> I don't see anything bad happening to me, so everyone shouldn't care either!

What about:

> people's rights to have consensual interactions and relationships with each other are more important than their right to be treated "fairly" whatever that actually means.

The important point here is that we don't have a good working definition of "fair" that is universally agreed upon. The only ethical way to live in a society of people who fundamentally disagree is by optimising for consent.

As much as it's uncomfortable to define fair, I'd argue that it behooves us to strain and come to a conclusion. Every societal problem today and in history can probably be attributed to people not wanting to define a global fair, or defining it in a way (at least in retrospect) that was ostensibly below the mark. I'm sure that at some points in the US history thought it's fair to treat some people as slaves, so does your proclaimed universal sentence stand there too?

While we're straining, the more important question is to what degree is it ethical to impose your definition of fair on others. I would say that there is no ethical basis for the sort of extreme imposition that's currently the status quo. Slavery is clearly not a consensual relationship so it really doesn't apply here. Yes we should make everyone free. No we should not change the definition.

That presumes your view of fair will ultimately end up on the right side of history, just like the eventual abolition of slavery was. However that is not yet knowable at the present.

While you are focused on how your political view is the “right one”, @thegrimmest is more focused on how people should coexist when they all hold strong-but-different ideas of what is fair, and which of those will ultimately go down in history as ”moral progress” is yet unknown.