Saturday, January 7, 2012

Atrocity and Censorship

Some of Mr. Floyd's readers (currently Grandma Sheila and Phylter) come now to suggest that one "Martin Timothy" must disappear because the subjects he discusses are too troublesome to be allowed to persist, which subjects have since been deleted, making a direct analysis of his blasphemy currently impossible.  Response follows:

If we cannot even question where the boundaries are drawn, and when they are drawn, then upon being faced with something we don't like, we are left with no resort save violence.  Hitler chose the "Final Solution." Bush invaded Iraq. Obama launches cruise missiles. Truman dropped the atomic bomb. All because there was no other better option available at the time. Much like voting for the lesser of two evils.

If what you and Phylter are advocating is that some things--defined only by you and those who agree with you--are so troubling that they cannot be dealt with in open debate, and must simply disappear, then what problems can you possibly have with the NDAA?  Obama only orders detentions and strikes when he and his closest advisers know that someone is a terrorist too dangerous to be allowed a day in open court.  So why does it bother you that he eliminates such awful people from the society of civilized humans?

In certain places, everyone knows that Muslim Arabs are so crazy and dangerous that they have to be shelved.  In other places, everyone knows that fat, lazy Americans, who are unwilling to depose their government and who keep paying taxes to support the war machine, are so crazy and dangerous that they have to be shelved.

Here, among this crowd, everyone knows that certain other subjects/people are so crazy and dangerous that they have to be shelved.  That overpowering, unquestioned consensus is a danger.  This is the danger that creates monsters--the danger that encourages souls to shelve their future thoughts in favor of things they already know.  In 2008, did you ever wring your hands in frustration after trying to discuss things rationally with an Obama-lover who had put their judgment in abeyance to the past?

Who's left to cross the boundaries of outlook and ask us all to help one another be better people?  If we ignore Timothy Martin, or whichever order his two first names appeared in, who will ever help him learn the folly of his ways?  The factual and moral arguments against his viewpoint are legion.  Maybe if someone talked to him, rather than either jumping on his bandwagon or dismissing him as ignorant, he would be able to grow and develop into a better person.  Is that not our duty as living souls sharing the same home?

Niemoller fits well here: "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

The things that you advocate on this site, Ms. Sheila, could be considered by some--daresay, a majority--to be so dangerously antisocial and radical that they would warrant a black ops disappearance or a trip to Guantanamo.  Many, many people would think it patently ridiculous to even begin to address your atrociously dangerous, reactionary viewpoints.  Along with those of Mr. Floyd.  Do you ask for the standards of the majority to justify your censoring of Tim/Marty/whatever?

This one may be vanished from here, or simply become an ignored Other.  Until, after, and then, lightspring embrace you.

No comments:

Post a Comment