Inb4 centrists “that’s unfairly reductive! That’s not what we’re saying!”
People can disagree on policy - on values, though? On values, someone who disagrees with me can fuck right off. Human rights and democracy, please.
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?”
I’m so meta even this acronym.
Took me a minute.
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)?
Some people love feeling superior to others. That is one of the reasons the wealthy want servants.
I would argue that falls under malice and disrespect
Nah, I only eat grazers, and actually don’t devalue them for it. Vegans technically qualify but it’s too much of a bother to make sure they’re kosher.
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.”
Some things are not debatable. That’s kinda what the Constitution is about.
That’s debatable. Anything that has to be manually enforced can’t be assured unless there’s someone to enforce it.
Its also debatable because amendments exist.
Amendments even exist to undo previous amendments.
Everything else aside, that is a hideous flag
It really has become too much imo. It’s not my flag so really I don’t want it to change because of my thoughts, but I feel like objectively as a flag it has become way too complex. That and the fact that it’s continuously changing still makes it all the more confusing.
I am gay, and I approve this message.
This would get likes on Lemmy and Truth Social.
Reminds me of
this optical illusion except both answers to the illusion are correct.now imagine the Palestinian flag on that hat
Now imagine a green penquin on a purple horse.
I believe I should have rights
Well there’s your problem. This belief thing is a matter of subjective opinion. Objectively speaking, nobody has rights. The universe doesn’t give a shit about our rules and self-imposed limitations. So any rights you want, you have to make people agree within our microcosmos. Anything beyond that is just raw violence.
Literally the fascist viewpoint btw
No. It’s not. Fascists believe the world is running a giant conspiracy against them, that they are unfairly prosecuted no matter if the evidences suggest otherwise. So by that, contrary to what you believe, they belive in the possession of an inherent right, albeit often tied to an esoterical religious or pseudo scientific reason like God or the color of your skin. They also belive you don’t have, or don’t deserve to the same rights because you are the conspiracy against them.
Fascists believes in fantasy. And what he is saying is an observable historical reality. Complete deferent thing. You cannot have rights if you cannot defend them. Black people would not be freed without civil war, workers would not have 8 hours work day and weekends without union. Every societal progress we had made is through force unrelenting. It is force, and sometime ultra violence, that we are able to secure our God damn rights.
deleted by creator
I literally can’t tell the difference between these two extremists!
-centrists most of the time
Seems like y’all hate centrists very much, so I’ll just proudly say my centrist opinion here. Obviously they should have rights. No buts.
(Yes to butts)
Removed by mod
