I think you misunderstand that part of my comment. By Humans first - it means humanity. i.e. think of humans as humans (without ideologies superimposed on them). Another way of phrasing it is "think of the humans as humans first and foremost". (The statement is not a comparison of humans with any other species in any context).
Fair enough, though it seems to be poorly used language, as 'Aryans first' or 'America first' as comparisons give an idea of how that type of phrasing comes across.
Words and paragraphs depend on context. The context can change how a word is interpreted. Nothing in the context of my comment suggests ANY comparison of species or superiority of any species. It should be clear enough, though I understand what you mean.
Thanks; I roughly understand how language and communication works. I was holding back from saying 'it's poorly written so don't be surprised at the misunderstanding'. Nothing in the context transforms 'Humans first' into what you say it was intended to convey. Different words would have been needed to do that. My reading may seem a leap but is based upon the dominant context of anthropocentrism, but yours requires grammatical transmogrification!
Sent in good faith, if somewhat annoyed at your condescension.
Maybe check your own biases when understanding things?
What does "Humans first (regardless of ideology)" in the context of the paragraph mean to you? If you ask most people, there would be no misunderstandings about what is meant.
That YOU decided it meant something else may be because of YOUR internal beliefs, triggers, biases, etc.
If you are so concerned about this (as to have such a useless conversation over nothing), then maybe conduct your own poll/research to see if other people think like you do?
I do check in with them, thank you very much (for your repeated, poorly targeted condescension). 😂 I pointed my bias out to you, remember?
However, I do think you’re mistaken about your comment’s clarity - or otherwise - but it certainly doesn't warrant my investigation.
I may be wrong, but your own biases seemingly include no measurable humility about merely and possibly having written anything unclear. What internal bias is that? The ‘I am right’ bias? There's enough of that flooding out of Zion right now; I hardly think it benefits this space of, hopefully, well crafted words and ideas.
Well said, though I disagree with the 'Humans First' mantra. The Humans First monoculture is not looking great, tbh.
That's Ibrahamic 'God's chosen species' bullshit.
'Live and let live' suffices.
I think you misunderstand that part of my comment. By Humans first - it means humanity. i.e. think of humans as humans (without ideologies superimposed on them). Another way of phrasing it is "think of the humans as humans first and foremost". (The statement is not a comparison of humans with any other species in any context).
Fair enough, though it seems to be poorly used language, as 'Aryans first' or 'America first' as comparisons give an idea of how that type of phrasing comes across.
Anyway, I now get what you mean.
Words and paragraphs depend on context. The context can change how a word is interpreted. Nothing in the context of my comment suggests ANY comparison of species or superiority of any species. It should be clear enough, though I understand what you mean.
Thanks; I roughly understand how language and communication works. I was holding back from saying 'it's poorly written so don't be surprised at the misunderstanding'. Nothing in the context transforms 'Humans first' into what you say it was intended to convey. Different words would have been needed to do that. My reading may seem a leap but is based upon the dominant context of anthropocentrism, but yours requires grammatical transmogrification!
Sent in good faith, if somewhat annoyed at your condescension.
Maybe check your own biases when understanding things?
What does "Humans first (regardless of ideology)" in the context of the paragraph mean to you? If you ask most people, there would be no misunderstandings about what is meant.
That YOU decided it meant something else may be because of YOUR internal beliefs, triggers, biases, etc.
If you are so concerned about this (as to have such a useless conversation over nothing), then maybe conduct your own poll/research to see if other people think like you do?
I do check in with them, thank you very much (for your repeated, poorly targeted condescension). 😂 I pointed my bias out to you, remember?
However, I do think you’re mistaken about your comment’s clarity - or otherwise - but it certainly doesn't warrant my investigation.
I may be wrong, but your own biases seemingly include no measurable humility about merely and possibly having written anything unclear. What internal bias is that? The ‘I am right’ bias? There's enough of that flooding out of Zion right now; I hardly think it benefits this space of, hopefully, well crafted words and ideas.
Please do have a final word.