If you drop-in replace “x does not consent” with “x is being exploited” (making necessary grammatical adjustments), I feel like I’m still basically saying the same thing with the same takeaways
Consent violation and exploitation are fairly intertwined concepts, but exploitation generally sells better as a term to highlight injustice. For that reason perhaps it would have been better to use that term instead, but I’ve already spent enough time on my writing half-baked analysis on a 20 second clip from regular show
If you drop-in replace “x does not consent” with “x is being exploited” (making necessary grammatical adjustments), I feel like I’m still basically saying the same thing with the same takeaways
since a well or forest or ecosystem could be exploited, I feel like your perspective is being narrowed by something undisclosed. it seems obvious to me that if we were discussing groundwater or ecosystems, you would never raise consent as an objection.
If you drop-in replace “x does not consent” with “x is being exploited” (making necessary grammatical adjustments), I feel like I’m still basically saying the same thing with the same takeaways
Consent violation and exploitation are fairly intertwined concepts, but exploitation generally sells better as a term to highlight injustice. For that reason perhaps it would have been better to use that term instead, but I’ve already spent enough time on my writing half-baked analysis on a 20 second clip from regular show
since a well or forest or ecosystem could be exploited, I feel like your perspective is being narrowed by something undisclosed. it seems obvious to me that if we were discussing groundwater or ecosystems, you would never raise consent as an objection.