Comic Strips

15644 readers

3012 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.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

664

Seize the Means of Production (static.existentialcomics.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source https://existentialcomics.com/comic/514

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like a lot of people forget just how wildly different the time Heinlein was raised in was. He may have been wrong-headed in our current view about a fair amount of things--particular his work prior to the mid-60s or so--but that's a cultural issue, rather than someone that was pig-headedly stupid. The quote you have--"[...] forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath [...]--is especially ironic because AFAIK Heinlein appears to have had open/polyamorous marriages (...or multiamorous/polyerotic, if you're a linguistic pedant); that sort of inclination should be quite antithetical to laws enforcing religious doctrine or sexual morality.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know that there's any irony there. In my reading, the passage is actually advocating against such laws. And is aimed at the kind of thinking that leads to such laws.

I don't think he is condoning or advocating for such thinking in that passage - more saying that, if you do want these kind of laws (while he lists some contemporary examples) you have to realise that it won't actually work and will have other, negative consequences. That's not him necessarily condoning the thinking or actual moral standing of those examples. Just pointing out what he sees are the realities of such laws.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

that is your right and I do not ask you to surrender your beliefs or give up your efforts to put over such laws.

I dunno. Sounds like he's not opposed to them, just doesn't think that they're effective without going after root-cause issues. (...Which, I would like to point out, is one of the huge fucking problems that people in favor of banning guns have. E.g., address the root causes of violence, and you stop the violence without curtailing the civil right.) He doesn't seem to have a problem with addressing the root causes so that there's no need for the laws in the first place, and doesn't appear to be arguing against the things he lists as being 'social ills' in the first place. (He did think that the youth of his time were declining morally, which is a tale that goes back to at least the Greek city-states.)

Fundamentally though, yeah, laws alone rarely change behavior; you need to change the material and social conditions to change behavior.