Inb4 centrists “that’s unfairly reductive! That’s not what we’re saying!”
“I’m a centrist, all my beliefs just so happen to coincide with one side and it ain’t yours”
Normally I’m super liberal! Go ahead and check my comment history, that way you can waste your time and argue semantics with me. I vote Democrat consistently and strongly support my senator, Nancy Pelosi. But on this one specific issue that we’re coincidentally talking about right now, you have to admit the far right at least have a point - anyone who passed a college economics class should know that. So anyhow, that’s why children should be allowed to work in coal mines again.
Lust for gold? Power? Or where you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
There’s just no logic to “seeing both sides” in a world where one side is trying to provide for the most vulnerable in our society with healthcare, food, housing, or safety, and the other side is worshipping a “billionaire” playboy wannabe who is promising to destroy any hope for those very same people.
People can disagree on policy - on values, though? On values, someone who disagrees with me can fuck right off. Human rights and democracy, please.
I’m done with democracy and propose a new form of government:
Once a month, there’s a giant parade and everyone who has an idea gets to put together their own float/performance; best entries get governmental positions based on ranking. Anytime there’s a disagreement, each team will debate by presenting their argument while completing challenges from '90s-'00s Nickelodeon game show challenges; chatGPT will rate which argument is the most cohesive and assign percentages and then the time differences will be added to each team to determine final scores.
Finally, if anyone is caught cheating or trying to create fascism, their entire parade team gets eaten alive by all of the other parade teams. Only people willing to eat others alive or get eaten alive are allowed to be politicians.
Only people willing to eat others alive or get eaten alive are allowed to be politicians.
Wait, is that ‘or’ or ‘and’ get eaten alive? Like, what if I’m willing to be eaten alive, but I want my other teammates to do all the people-eating for me?
Would I be allowed in the parade if I wasn’t a politician?
If so, then I agree with your idea.
Homophobes at Pride events wave a sign that says GAY= Got AIDS yet?
All conservatives are trash.
Using an acronym to make another acronym is totally cheating, too! “GAIDSY?”
Can’t violate human rights if they are sub-human
And this is why speciesism is a root cause of so much human-on-human oppression. People unquestionably accept the premise that it’s ok to exploit/murder/etc non-human sentient beings, so dehumanizing certain groups is incredibly effective at getting people to be ok with abusing them. If we rejected non-human abuse as well, there would be no incentive to dehumanize each other
I mean, you sort of have an argument there. But that’s also a really huge leap: “If we can’t stop people from refusing to value other people, let’s just get them to value every living thing.”
If you’re at point A on the line, you’re going to have to get to point B before you get to points C, D, or E.
it depends how and why they’re devaluing the other human. If they’re basing it on dehumanization in order to exploit/abuse them, then that is in fact built on the underlying assumption that nonhumans are fair game to exploit/abuse, although they are also factually incorrect about the other humans humanity.
Strategically, it might be easier to get them to recognize that fact, or it might be easier to get them to accept compassion for all sentient beings and then point out the logical conclusions of that, it really depends on the person and situation, but I’m not talking strategy I’m just pointing out an often-unspoken root problem
there would be no incentive to dehumanize each other
Profit, religion, or just plain malice are all incentives
Malice and disrespect would still be incentives, but how would it be profitable to dehumanize other humans if it didn’t grant you any ability to exploit them more than you could exploit a “humanized human”? What reason would religion have (not that they’d need one to just make it up 🙄) to dehumanize other humans if it didn’t imply your religious group is more valuable than the dehumanized humans (besides malice and disrespect)?
And then conservatives parrot “wow I can’t believe you say mean words to me just because we have a tiny difference of opinion on whether or not you should be allowed to exist.”
