I’m with with dehumanizing rich people
Not even for people who stand on the left side of the escalator?
human monsters are still human. if you want to defeat human evil you need to acknowledge and address it for what it is, not disavow it. you won’t “no true scotsman” your way to defeating fascism.
So many times I have said this to be met with “hurr durr but you can’t empathize or let fascists off easy” by people just repeatedly missing the point
Go talk to all the pet play enthusiasts
The secret ingredient is consent
right? i’ve got a footstool who would disagree with this
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
slowly raises paw
Miauuuuuu :3
Mammal, mammal
Mammal, mammal
Their names are called
They raise a paw
The bat, the cat
Dolphin and dog
Koala bear and hogCRANKING MAH HOGGG AROOOO
Woof c:
was going to say :3
Kinda gross how obvious it is that some people don’t actually believe that certain actions are bad because they inherently violate personhood or your moral beliefs, but because they were done to them. And that the real desirable thing is to use it against The Enemy, not to eliminate it altogether.
I have sympathy for the position. It’s easy to get frustrated by an “enemy” who is already dehumanizing you and wishes to remove you from society for existing openly as you are. It can be damn hard to not sink to the same level of thinking… but it’s part of why we had trials at Nuremberg and we took the time to treat the monsters with the human dignity they deserved and would deny to others. We didn’t just hang them all by their necks because we knew they were Nazis and that was enough, they were given trials because holy fuck it matters. (There is a valid argument to be made that we didn’t have enough trials for enough Nazis) Further, it helped solidify our understanding of fascism and what leads to fascism… a lack of empathy. If we allow ourselves to completely lose our empathy for those who strike against us (especially those who are uneducated and have essentially been tricked and deceived into their positions, which are the majority) we will eventually become just as monstrous as them.
I keep empathy for people who are misled and have been intentionally confused, but the line I see gets drawn when they have been educated and still choose to be a fascist/Nazi. If they’re fully versed in it and are still advocating for it and taking actions on behalf of it, then I lose empathy.
The problem becomes making that determination. But while I draw a line for dehumanization there, I still support death penalty just for being one (as in taking actions that are clearly intended to support or promote the belief. Keeping a known and verified Nazi alive will never be beneficial in any way at all to anyone but other Nazis.
The only real benefit to dehumanization at all is having a way to tell yourself that you’re not included in a species with that possibility.
But setting a burden of evidence for and being convicted of just being a Nazi/fascist should be grounds for execution in every country.
I feel similarly.
Fully aware nazis/fascists are humans. They’re humans who have made the choice to act with malice and selfishness and to be honest that’s way worse a condemnation than to imply they are animals who are “just that way.” They could choose kindness and respect, and don’t.
Im not really disagreeing with you, but kind of sharing some perspectives that are related.
I think humanity is something spiritual that can be lost and regained. What makes us human isn’t just that we belong to a certain animal species. Dehumanizing happens to both the oppressors and the oppressed. Paulo Friere goes into detail about how the illiterate peasants he worked with, who are like oppressed for generations, need to like have their humanity restored or returned to them before they will want to start to read and improve themselves. And the process he uses to do this is his pedagogy, and its very unconventional. He’s not saying they aren’t human, but that they have had their humanity stolen from them, they’ve internalized through occupation that their lives don’t matter, even less than animals, and so behave accordingly.
In Wretched of the Earth, Franz Fanon details how the colonizers lose their humanity, and how they end up taking it from the colonized, leaving both groups in a dehumanizing cycle of repression that quite literally destroys peoples ability to feel remorse or have any kind of self-reflective internal mechanisms. People become quite literally haunted by death and trauma.
Friere actually is so confident however in peoples ability to change, that he believes it is the historic mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of their oppressors.
Some of these fascists indeed are just evil, others know what they do is wrong and somehow do it anyway, but others I think have had something taken out of them by their experiences. Some may get it back in the revolutionary process of transforming society, but others will need to be defeated and face some kind of justice before they can begin their process. So how we might accomplish this without reproducing the conditions that robbed people of their humanity in the first place?
But fascism is such an incredibly insidious objective condition. Its not even like a set of beliefs, which is why rationalists struggle to define it. I often think about Anders Brevik (but perhaps I shouldn’t) who carried out a mass murder spree claiming over 75 lives, many children, and the reason he did it supposedly is he wanted to influence Norwegian courts to adopt a stricter standard of carcerial justice. He wanted to make things worse for everyone, especially himself, by carrying out an act of terrorist carnage. Idk if a person like that wants to be reformed, he wants and chooses to be a dead eyed monster. But he’s probably influenced a lot of people who can be reformed. But that’s not a job I’m capable of carrying out, since such a transformation of people won’t happen before truly revolutionary change to society.
