[seph-reed]

Why not both?

Personal conscience and conviction -- as overwhelmingly stupid as the vast majority of people are with or without it -- is at least extremely important for the minority of people who end up being front-runners for society.

But so too is society a super-organism, in which we are but cells. And cells which actively spread disease for their own sake are kind of independent to a flaw: cancerous one could say.

Maybe there's a better world in which context is a factor in whether or not a persons convictions are the most valuable thing in the room. Personally, I'd say if you're killing others for your beliefs, then your beliefs should be allowed the same treatment. Whereas if your beliefs are merely unpopular.. well, I wouldn't fix a car with a popularity contest, let alone a toaster or an entire fucking government.

[nathanaldensr]

Are you implying that some people are "cancer" and deserve to be eradicated? Why not just come out and say what you really mean without the plausible deniability and euphemisms?

[seph-reed]

ofc at least some people are enough like cancer they should be at least be changed... there's a lot of people. But no, I don't think this alone would be a sole distinguishing feature in that regard. It would be more "cancer-like," but there should definitely be more nuance before it's decided that a person "is cancer" and eradication should only be a last resort after everything else had been tried.

[humanrebar]

There are ways to make this point without comparing human beings to cancer.

[seph-reed]

Perhaps an allergic response then? The point being, units of the super-organism are causing the death of things they shouldn't be. Perhaps out of selfishness (like cancer), or perhaps out of a misplaced response (like allergies). But the super-organism has every reason to evolve them out.