To say that Hitler wasn’t human is to pretend that no human could ever do the same, making way for another human to step up and do the same.
Accepting that Hitler was human means putting processes in place to prevent another human from doing the same.
And to take it a step further: recognize that everyone in Nazi Germany was human. Humans built the gas chambers and the crematoriums. Humans designed the walkways to the gas chambers to look like a normal pathway to a shower facility so the victims wouldn’t panic, as they had at earlier tests.
Humans architected the whole damn thing. Not just a few. It was thousands of people working throughout the Nazi regime. To fully acknowledge their humanity is to recognize that all of us (given a bad enough set of circumstances) are capable of participating in horrific crimes. When dehumanization is widespread and brutality is normalized, we suppress or even lose our moral centre.
Some people find this fact so horribly unpleasant to contemplate that they go to great lengths to deny it. They must have been monsters, psychopaths, deviants. No, what was wrong was that they were in the throes of ideology. Recognize for yourself the seductive and dangerous power of ideology.
It’s why I prefer AI to humans.
“AI” is nothing more than a tool built by humans and is therefore liable to spit out the same dehumanizing and cruel sentiments that were fed into it. It’s not objective or intelligent. It’s an algorithm that can be manipulated by the people that made it. Just look at Grok suddenly talking about being “mecha hitler”
He WAS human. Then he chose to abandon it. He could choose to recover it, but it would be hard to convince anyone of your moral changes.
Any human could do what he did and abandon humanity, but no human could do the things he did and remain human.
Nah. Phrase it as he gave up or betrayed his humanity. He IS, factually and inalliably still a human. That doesn’t mean he deserves to be treated as some rando off the street.
I would add to that: It is also vitally important to see horrible, monstrous, evil people as human. It’s a hell of a lot more important than the (also vital) virtue signaling “homeless people / ethnicity people / etc are people too” brand of refusing-to-dehumanize.
For one thing, if you understand why they bombed this city, polluted that river, cheered for this insurrection, whatever they did, then you’re a hell of a lot further ahead towards stopping them in the future. You can see how they operate, you can understand it. Even if it’s horrible and evil, you can grasp it, come to grips with it, start to work to limit the damage in an effective way, instead of just the “abstinence-only” approach to criminality that is so popular in cities that don’t fight their crime very effectively.
For another thing, being evil and doing horrible things is very much a part of being human. It’s how we operate. If you can’t see that and accept it, if anyone who does something horrible or is just lazy, dirty, crooked, whatever, becomes “not human,” then you can’t really understand yourself, either. The version of morality where everyone “allowed” to exist in the world doesn’t contain some evil is just not useful, in the real world. The Nazis were absolutely human, they were doing human things. They’re indicative of a problem with humans. They’re not some wild outlier you can safely place outside of “humanity” because they don’t count.
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” -Solzhenitsyn
I seriously hate this debate for the sole reason that FAR too many people take, “don’t dehumanize” to mean, “you cannot do ‘bad’ things to ‘bad’ people, period.” That is a fucking STUPID position to hold, and again, far too many people view, “do not dehumanize” to mean, “you would become a Nazi if you said punching Nazis is good.”
Yes, we must remember every human is a human. Good job with the tautological obvious facts of reality! We must also remember many humans betray humanity and do not deserve honor or respect. Sometimes, they don’t even deserve life.
It is wholly about how you judge someone else and over what criteria, not about some mystical concept of togetherness. “Dehumanize” is far too generic of a term to create absolute rules with like this. It’s just difficult to communicate an exact interpretation with. (see: the many interpretations people are assuming in the rest of the comments)
Billionaires are subhuman and don’t deserve to exist.
subhuman implies a level of humanity and billionaires don’t have that.
Personally I think more murder would solve a lot of our problems but you do you.
Just saying imagine how much better the world would be if the guy who shot Trump didnt miss
As much as I would like to believe that, I doubt it though. Trump isn’t the mastermind behind these plans, he is merely a puppet. Puppets are easily replaceable.
That is why you keep killing
Dehumanizing AI is a good thing.
You can’t dehumanize what was never human to begin with.
Which, kind of drags the entire thing from the meta level down to the object level. There were cases of dehumanization in not-that-ancient history where the dehumanizers explicitly claimed the victims are not humans. American slavery is one example. The Holocaust is another. MAGAs (still) won’t claim explicitly that the minorities they dehumanize are not human. If we stay at the meta level, wouldn’t that make them worse that than slavers and actual Nazis who can say they are not dehumanizing because their victims were never human to being with?
It shouldn’t.
bullshit; of course there is. it is earned: fascists, billionaires, the IOF, the white house administration, stephen miller specifically… none of them are human beings the same way you and I are human beings. nazi lives don’t matter.
taps sign
You can’t use the fascism to beat the fascism without using fascistic tools and being fascistic yourself. Kinda gross yo
shooting someone who’s going to murder you is self defense, not murder. get out with that “oh but then you’d be no different” bullshit. yes you would. it is different.
this is why libs always fucking lose.
Dehumanization of groups from a position of power is bad.
Dehumanization of bad powerful individuals to make it emotionally easier to take them down may be necessary.
I don’t believe in evil, but I do believe in consequences.
