The quote says that [abusive billionaires] can’t exist in a consensual world. That is, billionaires can only exist in a system where they are given tools of coercion. So you’re either saying that objectifying animals is not coercive, or that billionaires could exist without coercion. Your language indicates that you don’t agree with the former, but there’s nothing in your message that contradicts the later.
Billionaire is a role. That’s different from a specific person. People can change. Roles, like this, cannot change. The role of billionaire is not something that can exist in a consensual world because the role of billionaire can only manifestat through coercion.
The quote says that [abusive billionaires] can’t exist in a consensual world. That is, billionaires can only exist in a system where they are given tools of coercion. So you’re either saying that objectifying animals is not coercive, or that billionaires could exist without coercion. Your language indicates that you don’t agree with the former, but there’s nothing in your message that contradicts the later.
I can’t parse what you’re saying.
I was just frustrated with this depiction of the magical billionaire that just can’t change. Of course they can change. Give them a reason to.
Billionaire is a role. That’s different from a specific person. People can change. Roles, like this, cannot change. The role of billionaire is not something that can exist in a consensual world because the role of billionaire can only manifestat through coercion.