A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Why do some people think dehumanizing anyone is fundamentally OK?
There are actual psychopaths and sociopaths. They are humans. They got that way not from Stan Lee's pen, but by real experiences in our actual world.
Making them a caricature will in no way help with the problem.
I'm perfectly ok with dehumanizing literal flag waving Nazis. I give them no quarter. If a Nazi fell into the train tracks in front of me, I would just walk away.
They're human, and should be destroyed mercilessly by any means necessary. There's no contradiction in recognizing the humanity of people who will unfortunately need to be killed to stop them killing the rest of us indiscriminately.
Dehumanization is pointless, and leads to dangerous misanalysis (like underestimating them). Honestly, it's also just a cowardly coping mechanism to avoid the harsh realities behind the idealistic moral frameworks we're brought up with.
Isn't dehumanizing kind of the whole Nazi thing?
There's a good argument regarding the tolerance paradox, and why it's ethically and morally justified to not tolerate extreme levels of unethical behaviors.
I've come to view tolerance not as a default position, but rather as a contract which people are defaulted into, if you're breaking it by refusing to be bound by it, you're no longer protected by it either.
There's a difference between not tolerating and dehumanizing. You don't need to dehumanize someone that you don't tolerate the behavior of, and it's also possible to dehumanize someone but tolerate their behavior.
They're simply two different things. Slightly related maybe, but distinct.
Tolerance is tangential to humanization. You can be tolerant of a human. You can also be intolerant of a human.
What they need isn't to be caricaturized, it's to be put on a guillotine.
Human or not doesn't mean shit: evil is evil.
Well, they are in fact human. Trying to understand how they got the way they are is the first step to trying to not let more of them happen. That said, the rotten apple is still an apple. But in the end, I am still going to throw it away.
Is humanize the word you really mean to use, or do you mean something more like valorize or glorify?
Are you aware of what it means to dehumanize?
I'm pretty sure they meant that. There are a lot of people who don't see rich people as humans anymore. The irony is lost on them.
Lemmy is such a weird site. Almost every thread Iβll read the most terrible dehumanizing shit said about working class people for just existing in a conservative U.S. state, but a thread asking why the rich are idolized every negative comment appears to have upvoted responses calling to recognize the humanity in everyone.
Weird.
Really depends on the instance. Most lemmy.world subs are cesspools. Hexbear and the like tend to be much better overall.
They are as human as anyone else. We should be cognizant of that. They are human beings within a human system. Move beyond anger and hate, and ask what must be done to end suffering and injustice.
For all the quips about guillotines, the first fix needs to be removing their excess wealth, not their heads.
If given a chance they will kill. To obtain that level of wealth one generally has to have a sociopathic level of lack of empathy. Maybe not all are like Trump and itching to blow people up and put people to death. A lot are probably less actively bloodthirsty (thankfully) but at the same time have no issue taking away your health insurance, your income, your housing, etc if it impacts their bottom line even though they already have enough resources to last 100,000,000 lifetimes in extreme excess.
βOh but if they let these things change they would lose their wealthβ exactly - when it comes down to it, they would rather leave you to die than risk losing their obscene wealth. So this is violence, and therefore violence is an appropriate response, especially when the state continually and repeatedly fails over decades (arguably from its inception) to rein them in.
I think the unfortunate truth is that many non-evil people would be just as evil if given the opportunity. Or to frame it slightly different: I believe that too much money and/or power is what turns most people evil over time.
There's science that backs this, but you don't get that way without being a piece of shit beforehand.
That level of wealth power privilege does in fact damage your brain, everything precious about humanity drains out through your orders.
Because, for all of the awfulness they bring to the rest of us, they are human.
Humans who the other humans desperately need to be stripped of their wealth and power, and for whom the doing of which might offer them some small chance to save themselves from the yawning void of more more moremoremoremoremoremore
Yeah we humanize them because it's important to remember that essentially anyone that ends up in their position will behave similarly. They aren't demons, they're humans. We should stop putting people in their position.
