This outrage is validated in our halls of power and our media as one of many equal competing perspectives, which means that instead of serving as a shocking revelation of collective cultural inhumanity toward one another, it becomes a debate instead—a *controversial* debate.

So, to repeat: Jordan Neely was a person, a human, and his death was tragic because he had the same measure of humanity as his killer, or you, or me, and observing these facts is one side of a controversy.

Also controversial is any attempt to establish the humanity of anyone who our society has marginalized, which is a word that means “this human’s humanity has been systematically ignored.”

To briefly change the subject somewhat, I’ve been told that I ought to make more of an effort to understand other points of view and perspectives.

That’s interesting, because I am not unhoused or marginalized, so I thought that this is what I was already trying to do.

However, "understanding the perspectives of unhoused or otherwise marginalized people" isn't what is meant.

What’s meant is that I should try to understand the perspectives of others, who refuse to understand any perspectives other than their own.