A few short decades can really help evolve the outlook and sensitive of a society. A few thousand years certainly can. I’m glad we continue moving further away from a time when the best way to deal with differences was isolationism or violence.
Yeah, moving towards the state being the one dispensing repercussions for offending someone. Haven't come too far, since the only difference if you don't get killed immediately now. Instead you get crucified by the media, lose your job and become an outcast.
Not so much better, is it.
I mean, I get where you’re coming from. We are far from perfecting the whole “civilization” thing- and there’s certainly debates to be had over censorship and at what point freedom becomes impinged- but... if we REALLY think about it, what do you wager the odds are if you took a soldier on the battlefield about to be killed, a death row inmate strapped to the table for execution, an old man on his death bed, and a husband heading home fatally wounded in a car accident- and asked all of them: “would you rather lose your job and vetted dragged in the media to keep living, or die right here?” Out of a sample of say- 100 people- how many do you think would choose death over dishonor? Because even when honor was a very serious thing in mainstream culture- people often choose to live in dishonor over death. Some might prefer the other way, but I think overall I’d rather be shit talked in the media than tortured and murdered for heresy.
The ONLY difference is that you keep your life. What have we seen so far? You can be removed from all social media platforms, you can be fired from your job and be almost unable to find a new one, your bank can suspend your account and refuse to service you. You lose your public presence, source of income, and access to necessary services. I can even call the next step here, something like supermarkets refusing to service you, or if you are renting a place, the landlord just terminating the contract. And the logical progression then, is to cut the person out of the society completely and let them fucking die. We are literally 3-4 steps away from that.
I would prefer a quick death over a slow and excruciating process of you being disavowed by everything and everyone, tossed out on the streets and slowly dying because it's for the "good" of society. But hey, maybe it's just because I'm not a masochist and I despise totalitarianism.
I don't want to solve differences by conflict, but THIS is far worse. Especially in a civilized world, where we got so close to the apex of a fair and free society, before tumbling back down the mountain into totalitarianism and public excision for doing nothing crossing the line of the law.
@vitklim- I agree in many ways. A world ruled by any radical view point regardless of how we define it on a spectrum of ideals is perhaps not the best thing- certainly not for freedom or individuals. And I also agree that a system which takes those- even those who spread hate or wrong- and cuts them completely off from society and shuns them hurts not helps. How do people learn to be better if the only people they are free to associate with are others shunned? It’s like creating a lord of the flies of ideals where in a socially imposed isolation chamber all those ideas have to do is reverberate along with the resentment of being shunned by society. The lesson learned isn’t to love or accept other human beings- but to hate society and lash back at the ideas you blame for your misery harder than before.
What’s more- it does something very dangerous. It assumes one outlook is the only way, the inherently right way, and any who don’t bend to that are to be left out. However- it is precisely for that reason that life is preferable to death. Killing people removes them and their ideas completely. They have no chance to either change themselves or change society. If society had killed Nelson Mandela or any number of people and their followers, if we had killed any who spoke against civil rights- who would there be to carry the cause and those ideas? Likewise- if anyone labeled too “right” were killed- who would survive to pass those ideas? So while it may be a short term personal preference to take death over disgrace- it’s selfish and weak. Dying for ideals is easier than living for them through adversity. Being a martyr is a simple job compared to being a champion. So you prefer the easy way and that’s your business- but it’s not the best way for society.
Likewise- it isn’t so simple is it? Like- isn’t excluding people from society for actions that are harmful exactly what prison is for? You don’t go to jail for killing a person. Soldiers or police, or even citizens found to be legitimately defending themselves are not imprisoned for it no? But someone who shoots up a school would be for the same action done under different reasons. So there certainly is a line somewhere where society decides that a greater freedom must be sacrificed for the social good. There’s nothing wrong with lawful protest, one can protest anything right? We could picket hospitals and demand they be closed so people would live and die “naturally” by “destiny” or whatever.
Hopefully most people would see that is stupid. But it also is a paradox to your logic. To shit down those hospitals would then deny the right of freedom to everyone to choose for themselves if they want to go or not. Of doctors and the like to choose their careers. So how do we balance freedom when the will of a majority would be to deny others of their freedoms? We have to give the most freedom to the most people while protecting those who don’t have the numbers to defend their freedom right? It’s the duty of any free person to defend the freedom of others, otherwise there is not even a semblance of freedom.
So the exclusion and persecution of those we see as spreading hate is wrong. Invite the neo Nazis and the men and women seeking gender superiority for “their side” and all the others who don’t want freedom but want to take it. Invite them into society and our lives in hopes they might see wrong- but give them the freedom to exclude themselves. Like having a family BBQ where two relatives won’t go if the other does. Invite them both. Whoever can put their bullshit aside is welcome and whoever can’t can exclude themselves. The skinheads are free to have their own reading days, and so should the transgender. No one has to go to the others if they don’t want to, but all should be welcomed.
Not so much better, is it.
I would prefer a quick death over a slow and excruciating process of you being disavowed by everything and everyone, tossed out on the streets and slowly dying because it's for the "good" of society. But hey, maybe it's just because I'm not a masochist and I despise totalitarianism.