It always strikes me as weird how a certain population puts a wall around political beliefs.
Say some group of people should have their lives uprooted and moved elsewhere against their will? Okay. Say some racial group should be rounded up and killed? Or that people in the wrong place or having insufficient funds should be left to die? Apparently within the realm of things that are okay to say. Advocate state goons beat, enslave, cage, and/or kill some groups of people? Perfectly fine. Advocate for the bombing of thousands of people? Just political discourse.
Call someone a jerk for saying those things? Now you’ve gone too far.
(I suppose it doesn’t strike me as weird as a dishonest rhetorical strategy. If someone’s objection to something comes down to that something being plainly awful and a moral abomination, restricting such objections from the discussion really shuts it down. I’ve also yet to see someone actually apply this consistently, every instance being fine with advocating atrocities against political groups they disagree with so long as opinions are all perfectly okay and should all be considered when things swing to the other side. But even if we ignore that bit and suppose someone does put a wall around some artificially labeled group of things that are political beliefs, it leads to many odd situations in which case person A can be advocating the death or other harm of person B, and person B just has to be okay with it.
But that it’s allowed to be gotten away with so often is weird. Inasmuch as political beliefs tend to drive important actions, some response to some of them just makes sense. If A is trying to ruin the life of B, it makes sense for B to do something about A. Even if A’s way about it is political.)
Leave a Reply