Sounds like you’re describing sympathy, not empathy. Empathy doesn’t require compassion and it doesn’t require forgiveness.
The main thesis of this entire comment section is the vital importance of empathizing, but not necessarily sympathizing, with those who have crossed any line of social or moral depravity to better understand what led them there. Just saying “they’re monsters by some inherent flaw of character that I couldn’t possibly possess and they don’t deserve to live” is just sweeping the problem under the rug and denying its potential in every other person.
I don’t see the terms as mutually exclusive. They’re pretty closely related.
As for the last bit, that’s exactly what I was getting at. Denying the potential for that is what I said was what the only perceived point/reason of denying their humanity.
That said, forgiveness is the last thing I’m willing to offer. I do believe they don’t deserve to live. They’re the quintessential group that I wouldn’t piss on em if they were on fire.
I don’t know how to work out exactly what grounds to use for it, but it should be up there with mass murder with sentencing. I’m not even opposed to using them for medical research for things that would be unethical in any other way. The opportunity for corruption though is so high I don’t think that’s practical.
All dehumanizers are sub-literate neaderthals
sub-literate neaderthals
HugeNerd
Pleased to meet you… hope you’ve guessed my name
Way too much moral relativism in here for my liking.
Morality is relative.
A Fox hunts a Rabbit.
Fox catches Rabbit & eats him. This is good for Fox, evil for Rabbit. Fox loses Rabbit & starves to death. This is evil for Fox, good for Rabbit.Humans are not strictly governed by instinct and do not actually have to live by eating other sentients.
Our morality need not be a zero-sum game…
A surprising amount of puritanical views are related to instinct, though. They start to make more sense when you realize that they consider ‘I’m uncomfortable with this’ to mean ‘this is evil and needs to go away’.
There’s nothing instinctual about puritanical fears. That’s pseudo-science.
We are instinctually discomforted by things that are unfamiliar to us - the appearance and behaviors of the homeless, the physical state of the visibly disabled, people of other nationalities, etc etc. We also are instinctually uncomfortable with public sex acts (sex is something to be done where you are safe and can’t be interrupted says monkey brain). We are instinctually uncomfortable with acts of excess, as in a community with tight resources, their excess means less resources for the rest. Extend those to the point they become absurd, and what do you get?
deleted by creator
Right, that was a metaphor meant to illustrate that ‘Morality’ can differ based on ones point of view. Whether or not humans are ‘strictly governed by instinct’ or have to live by ‘eating other sentients’ is beside the point.
Our morality need not be a zero-sum game…
That is beside the point as well. Unless you believe that the universe had a creator, who also created ‘morality’ and is the ultimate arbiter of what is ‘moral’ and what isn’t- it’s simply impossible to say what is objectively moral and what isn’t.
Human centered example 1.
Person A believes in Christianity. Person B does not.
To Person A making jokes about Jesus being ‘hammered’ or ‘really nailing it’ could be considered blasphemy, which is a sin and is immoral.
To Person B the entire concept of blasphemy is nonsense and there is nothing ‘immoral’ about such jokes in any way.
Person C agrees with Person A, but believes that anyone who blasphemes should be put to death.
Example 2.
Person A believes that Jesus would want you to do whatever is medically necessary to keep a person alive no matter how terrible their quality of life.
Person B believes that it should be up to individuals when they should be allowed to shuffle off the mortal coil and that it can be the humane option to actually help end the life of a person suffering a painful and debilitating terminal illness.
Person C believes that only God gets to determine who lives and who dies- but unlike person A they believe that any medical treatment whatsoever is immoral and a persons health should be determined by God alone.
Example 3.
Humans have destroyed the Earth, the last remnants of our species exists as a single colony aboard an interstellar spacecraft. We are on the brink of starvation, and must find a new homeworld soon. We happen upon a planet that would be just right for human habitation if it were terraformed, which we have the technology to accomplish. If we do that, the one alien lifeform on the planet, a type of bacteria, will die.
Person A rejoices that ‘The LORD’ has blessed humans with a new promised land.
Person B doesn’t like the idea of killing the first example of Alien Life so far discovered and thinks we must find a way where both Earth species and the Alien species can survive, even if taking the extra time to do so might doom humanity.
