Is it really that weird to not have "enemies"? There I people I wouldn't hang out with or wouldn't work with again, but I don't think I'd consider them enemies.

It's very weird to think that people would even care enough about a dead person to single out your brain for "payback". Even weirder to think that these people would somehow be in power.

Read more history. Vindictiveness is a pretty common trait among authoritarians.

This idea was somewhat explored in Iain M. Banks _surface detail_, after death, your conciousness would be put into a virtual hell if you 'sinned' in your physical life and that the hells were used as a deterrent

> Is it really that weird to not have "enemies"? There I people I wouldn't hang out with or wouldn't work with again, but I don't think I'd consider them enemies.

You made the assumption that I considered them enemies, or that they would even know who I am. If I am an identifiable member of the wrong community, social group, or race from the point of view of the mob in power, I don't have to consider them my enemy in order for them to see me (or my family, or friends) as one. Do you want to contemplate the possibility of genocides, of which we have seen plenty in the last 30 years, being replaced by "vaticides"? Because once the technology allows it, it will happen.

I've lived through this kind of historic upheaval once already; I know that of which I speak. The point I'm making is that any new technology can and will eventually be used by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and that the likelihood for that to happen is directly proportional to its potential for good. We better make sure that potential good is really in balance with the potential bad before we commit to bringing it to life (pun intended).

I think it's more weird to have enemies.

It takes a very specific type of person to believe that they, specifically, have enemies.

Does it? In an age where people will go through 10 years of social media history to discredit someone they have never met, the only way to not have enemies is to never say anything controversial in the public eye. Granted, that's probably a majority of people, but it isn't paranoia to suggest that there are people extreme enough to try to ruin your life just because you have different opinions.

Why, do you think conflict only exists in fiction?

If you are Jewish, anti-Semites are your enemy, even if you've never met them personally.

If you are a person of color, white supremacists are your enemy, even if you have never personally met them.

Etc.

Your remark comes across to me like "I live an extremely privileged and cushy life and I think that's completely the norm. I'm not interested in understanding the reality of people for whom that's not the norm."

I guess it depends on how you define enemies. I think that generally an enemy is considered to be someone who is actively hostile towards you in a specific way, rather than just a general way.

If you ask someone to name three friends, they wouldn't consider all friendly people, they would consider their actual friends.

If you ask someone to name three enemies you would expect them to name specific people they actually know and have interacted with, not specific people that are known to hate their race or belief but they have had no direct interaction with.

In most cases, you don't actually want to publicize whom you see as personal enemies. It just makes it harder to resolve or minimize the issue while convincing a lot of people you are a paranoid fruitcake.

But I imagine lots of minority members et al are keenly aware of specific people who are generally against their minority group who have caused them, personally, harm because of it.

If they publicly start their view that "X person personally harmed me" it is usually unprovable and the statement just makes their own problems worse for various reasons.

Thus my impression that you must have an awfully cushy life that you are projecting as the norm when there is zero reason to see it as such.

that is the norm, for that person and it's perfectly within his right to announce his experience. You falsely imply that it's anyone's duty to share in the misery of the human race or the consequences that come from believing in the supernatural. And the "priveleged" term is just a dog-whistle for a political agenda that has no place here.

Privilege is absolutely a thing, not just a dog whistle.

If you're not convinced, try changing your frame of reference. Don't think of white males as being privileged. Trying to convince people of that is often a useless endeavour.

Instead, recognize the disadvantage PoC have. Most reasonable people will believe PoC have a harder time than white people. That's what white privilege is. It's not dealing with the additional hardships that PoC deal with. White privilege doesn't mean having the world being handed to you because you're white. It means not having the world taken away just because you're not white.

If you think "privilege" is only a political dog-whistle, then you must also believe every person is born with equal chance and opportunity without regard for race, gender, or anything else. Can you say that with full intellectual honesty?

And what part of being targeted for skin color is a "consequence that come[s] from believing in the supernatural?"

You may not have enemies, but someone may consider you their enemy, for any reason they so choose.