- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Abbott ‘has the blood of a child on his hands,’ a congresswoman said. ‘No good person would do this,’ said Mexico President López Obrador.
Abbott ‘has the blood of a child on his hands,’ a congresswoman said. ‘No good person would do this,’ said Mexico President López Obrador.
Someone implying a person should die without trial for violating border laws in peacetime is what encourages this kind of behavior.
No one is owed civility.
Correct, but please mind rule 1. We don’t owe you access to commenting in this community.
The irony of this comment in response to me calling someone a monster for implying a child deserved to die in a trap because they were in violation of civil tort is not lost on me.
The proper way to deal with someone you dissagree with is, downvote, respond without a personal attack (doesn’t help your point in any way) and block if you really hate them.
This has nothing to do with the content in the discussion. We want this place to be a forum for discussion where everyone is treated with respect, this doesn’t work if we let people who we agree with do whatever they want.
Heard that. Imma bow out of this thread.
I wish you a fruitful future of civil disagreement with people who think it appropriate that violators of civil tort be murdered without trial.
Why the fuck not?
Not replying is always an option.
That’s a very valid point, everyone could just not reply to monstrous statements.
I wonder what would happen if people who either want to get a rush from transgression or genuinely hold hideous views were never chastised?
Imagine if the judge reading a list of charges on you followed up each one with “you dumb fuck”.
What you’re saying makes no sense.
All I said is keep personal insults to yourself. You know nothing about the people you communicate with on Lemmy. You have zero insight into their life, their experiences, their education or anything that would give you the right to insult them personally.
Just state your opinion and stfu. Full stop. If you’re unable to keep personal insults to yourself, don’t comment. It’s very simple.
“Waaaa don’t respond to me I don’t like discussion I just want to defend people that applaud the death of a child in peace! Also, despite the fact that we’re discussing child murder, please everyone understand that being mean on the Internet is worse.”
Judges do that kind of thing all the time. They literally comment on the proceedings and people in the vernacular in addition to using their position of power to influence the outcome.
I know enough about the people writing stuff on the internet to break the usual social rules of decorum: some of them say vile, reprehensible, hateful, inhuman drivel and that is enough to insult them.
What are you really saying here? Are you truly suggesting that when someone implies “hey, this little kids tragic death is acceptable because they were in violation of a law” it’s wrong to tell them that they’re a monster?