Person C believes that this planet was given to the alien bacteria by God and living on an inhabited planet is immoral under any circumstances- if we can’t find an uninhabited planet before time runs out for humanity, that is God’s will.
Example 4, same scenario as example 3, but the entire planet is teeming with complex lifeforms.
Example 5, same scenario as example 4, but there is a sentient and intelligent life form that has become the dominate species on the planet, They have a caste system based on superstition, practice slavery, and eat any of their offspring who aren’t “perfect”.
Example 6, same scenario as example 5, but the dominate species are pretty cool actually. There is still no way for humans and aliens to share the planet and we must choose between us and them.
Who is ‘right’ in each of these scenarios? You and I likely agree on the morality of many, many things- then again perhaps we do not. If you know of a way of determining the objective morality of things- I would like to know what that is.
Fascists might be human people, but I’ve lost faith in human people. I kinda don’t even want to keep being one myself.
Check out post-humanism. There’s no need to self-identify as “human”. Just detach from the whole mess and identify as animal.
I identify as whatever the hell the SCP Foundation turned into in the SCP-5000 scenario
What about dehumanizing billionaires and cops?
Still human. Being human has nothing to do with being a good human.
He’s talking about dehumanizing people. Not animals.
You can’t dehumanize a billionaire because billionaires aren’t human.
It’s the paradox of tolerance but with violence this time.
deleted by creator
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
(emphasis added)
By Popper’s standards, you should not be tolerated in an open society, as you seem willing to “do bad things to certain other humans” who come under a presumably broader definition of intolerance than those who “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
Do note that this footnote is the only thing he ever wrote on the matter.
deleted by creator
How on earth do you make the leap from “suppress them if necessary” to “dehumanize”? Most imwise.
deleted by creator
or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
You can be intolerant and violent without being dehumanizing. You can still punch a Nazi and resist fascists without dehumanizing. This whole argument has got me confused. It’s not even an argument.
Hell, you can still be a bad person without dehumanizing.
deleted by creator
Humanity is inalienable. The most wretched, hateful human you can imagine cannot become un-human.
Think of it like calling a turd on a pedestal art. It doesn’t mean it’s good art, or even that you shouldn’t bag it up and throw it out.
Same thing.
Or dehumanizing fascists? Though that Venn diagram is nearly circular.
Even subhuman scum have human rights.
You can recognise them as human and still kill them.
But why though?
Because they are human.
Or you can recognize them as human and do your best to educate and help them to be good neighbors
The morality of “Just Kill Them” belongs in pre-Enlightenment religious texts, not in modern civil society.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 King James Version
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die
Yeah yeah, ofc, first with the trying to help them. Obviously. But I’m imagining some Nazis at the gates type scenario beyond that.
No sense in wasting that time, effort and risk to futilely attempt to teach, when they ignored all their potential epiphanies and actively hunt, harm and kill people instead.
I agree! I’ve been trying to brainstorm how one can sort of effectively do the opposite of those dehumanizing incel memes.
We really need some viral empathy.
Take the pope’s words to JD Vance, “love doesn’t have a budget, you try to love everyone as hard as you can” (paraphrasing)
Empathy doesn’t sell.
Getting strapped sells.
I’m not concerned with profit. Just with changing hearts and minds.
bullshit; of course there is. it is earned: fascists, billionaires, the IOF, the white house administration, stephen miller specifically… none of them are human beings the same way you and I are human beings. nazi lives don’t matter.
I agree. Their actions dehumanize them. I do not. Their actions render them unworthy of the basic kindnesses given to humans.
You are correct. This comment section is full of the worst moral relativist, shitty- and this is a phrase I never thought I’d use unironically- virtue signaling.
Agreed.
taps sign
You can’t use the fascism to beat the fascism without using fascistic tools and being fascistic yourself. Kinda gross yo
There’s nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow line and road kill. Fascism has a way of forcing people into one of three camps, perpetrators, saviors, and victims. Bystanders will eventually be pulled into one of those groups and you’ll have to choose to join the perpetrators, or the savior, or be forced to be a victim. There is no center anymore, the only good fascist is a dead fascist.
shooting someone who’s going to murder you is self defense, not murder. get out with that “oh but then you’d be no different” bullshit. yes you would. it is different.
this is why libs always fucking lose.
It’s only self-defense if the threat is legitimate and not already neutralized. Even if a murderer has expressed their intent to escape and kill again, if they are already captured and constrained executing them is wrong.
