this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
451 points (80.8% liked)
Comic Strips
23229 readers
2870 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I personally feel that it's perfectly fine to boycott problematic figures. Speech has real effects and should be treated like it.
But once you accept the equivalence of speech/reading and violence you can start choosing to regulate speech/reading as violence, or free up violence as speech. I don't think either is a great idea. Do you think that any of you have never said something hurtful to others? Should you be jailed for it?
I await all the civil and non-hurtful replies from peaceful and sympathetic people I am likely to garner for this stance.
You are a
greatperson Iagreewith you and hope youliveThanks, stranger. I hope you live and are happy even if we someday come to disagree on some things. You are more important to me than almost any disagreement.
<3
I know its a hyperbolic example (though entirely possible in the context you describe)
What would be your thoughts on speech that had the effectual equivalent of murder?
There's no traps here im just interested in the thought process behind the context you provided.
Side note: if verbal violence is possible then it would probably track that there are degrees of violence, much like the physical equivalent.
If that's true the argument that you shouldn't regulate subjectively heavy violence because "who here hasn't physically hurt someone?" Isn't a reasonable as it sounds at first glance.
For the record, Rowling is a shitbag, the potter books are mediocre and the actors were the best thing about the movies.
None of that bias is in the foundation of my questions though.
Speech equivalent to murder? Well calls to violence, or criminal conspiracy are crimes. But that's kind of a cop-out because they lead to eventual killing via non-speech means.
Actual murder via speech would be... stuff like shouting fire in a crowded movie theater. (This is also already a crime.)
I used effectual equivalent for a reason.
I did say it was somewhat hyperbolous but there are real life examples that are possible.
Something like extended bullying directly leading to suicide, lies with the intention of causing harm or death.
Calls to violence that lead to deaths that otherwise wouldn't likely happen is a good example of one that can be technically correct but difficult to prove.
Intentionally telling someone a door leads to safety when it actually leads to a spike pit is effectually the same as stabbing them yourself.
Are those examples good enough for an answer?
Im looking for how the idea holds up at the logical extreme so I can understand the bounds of the theoretical context.
There doesn't have to be a good answer either, some ideas only work in a limited boundary and break down at the extremes.
I know this is a bit of an extreme example. Leaving an abusive spouse leads to suicides. You can't blanket assign responsibility in all cases. It needs to be reasonable.
In cases of targeted harassment, sure. I think cases like that have gone to trial.
But if seeing someone walk into a book signing by a woman with regressive views on trans related stuff tips someone over the edge to suicide I don't feel that's reasonably assignable blame. Seeing J.K.Rowling succeed is such a minor thing compared to the child raping cannibal cults we have running things. It just does not even register.
Calls to violence are outright crimes where I live, whether any violence occurs or not. I think you might get a lighter sentence if nothing happens, not sure. Just like you don't get off with no charges if you shoot at someone and miss.