the western mind has been much more subtle and total that few even accept that it's happened.