Some deaths in the process of neutralizing threats may be unavoidable and just. That could include resistance or revolution. But, no, you don’t get to justly kill anyone based on their mere willingness to kill you.
then please accept my condolences for the unjust, cruel murder of the poor UnitedHealth CEO, i really hope the same won’t happen to every IOF soldier who’s very humanely playing a game of shooting children in the genitals for fun today, because shooting off limbs day was yesterday.
I certainly think it is possible to argue neither of those threats were/are neutralized. But that may say more about me than I really want to impose on anyone else.
“No War But Class War” ?
then i don’t know what you’re arguing here, which threat i mentioned was neutralized?
My argument is that self-defense is more narrow than your definition. At the point in the conversation when we were exchanging definitions of that term, no specific acts had been mentioned in the thread/post.
The threat of that particular CEO has now been neutralized. It was arguably legitimate at the time he was shot, tho.
And this is why fascism will forever perpetuate. Because you’re too much of a coward to recognize the fact that humans can do terrible, terrible things. You want to live in a fantasy world where they are not part of this race because if they aren’t then you don’t have to confront the reality that they are just like you but with a different brain chemistry and different decisions.
I’m not saying you won’t be any better. I’m saying that if they’re so horrific because of the things they say and do then you are an utter coward to say the same things about them that they would about you. A complete coward who is terrified to confront reality and channels that into the same bitter hatred that they have.
I can beat them without resorting to the same playbook. You apparently seem to believe you need a Hitler to kill a Hitler, like it’s perfectly fine to do the terrible thing as long as you’re the one doing the terrible thing. Disgusting.
I said coward but in truth you’re just closer to a child. No understanding of the world, filled with deep fear and lashing out at anything they cannot understand.
Respond if you want or don’t. I’ll never see a word you say.
I think you could be a bit more generous in your interpretation of other peoples ideas. Unless this is a bit, in which case I think you got lost in it. I think you make a good point, its def a supportable argument, and I don’t really agree with pyre. The way you confront them though, call them a coward, a child, you’re like attacking their humanity, their autonomy and freedom. Granted it was partially a negative response to “this is why libs always lose” which is also not a great way to engage online.
I just want to draw attention to how quickly that devolved it was like one or two exchanges before you start infantalizing and displacing onto them. If you really think the other person is “a child” then maybe you would be inclined to educate them? Also I wonder if you would be willing to reckon with the fact that on certain issues there is a good chance that there are many many people who are much more advanced than you are, who might view your short fuse and quickness to retreat into a self defined humanist camp, as a sign of immaturity too.
I’m not saying I’m immune or better, I’ve committed similar, in fact much worse examples in like the past 3 weeks or so. So maybe I’m pointing out a speck with a beam in my own eye. But I think there is a tendency to mischaracterize other peoples positions as completely arbitrary and like the worst possible interpretation, in order to make our own arguments seem stronger. In my experience this can mean we are actually insecure in our own positions, and responding to feelings of insecurity, with expressions of indignance. So in my own case I’m trying to improve things about how to carry out discussions. There’s no guardrails other than shitty moderation (jk love you mods), so we have to set our own
To add to what @Stamets@lemmy.world said, calling them a child or a coward is a reference to their current state or behavior, not their intrinsic nature, which can absolutely be called out. If you can call out Nazis for being Nazis, you can call out cowards for being cowards. They can both choose to be otherwise.
I am done treating people with childrens gloves, I am done trying to educate, I am done trying to speak to someone calmly when they’re being an antagonistic little twerp, and I am certainly not going to keep taking the high road as that’s what you’re arguing. I’ve been taking the high road for my entire life. You know where it got me?
My mother using me as a picture prop but never actually treating me like a person, no gifts, no hugs, no love until she disowned me for being gay. My foster family using me and ignoring every word I said while pretending to pay attention. The dude I love doing the same thing to me. My best friend leaving me high and dry last week with a $700 bill to figure out last second, having to rely on the generosity of the friends I do not remotely deserve so I could keep existing because she, like everyone else, has never given a singular fuck about me or anything I say. The only times I’ve ever had anyone at least listen to me instead of dismiss it outright is when I start slapping back. Because someone might hate me but they’ll remember me and they’ll at least remember the point I made. And if they want to continue being a bitter little bitch after having some common sense slapped into them, then fine. They weren’t worth the time in the first place to bother with. But anyone else with half a brain cell will just go “Okay well Stamets is a dick but he’s not wrong.” And fuck it. I am a dick. I am bitter and angry and frustrated and furious and lonely and tired and I do not have any patience left anymore, any hope left anymore or any willpower to not tell someone they’re being an idiot when they’re being an idiot. Am I going to die alone for it? Sure but I knew that anyway so who gives a shit.
