Comments

Hi, thanks for the read.

I think it's great that you are not trying to be stuck in an echo chamber, and so are exploring ideas that you normally would not. Kudos for that.

It's never good to make fun of people who will not be able to respond by changing. We evolved those kinds of behaviors so that those who do silly things will get embarrassed and change their behaviors. But if someone is biologically incapable of such a change, then making fun is not productive, and so just cruel. 

You're expressing what may be called a "personalist" sentiment throughout the writing, which means that you appear to believe that dignity, or respect, is a human right. This might be phrased as "people have a right to not have their feelings hurt." Personalism was situated against individualism, which instead upheld the individual rights of individuals to be left to their own judgements, which are sometimes quite upsetting. Personalism is a positive claim that individuals are persons who are owed respect by individuals, while many individualists believe that respect instead must be earned. My belief is that personalism makes for an excellent ethic, but that this ethic makes for terrible impositions when it comes to shunning and laws (because infringing or opposing individual rights). I expect that personalist outlooks can prevail without being imposed, simply because more tactful and so more likely to be favorably viewed by others. Because of this, and because of the threat to individual rights, I think that personalist efforts to make others agree by means of coercion should be opposed. But this is still an argument in favor of kindness (not to be confused with showing favor), just of the sort that is consistent toward everyone, including unkind and untactful individualists.

You mentioned an "R" slur. This is an interesting phenomenon, because it was a word that did not originally apply to people. It simply referred to something that was not right, that did not function correctly, or that was impure, for instance bad oil. So using the word is like saying "broken." If we were to make a slur out of "broken," that would imply that the individual being called "broken" truly is broken, that that is the correct term that specifically identifies individuals of that certain type. But no individual is truly broken, so that would be incorrect to do, as well as additionally keeping a perfectly fine word from being used correctly in other areas. Politicians could sow a lot of social division by splitting us between those who want to abolish and those who want to keep the use of the word "broken" free for use. And both sides would have a point, but not the full truth. Even if it is nicer not to call people broken.

Thanks again. Be well and keep up the introspection!