Anyway, there is a time and a place to have civility discourse. The free and open exchange of ideas is important and civility is a key lubricant in that.

But we're not talking about discourse, civil or otherwise, but *violence* by the state against its own citizens. We're talking about murder.

“If you want to be considered as an actual person you have to let people dehumanize you,” is a silly ass proposition way too many people buy into.

Fascists won't be explained away to a public that is heavily conservative, uneducated, and propagandized. Playing by the fake rules of objectivity aids the construction of deeper authoritarianism. They know you'll stay fenced in your self-constructed losing box that they can outmaneuver every time.

yeah this is very connected to my general "suffering is not a political credential and we shouldn't expect it to be" ministry - it's a lot to ask of a hungry person that they couch their feelings about their hunger in a broad critique of the food system (and, in any case, confused imo)

I am so conflicted about this. On the one hand, I can't blame anyone oppressed for prioritizing the end to their oppression any more than I can blame someone starving for eating. On the other hand, if it's short of universalism, it isn't what we need in a political party (let alone an actual party)

The ignorance of folks who are flailing in their efforts to make sense of this moment does not make them the enemy, and verbally slapping them around won't make you feel better for very long. They are poor stand-ins for your actual enemies.