So if you want to take the high road, fine. It’s a great view, don’t get me wrong but the only people who set up shop there are either people who believe themselves to be above it all and therefore beyond naive, like I was, or people who’ve paid for their spot and can ignore everything below them because they own a helicopter. No business is done. It’s just residential.
And because tone via text is hard to elaborate, the message should be read with the tone of emotional and physical exhaustion but not malice, rage or anything towards you personally.
Very fair! Earlier this year I got involved with a social movement that was incredibly exhausting. And yeah I was trying to do outreach, education, all that good shit. The people who really needed to be gotten through to just would not listen to anybody about anything. I was only ever able to organize some folx who the movement rejected, or who rejected that movement. And even then, I think when those ppl needed me I didn’t have the energy to help because I was so exhausted by peoples stubborn ignorance.
Anyway, really sorry to hear about your struggles. I’ve known people who got kicked out of their parents for being who they are, and having to fend for themselves. It takes a huge toll. But it sounds like you’ve got a really great support system too.
In any case, sorry if I came off lecture-y. Thanks for sharing your insights
No one’s saying defense isn’t ever necessary. Not dehumanizing our enemies doesn’t mean we have to sit down and sing kumbayah with them. It means that we can’t ever lose sight of the fact that even the worst evils still come from humanity.
If you fail to recognize that fascists are human, if you perceive them as nothing more than cartoon villains, then you will fail to recognize when humans become fascists. Your coworker, your uncle, your friends, you’ll fail to see the signs in front of you. Or worse, you’ll fail to see it in yourself when you start using their own tools and tell yourself it’s alright when you do it.
again you’re conflating why they dehumanize and why i do. they do it because of racism and bigotry, when they say not human they literally mean not the same species. when i say it it’s because I’ve seen them doing inhuman deeds gleefully. it does not mean they are a different species, it means they don’t deserve the dignity and respect than humans do. again “if you do it you’re no different” is bullshit.
Alright, and now you’ve dehumanized them. Now what? How do you solve the problem that is Nazis? Billionaires? Landlords? Omnivores? Breeders? You agree some or all of these aren’t really human, right? So what’s off the table for you with respect to your inhuman group of choice? What’s the limit for others who, like you, think one or all of these groups are inhuman? And what do you think the end point is? Remember, genocide was the Final Solution, not the First Solution.
Nah fuck that. Zionists have forfeit their humanity. They can burn to death for all I care.
How long until you decide Palestinians have forfeit their humanity?
Not even a barely comparable situation.
You’ve clearly stated your belief in there being a point at which you will no longer treat another human being as a human. The only difference is where you believe that point to be.
Of course there is a point where you can no longer afford to treat some other person as human. That’s the entire point behind descriptors such as “inhumane acts” - that someone who commits them can no longer be safely given those allowances. I’m no saint, nor do I pretend to be one. I live in a real world, where if you grant bad people far too many allowances, they’ll eventually stab you in the front, if they haven’t already stabbed you in the back.
Not the OP you replied to, but I would say approximately 1 second after genocide. Anyone who kills people based on physical attributes like skin color, hair type, facial structure, what languages they speak, what they worship, who they love, or where they were born has forsaken humanity.
Are you speaking about individuals or groups?
Yes
Yes, this includes the group of people that you want to dehumanize as well. Humanity isn’t something you can take away, it’s an inherent aspect of a species. You can say “fascists aren’t human”, or “pigs aren’t mammals” and they are equally false statements.
deleted by creator
I’m not following you at all here. Is your point that dehumanizing isn’t othering?
Honestly looking at it now I think I accidentally responded to the wrong comment.
Exactly. We don’t punch Nazis because they’re not people. Cats aren’t people and we don’t punch them. We punch Nazis because they’re Nazis.
Notable exception: “Not men. Fascists.”
Don’t forget land lords
I aint no tankie but I was referencing this utterly cold quote from Soviet sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko.
I know
Orange, murican pedos are not humans. Humanity keeps standards above trash. I refuse call them humans. Now pat pat the sign, go.
*taps sign
Now pat pat the sign, go.
Nah
can i get off the bus too this is my stop
Just make sure to make way for the moron unless you wanna end up with a speedpass exit on accident