This. As soon as we treat them as "only monsters," we start to think that "regular humans" aren't capable of monstrous things.
I think most people are incapable of understanding just how much damage the rich do to the working class on a regular basis.
The rich kill more people every year, through business and political decisions, than any terrorist group or military. Often by being the puppet masters of those terrorist groups and militaries.
The rich are humans, that's just fact. However, people need to wake the fuck up and see the richest and most powerful in the world fundamentally lack humanity. They are fundamentally isolated from human beings through their wealth and influence.
We cannot understand class behavior by examining individual morality. Viewing the capital owning class as a collection of mustache twirling villains is not a useful framing. Rather, we should look at them as the human personification of capital itself. Their social being, their entire material condition, is defined by the accumulation of private profit and the protection of property relations that enforce their dominance.
Their inability to relate is not a personal failing but a direct result of their objective position in the capitalist mode of production. They live in a world insulated from the precarity of rent, medical debt, and wage slavery that defines life for the working majority. Their consciousness is shaped by them being insulated from the problems regular people experience. Therefore, critique of their lack of empathy is a liberal dead end because it mistakes a systemic outcome for a personal choice.
The focus must be the capitalist system itself, which necessarily produces the inequality and the divide between the capitalists and the workers. The fundamental contradiction between the socialized nature of production and the private appropriation of wealth is the core issue. The solution is to dismantle the economic base that creates them as a class and move towards a system where the means of production are socially owned, abolishing the very material conditions that breed alienation and disparity.
Take your pick theres no end to the reasons. There will always be an endless supply of bootlickers and hate.
Because they are human. What is the difficulty here? They're not reptilians or space aliens or inter-dimensional beings. It's in all of us.
Humans will anthromorphize anything
Boot lickers. Just boot lickers. Hoping to become one of them one day.
Because a lot of people aren't paying attention to when their unethical behavior is demonstrated repeatedly, and they just assume billionaires are just like the rest of us.
A lot of these people are so lost that they genuinely believe anyone can become a billionaire if they put in the work. Propaganda machine go brrrr
Everyone human is human but psychopathy seems to favor wealth gain. But like woz would be one of the richest people in the world if he had not shared his apple stock with employees. Hes still rich though and a nice guy. His generosity though is why he is a millionaire and not a billionaire.
Because we are surrounded by the media that the rich owns that propagandizes us to put the rich on a pedestal.
Because a person deserves to be considered person whether they think you worth of being so or not.
A faceless, dehumanized enemy will forever be out of reach, unsurpassable in reach and power. A flesh a blood human doing a skin and bone job is replaceable by most any of us because no matter how much power they might have, they are only people.
I think it is important to recognise people as people. I'm not making excuses for intentionally malicious wealthy or powerful people -- but the wealth or power itself isn't the whole problem (although the various systems that perpetuate and enable certain wealthy or powerful people are problematic of course), and we shouldn't give these adults that as an excuse.
They're wealthy, yes. They're also human beings who choose to be cruel, callous, selfish, uncaring arseholes.
They're powerful, yes. They're also adults who know what they're doing and consistently make the decision to harm people with their choices.
Netanyahu's political power wouldn't be as much of a problem in and of itself if he wasn't choosing to enact a genocide. Murdoch's wealth wouldn't be as much of a problem in and of itself if he didn't choose to use it to buy media outlets and push right-wing lies to millions.
No excuses for cruelty; the money and power didn't "corrupt" these people, because we don't live in a fantasy world where money and power are magic cursed items. These people intentionally decided to be cruel.
To try to understand someone is not the same as respecting them. One can try to understand one's enemy to better fight them.
It's important to remember that the actions of the working class are primarily derived from their class interests, not because individuals are dicks. Humanizing even shitty individuals is an important part of persuading people away from thinking in terms of individual people and more about the dialectics of class.