In the context of the article I'll replay how I processed your reply.
> fully human
This is a bad argument.
My immediate reaction was 'it was a question, not an argument' and got a little stab of cortisol from my endocrine system. The 'bad' adjective could be interpreted as ignorant/incomplete or malicious, but usually when I see folks invoke the whole 'bad X' question, its really just a play to reframe the discussion or ignore some nuance of it.
So it didn't start off well, and I immediately felt that the comment was either reactionary or using my comment as a trampoline to project some tangential point.
Perhaps try "humans capable of living in and contributing to a civilized and prosperous modern society"
So this led me to believe we're going down the 'reframing' road, as the comment is adding a bunch of conditions to the term 'human'. This, to me, is simply a way to filter out humans that don't meet those conditions. Particularly when the comment includes 'capable', which clearly creates two classes of human from a political standpoint, one of which should be engaged with because they are capable of being influenced, the other is simply livestock.
and, unfortunately, I think you'll often find the answer is that they are not, nor do they wish to
exist in one. They want power and total control over, hilariously, the lives of others who simply
want to live in and contribute to a civilized and prosperous modern society.
The comment kind of lost me here, to be honest. Clearly this could apply to any individual interested in amplifying their own political perspective.
They're hateful, violent, and time and time again show that they're incapable of coexisting with others who don't share their same close-minded fantastical views.
I think I landed at this comment attempting to shift focus to extremists rather than the rank and file of any particular political persuasion. It's possible that connects back to the article because the extremists of just about any ilk are a) interested in amplifying their political perspective and b) are quite possibly more inclined to engage in sharp discourse on the internet.
So it didn't start off well, and I immediately felt that the comment was either reactionary or using my comment as a trampoline to project some tangential point.
So this led me to believe we're going down the 'reframing' road, as the comment is adding a bunch of conditions to the term 'human'. This, to me, is simply a way to filter out humans that don't meet those conditions. Particularly when the comment includes 'capable', which clearly creates two classes of human from a political standpoint, one of which should be engaged with because they are capable of being influenced, the other is simply livestock. The comment kind of lost me here, to be honest. Clearly this could apply to any individual interested in amplifying their own political perspective. I think I landed at this comment attempting to shift focus to extremists rather than the rank and file of any particular political persuasion. It's possible that connects back to the article because the extremists of just about any ilk are a) interested in amplifying their political perspective and b) are quite possibly more inclined to engage in sharp discourse on the internet.