Yeah but here’s the thing:
A good amount of people use the race of a wrongdoer to justify the dehumination and collective guilt of everyone said group. Look at how people justify the murder of Jews by pointing to Netanyahu. Look at how Islamic Terrorists justified the murder of Westerners by pointing to the crimes of America. Look at how many people justify the murder of Muslims by pointing to 9/11 or Rotherham. Look at how Terfs justify the dehumanization and extermination of transgender people, or even gender variants in general, by pointing to cases involving transgender people.
It does not prevent the collectivisation of crimes to justify the dehumanization of groups and people. It is still a slippery slope that leads to fascism.
A good amount of people use the race of a wrongdoer to justify the dehumination and collective guilt of everyone said group.
Its a good thing I’m not advocating for that.
Look at how people justify the murder of Jews by pointing to Netanyahu. Look at how Islamic Terrorists justified the murder of Westerners by pointing to the crimes of America. Look at how many people justify the murder of Muslims by pointing to 9/11 or Rotherham. Look at how Terfs justify the dehumanization and extermination of transgender people, or even gender variants in general, by pointing to cases involving transgender people.
These are all in-group out-group dynamics. They have nothing to do with the fact that people point at specific bad powerful individuals. In fact its often the other way around, people will often hate/love a leader more depending on whether they’re perceived to be in any specific group.
It does not prevent the collectivisation of crimes to justify the dehumanization of groups and people. It is still a slippery slope that leads to fascism.
I am specifically advocating only to make it easier to pull the trigger on powerful people doing massive harm. More harm comes from letting a powerful person live if they’re active in doing harm. Anything that makes it easier to take down harmful powerful people in aggregate results in a net good.
Luigi Mangione is innocent of murder. The dead CEO is guilty of mass murder and intended to continue. The new CEO taking his place is also likely someone that should be luigi’d, as are the current stockholders.
I don’t agree. Dehumanizing even one evil individual takes away from the severity of their bad deeds.
OK, but I care about material consequence. Not the emotional catharsis of moral judgement.
What about dehumanizing billionaires and cops?
Humanity is inalienable. The most wretched, hateful human you can imagine cannot become un-human.
Think of it like calling a turd on a pedestal art. It doesn’t mean it’s good art, or even that you shouldn’t bag it up and throw it out.
Same thing.
It’s the paradox of tolerance but with violence this time.
But THE ENTIRE POINT of the paradox of tolerance is that the intolerant cannot be tolerated. That means either we understand we have to do bad things to certain other humans, or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
You can be intolerant and violent without being dehumanizing. You can still punch a Nazi and resist fascists without dehumanizing. This whole argument has got me confused. It’s not even an argument.
Hell, you can still be a bad person without dehumanizing.
I agree. Though far, far too many people think “don’t dehumanize” means you cannot even call them despicable trash, let alone condemn them to death.
If a mean word is too far, you’ve already lost.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
(emphasis added)
By Popper’s standards, you should not be tolerated in an open society, as you seem willing to “do bad things to certain other humans” who come under a presumably broader definition of intolerance than those who “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
Do note that this footnote is the only thing he ever wrote on the matter.
Read the rest of the fucking quote.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; …
How on earth do you make the leap from “suppress them if necessary” to “dehumanize”? Most imwise.
Where did I say someone wasn’t a human?
or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
Nah fuck that. Zionists have forfeit their humanity. They can burn to death for all I care.
How long until you decide Palestinians have forfeit their humanity?
Not the OP you replied to, but I would say approximately 1 second after genocide. Anyone who kills people based on physical attributes like skin color, hair type, facial structure, what languages they speak, what they worship, who they love, or where they were born has forsaken humanity.
Not even a barely comparable situation.
You’ve clearly stated your belief in there being a point at which you will no longer treat another human being as a human. The only difference is where you believe that point to be.
Of course there is a point where you can no longer afford to treat some other person as human. That’s the entire point behind descriptors such as “inhumane acts” - that someone who commits them can no longer be safely given those allowances. I’m no saint, nor do I pretend to be one. I live in a real world, where if you grant bad people far too many allowances, they’ll eventually stab you in the front, if they haven’t already stabbed you in the back.
Dehumanization, tribalism, racism, religious intolerance.
Name a more iconic, perfidious quartet.
What’s wrong with religious intolerance? Of someome can choose religion, I can mock them
If they’re not harming anyone, leave them the fuck alone. You’re still discriminating even if it’s their choice.
They typically spread a mind virus that destroys whole countries, like how women in some places are keept wrapped up permanently, and killed for disobeying their husbands. It’s a flaw one chooses to have, and spread.
If they keept their beliefs to themselves, it would be fine. But they are teaching people anti-science!
Did you know that besides the fact that many, if not most, people keep their beliefs to themselves, other religions than the 3 Abrahamic ones exist?
Ah yea, Buddism can sort of be chill with Nihilism.
It is still a belief that gives false hope though. But at least it is aligned with reality somewhat.
We should focus on minimizing suffering, and making something meaningful if at all possible of THIS life though.
Go talk to all the pet play enthusiasts
The secret ingredient is consent
Notable exception: “Not men. Fascists.”
Don’t forget land lords
