This article could have enriched the world with a differentiated view on a complex topic. It could have informed us with a variety of different perspectives. It could have provided real insights. And might even have come to a clever conclusion.
Instead it became this.
You say that communities are important. Is this how you suggest to address controversial topics in a community then? By generalizing over a group of people from the impression that you get from a small sample? And even worse, basing your whole argumentation on few selective perspectives?
Why don’t you mention that wherever you consume, you will pay a significant amount of indirect taxes like VAT which usually contribute to more than 50% of a country’s tax income? Or that freely choosing your location for the overwhelming majority still means to prefer industrial countries over developing countries for the better part of the year. Or that when you occupy living space in one place that it usually means to also free up space somewhere else.
There’s is so many perspectives to look at this topic. But you chose to only pick the ones that support your claim.
Sorry man, but I have to say that I can’t leave a good word here. The way this article is written entirely contradicts the values that it promotes. It’s targeted to either create strong denial or confirmation. And that’s is a strong signal that you — the community loving socialist — prioritized the reach of your article over an integrative approach. That’s so sad.
Why did it have to be like that? Why was it not possible to invite us to a discussion that can improve each others understanding? Why did it have to be a ramp?