7
Do you think that permabanning is harsh?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
7 points (59.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26924 readers
1825 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Just the idea that words, alone, can cause harm is a modern notion.
No it isn't. You've already acknowledged that many more words were historically viewed as damaging.
Acknowledging the harm of hate is more modern, but the evidence behind it is pretty much indisputable.
To invoke a deity, or bodily fluids, or sexual impropriety, was to sully oneself and society as a whole.
The idea that words are somehow as dangerous as physical weapons is peculiarly modern. As is the idea that it is worse to denigrate a group than an individual.
No, they literally believed that using the name of gods could get you struck down, cursed, etc. by those gods.
And nobody is claiming words are physical weapons.
Both sides of your argument are wild mischaracterizations of reality and neither could plausibly be done in good faith.
I must admit that I never get this recourse to the "bad faith" argument. I'm telling you how I see things. Why would I bother inventing something that I don't even believe? Mystifying. If you see things differently, fine. I don't believe I've said anything factually incorrect (again: why would I bother playing games?). None of this is hard science anyway, so others can judge the arguments on their merits through the prism of their own values.
And now I see that you've been downvoting my comments systematically. Personally I consider that to be the virtual equivalent of shouting someone down in a debate. So that's enough for today. Good night.
Every single thing you've said is factually incorrect.
There is no debate about that fact that people historically thought gods would strike people down for words; it's abundant historical record.
And nobody anywhere near this thread said anything anyone could possibly interpret to mean that words are the same as physical assault.
I will always downvote comments using ridiculous nonsense to justify slurs.