this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
1156 points (88.6% liked)
Comic Strips
12762 readers
3862 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the people who are talking are saying hate-filled, disgusting things: They most certainly do need to shut the fuck up. It's not the only solution to the problem, but it's the first place to start. Don't let that hate take root to begin with, but shutting down the asswipe spewing hateful speech. There is nothing to gain from letting them speak, no validity to their words, and their rhetoric leads to violence so there is no reason not to censor them.
Is that how it works? You hear someone saying something hateful, and then their thoughts and feelings become a part of you like a plant? So we must weed and maintain a sterile environment so only the chosen thoughts and feelings propagate? Which are weeds and which aren't, and who gets to decide? To me this is a deeply dehumanizing metaphor and a path towards controlling human beings by choosing a diet of information and expression for them.
It's fine sometimes to tell a disruptive asshole to go somewhere else because no one wants to to listen to them, or even to do something about groups of people plotting violent acts, but what I object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person's right to collect and curate their thoughts at their own discretion is spat on, and that's what I see in this sort of rhetoric.
If your thoughts include the subjugation or eradication of a group of people and you express these thoughts publicly: You most certainly deserve to be spat upon and shunned. There is no place in a civil, enlightened society for that kind of thinking. Period. Full stop.
Republicans in the USA right now: WE NEED TO EXTERMINATE THE LGBTQ, THEY ARE ALL PEDOPHILES!!!! Fox/OAN/Tucker/Trump/MTG/etc... told me so.
ya, that is how it works.
and you are here saying you "object to is a broader ethos where the notion of respecting a person’s right to collect and curate their thoughts [we need to KILL LGBTQ+ people] at their own discretion is spat on" and wonder why people are calling your position supporting Nazis, I guess it's fine as long as you aren't affected.
I'm not wondering really. It's conceptual railroading, a lot like "protect the children" or appealing to fear of terrorism as an excuse for attacking civil liberties. You are using the emotional weight of fear/anger at admittedly reprehensible views to force the conclusion "that is how it works"; that is, that people have no agency and words are like a virus for them, with the natural conclusion that what they see or express must be decided for them, which then applies generally. If you don't think that would apply generally, where's the line?