Comment on What a great idea
Soulg@ani.social 3 hours agoYou’re completely missing the point. The idea can be fine on it’s face, but it will very quickly be used to otherize the undesirables.
Comment on What a great idea
Soulg@ani.social 3 hours agoYou’re completely missing the point. The idea can be fine on it’s face, but it will very quickly be used to otherize the undesirables.
Windex007@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
That’s entirely true.
But that’s still a double-edged sword we’re playing with.
If you want to run towards a an “inevitable conclusion” in the one direction (resegregation… undesirable… are you even alluding to genocide?)
I think it’s fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?
I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that’s actually more than half the battle. Doesn’t always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.
I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY’D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn’t to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Yeah, the solution is to orient society in such a way where the operation of a deadly, several ton method of conveyance isn’t a requirement to participate in the world. Public transit, biking, and people-oriented spaces. Fuck cars
Windex007@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Fine. The person operating the subway train. Should they be drunk? Should they have needed to demonstrate competency in operating a subway?
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Yes, because that would be their job and they wouldn’t be excluded from society if they fail to live up to that. They’d just take public transit like anyone else.
I’m saying “systems need to be oriented towards people and how they act, rather than punishing people for being unable to act in a way that they’re not wired for”. This hypothetical grocery store punishes people for being minorly thoughtless to spare other people the indignity of having to say something or silently suffer with the minor inconvenience.
It takes a human interaction with low stakes and turns it into a systemic interaction where harm to people becomes an abstract thing, so harm tends to become more prolific.