@seedsignal It's the difference between:
"Sorry for parking there. I've unloaded groceries and I'm just about to leave the spot"
vs.
"i'll park wherever the fuck I want amd if you dislike that I'll jist claim you're racist for calling a tow truck jist to be able to drive away."
And unless one's an asshole blocking an ambulance or fire truck, I don't see a reason the first one is to be preferred.
M- But I guess #NuancedOpinons are rare today…
Life is literal.
Death is too.
Human etiquette and bias and preference play is not... until it is... but why that is rests in a chair you cannot see until you're as able and willing to remove the "I" as you are the "other".
Any human conflict can be factored to fear or curiosity. It's the first gate. Solve for curiosity and you solve the world.
Everyone wants to solve fear.
Not happening. That's the slow walk to sky promise. Like when I do this:
🖖
@kkarhan Discrimination and bias are* not nuance, but* conditional gaming of a logic circuit in the name of finding a case that provides leverage sought.
Neither use case is preferred. Both are at fault. Both get condemned. The mistake is treating them differently.
Violation that presumes entitlement is the shell to solve; presumes privilege?The pulp to solve; maybe be justified? The root to solve.
Unilateral is the goal.🖖
@kkarhan It's fascinating to me how no one wants the unilateral because it means they "lose" some entitlement, privilege, justification, et al.
This IS the problem. And it's everywhere that we are, because WE ARE IT and it is us.
Evolution is the slow walk solve of xenophobia, from which supremacist and exceptionalist ontology spring.
There is no short cut. If history doesn't prove that by now, then it's a choice, isn't it?
@kkarhan Succinctly - it's not nuance if it's made of straw. 🖖