@nini@oldbytes.space
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall @crk5 Could look at it as not being the people that's the problem but their wealth. Remove the cash and they're still people and still very much alive. Now if it was advocating killing billionaires then there'd be something to that comparison.
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall @crk5 I'm aware of their tactics, the billionaire class though are only being asked to pay some of their stolen wealth back, no dehumanisation beyond their own actions making them inhuman as no billionaire should exist.
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall @nini @crk5
I knew this would come.
But it's somewhat ironic that fascistoid billionaires like are behaving like parasites at the people's ass (German: Parasiten am Volkshintern).
There will be am hard time to eradicate (ironically in German "ausmerzen") all these fascistoid
holes and fans, nation wide and internationally.When that's solved we can go back to more civilized language/behaviour.
Btw: We can call them neo-feudalists. Know were it led?
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall @nini @crk5
it's worth noting that there's a distinction to be made here. Billionaires are not a "group" in the sense you are referencing.This is not a cohesive social group with inherent shared physical or cultural characteristics. These are distinct individuals, who are being categorised purely by a shared set of choices to harm others.
It is dangerous to conflate these different classification frameworks, and apply argumentation from one onto another.
@expertenkommision_cyberunfall @nini @crk5
This is not to say that I disagree with your underlying point about dehumanisation, but simply the argumentation you're applying.Dehumanising even an individual is generally harmful, without any need to resort to some kind of social grouping.
I just don't think applying the framework of the dehumanisation of social groups is applicable here, and indeed I argue that it is, itself, harmful.
(I also cosign the points others made on parasitic wealth)
