You're viewing a single thread.
Yes, of course, this guy is the reason authoritarian dictatorships emerge! Better skip to panel 4 before it happens the wrong way.
you fight the Nazi, or you help the Nazi, the Nazi has no interest in concessions, or sharing "their" space. If the idea that you can't call for Holocaust 2 electricboogaloo LGBTQ edition scares you, maybe think why it does, and then stop watching Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, or any of the other alt-right media/talking heads.
Defending authoritarianism is not fighting authoritarianism. You can talk like this is about the most extreme possible examples, but it fundamentally is not; this is about people who are fixated on obtaining the power to tell others to shut up, and that doesn't have a line anyone is willing to respect and it isn't limited to one side or the other. You go to panel 4, you're at panel 4. The implication that I must be saying all speech must be permitted, or that I'm defending Nazis by saying this, is false rhetorical framing; valuing free expression and wanting to defend it from people who would see it done away with is not equivalent to that.
Edit: And just to add, it's a terrible assumption that the best/only solution to an environment of increasing violence and hate is to make people stop talking. This is again a product of a fixation on the desire to do that, social media makes you want it, but that doesn't mean it's the place to focus. There are underlying problems that are not words.
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.
Don’t let that hate take root to begin with
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.
You hear someone saying something hateful, and then their thoughts and feelings become a part of you like a plant?
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.
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'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?
where is the line? how about inciting violence or discrimination against any group / peoples? I think that's a good line to start with.
As for the rest of your statement, you seem to have this unshakable belief that evil is something foreign to most people, that people wouldn't follow along in blaming some minority group and then doing unspeakable things to these groups, you act as if the population has some innate rational firewall protecting them from becoming Nazis, and History has shown us, time and time and time and time and time again that this just isn't true, hell in the USA you burned down entire city districts because the black man was plotting something, sikhs and Muslims got shot in drives after 9/11 because FOXNews decided to spew anti-middleeastern brown people rhetoric, the fucking Nazis, Belgian Congo, Turkey, the English empire, etc... etc... etc... they all started with some people spouting stuff.