5 ms·
I had a longer response, but deleted it, because ultimately it comes down to: I view all people to have inherantly equal value. The article implies something el
by afpx 5mo ago
I had a longer response, but deleted it, because ultimately it comes down to: I view all people to have inherantly equal value. The article implies something else.
- simianwords 5mo agoYeah no you are wrong. They don’t all have inherently equal value. What a naive way to look at the world.
- array_key_first 5mo agoEveryone does have inherently equal value, but our systems are structured in such a way to advantage particular people more. That's just the reality of it. Yes ideally we would want to live in a world where the patriarchy doesn't exist, or where whiteness as a concept doesn't exist. But we are not in that world. So when we have movements such as these, we have to understand they're not coming from a place of unfairness or inequality. They're coming from a place of the establishment, the status-quo, the power, wishing to maintain their power. You don't get any moral highground here, sorry. It's not as simple as those who believe in equal value versus those who don't. The world is complicated, such as naive and simple world view as the equalivent of "I don't see color" doesn't hold up to any amount of scrutiny or analysis. You may not wish to see it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- afpx 5mo agoIt’s pretty easy to value everyone equally. Just sort by distance