5 ms·
Shouldn't even be talking about it. It's simply not an option. Violence is not acceptable. Period. Discussing it as a repercussion for a possibly misguided mani
by muninn_ 9y ago
Shouldn't even be talking about it. It's simply not an option. Violence is not acceptable. Period. Discussing it as a repercussion for a possibly misguided manifesto is not an option. It's disgusting.
- mcphage 9y agoMeh, some people respond to insults with violence. It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong.
- scarmig 9y agoAre you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.
- mcphage 9y ago> Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? Am I seriously stating that abusing people verbally and emotionally is equal in moral gravity to abusing them verbally? Yes.
- fucktech 9y agoEven worse sometimes. But don't tell these privileged little cunts who haven't had anything bad happen to them ever.
- fucktech 9y agoDang loves to cultivate the privileged cunt mentality here if you haven't noticed
- blub 9y agoWriting some manifesto can be at most offensive, but is nowhere near "abuse". And it's under no circumstance as grave as physical assault. Try your tough guy act in real life and you'll have a very serious discussion with the police.
- fucktech 9y agoPeople are pussies these days
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- masterleep 9y agoOne is a crime and the other isn't. That's for a good reason.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- carsongross 9y agoThat's insane. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "talking, not hitting."
- mcphage 9y agoNo. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "not hurting other people". Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence, but you don't solve disagreements via discussion if you attack them verbally.
- thehardsphere 9y agoRight, and because it's hard to have discussions that may not be easy to resolve, it far easier to re-label those disagreements as "attack them verbally." Hence, the new thoughtcrime.
- mcphage 9y agoSo tell me why you labeled "people disagree with me" as "thoughtcrime"
- carsongross 9y agoComment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.
- mcphage 9y agoWait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?
- deleted 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]