Alright, from the very words of your own comment:
At some point, does it matter?
in direct response to my comment
Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t?
Yes, it does matter. If you want to "Give people the resources to educate themselves", you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn't good education; in order to "Give them the benefit of the doubt, once", you have to have a criteria for when they've stopped being stupid.
Exactly. So we can't just "Treat stupidity as a type of malice", because nobody can agree on what is and isn't stupidity.
they them is basically always safe! If someone specifically requests against it then don't but they/them is what I always use if I don't know or have multiple options. All I might add is that a lot of queer people get tired of being only called their AGAB's pronouns, so maybe don't exclusively use those.
Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don't think climate change is real, so now I think you're stupid and you think I'm stupid and it's he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl. The thing that fixes this is a definition of "stupid" that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?
I think it does matter what you define as being stupid, yes. Let's say that I want to call being transgender, not having enough money to buy food, and being an immigrant all stupid. I should treat those things as malice because they're stupid, right?
Who decides what is stupid and what isn't? There better be a good, clear, obvious, and universal objective method of identifying stupidity if you're going to treat it as malicious.
based? yeah I hope so too
nerd lmao
but from the left ✊
This is called "technocracy", and while it's cool on paper, it leads to a disconnect between the people in charge and the actual problems of the people.
I can respect that y'all kind of hate my kind here and I'm going to use this comment to share only the most unobjectionable works that even the most anticommunist liberal should find completely and utterly appealing
Fully Automated Luxury Communism is a book about how we have all of the tools at our disposal right now to automate at least 50% of the work that we have to do to stay alive, and thus get rid of that work as a tool of coercion and exertion of power.
How Capitalism Ends is about how the power got to the concentrations it has today, where we can expect it to go by extrapolating that tendency, why there was no other way it could have gone, and what we can do now to start building the next thing.
These are two very good and easy starts to starting to think about this problem. I'm happy to field questions about the works or anything else related.
One party where a basic platform is defined and differences are expressed vibrantly on top of that is better than two parties that brand themselves as different but only offer a couple of aesthetic differences and concessions to keep people mad at the opposing party and not the underlying structure