• luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      the “Why should I pay for your healthcare” mindset

      What does that have to do with the topic? Universal Healthcare is in the common interest, so even if I for whatever reason wanted people whose ideology I reset to be denied basic human rights, it wouldn’t serve me to deny them healthcare.

      And I don’t want to deny them basic rights. Awful humans are still humans. They should be granted food, water, shelter, healthcare, opportunities to contribute to society just like everyone else. Denying these on ideological grounds would both risk wrongly catching the “allies” and deny the “opponents” the chance to reform.

      Besides, bigotry is easily bred from misery - it’s easier to tell someone “those guys are to blame” when they’re suffering than to convince them those other guys are somehow bad when everything’s fine. Providing basic necessity and the opportunity to prosper would rob intolerance of one of its contributing factors.

      I’m “fine” with understanding that attitudes can be temporary and people can grow. We’re all born with human impulses that include a fear of the unknown,

      Literally nobody disagreed on that. The questionable bit is this:

      which we handle in our own way

      If “your own way” is confined to your head without negatively affecting anyone, then I don’t give a shit either. Think what you want, but act with decency and respect.
      When “your own way” involves death threats and oppression, that’s where we get problems.

      There really is no “maybe” to the question of “Should bigots be allowed to act on their bigotry?” It’s a yes/no question. Two options, mutually exclusive. “Okay, you’re allowed to advocate for the killing of trans people, but only on Fridays and Saturdays” is still allowing bigotry.

      We can debate what counts as bigotry, but it doesn’t matter if you’re not willing to oppose it anyway. Apologism is endorsement, in that it obstructs efforts to combat it.

      Hopefully you’ll eventually outgrow your need to divide the world into people you condemn and people you haven’t found a reason to condemn yet.

      Hopefully the world will outgrow that need. Hopefully we’ll reach a point where nobody has to condemn anyone any more. Hopefully there will come a time where we can all abide by the principles of mutual respect, where nobody calls for the death of gays, heathens, infidels, jews, commies or any other group any more.

      Hopefully we’ll reach a world where we can all tolerate each other.

      But that’s not the world we live in. The world we live in contains people making those calls. As long as bigotry exists, I will oppose it. As long as there are people defending it, I will condemn them.

      If you want that world, get on board and fight for tolerance. Otherwise, kindly shut up and get out of the way.

        • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          lumping people who are UNCOMFORTABLE with something (meaning they fear it somehow) together with hostile rabid bigots

          I’ve made a point of differentiating between those that act on intolerance and those that don’t. How do you consider me to be lumping those together?

          I’m not a badass. I don’t want to fight. I’ve spent forever on the internet trying to debate, to explain, to reason, and I’m still doing so here.