No Stupid Questions

It’s not necessarily zero-sum to say that occasionally people’s interests come into conflict.

I assets you mean "A greater number of people"?

Another great example is Quik Trip, a convenience store chain. I could go on and on, but if you know you know. Nowhere else holds a candle to QT and the employees make lifelong careers from working there. No shit.

Did early Y2K updates for them in 98, because they were ahead of the curve. Had touch screen POS terminals, in 1998. Even had in-house IT who wrote their custom software. Imagine that! Some of the clerks told me their monthly bonus was often more than their paycheck.

You won't see someone being trained in the store. Hell no, that's a six-week class, because they invest in their people.

Went to a couple of stores in East KC. They didn't hire rent-a-cops, they paid actual cops to stand in the store. No fucking around.

Story goes that the owner said, "I got rich and it's payback time." Wildly successful outfit.

Anyway, I could have had a career with their IT but I let a chick I met online hang out with me at Harrah's Casino and Hotel. She ripped me off via room service and QT was stuck with the bill. Didn't even get laid. What a life.

But they could afford to buy beef from better sources. They could afford for their employees to have a career instead of a job. They could do that and still cost less than McDonalds. Yeah they’re alright compared to the big corporations but they are not improving the world - they are extracting profit from it.

Yeah, you get it. I aim to trivialize the oligarchy. The idea that we can make the world better at nearly zero cost. The only cost is the therapy bills of the former billionaires, as they work through their butthurt at being reduced to mere opulence.

Their life is over unless they have all of their stuff!

I'm ok with these peoples lives ending.

That example's a good one for a anotger reason: right wingers do need to feel safe, but that doesn't mean that anything needs to be done about trans people. RW perceptions of what needs to be done are wrong, because they are based on myths and misunderstandings about the risks transness. Or another way to say it: the need for safety is real, solutions proposed by rightwingers are not appropriate, even aside from the issue of trans rights, because they won't solve need for safety - hiding the bogeyman under a rug or behind criminalisation won't make it go away, and will increase misunderstanding.

Trans need to be safe. RWNJ's need to feel safe

Being safe outweighs feeling safe, so this whole analogy is void.

I like the "needs of all" messaging, it combats polarization. Ultimately we are all human and should have basic rights: food, housing, healthcare, expression

I think there are two more questions that need to be answered first, before being able to tell whether we should prioritize the many.

First question is what is the ultimate goal behind prioritizng the many? Happiness of the population? Infinite growth? To conquer the stars? Depending on what the goal is, there are occasions where minorities should be the focus if we want to approach the goal the fastest.
Example is moon landing: The amount of resources that was spent on "simply" building a rocket, space suits & equipment, and send a couple of humans over there was prioritizing the few. Despite a lot of people watching with curious eyes, it did not benefit the many's needs much. There were several goals here: Being before the USSR, explore the unknown, satisfying shareholders, and more. By the many working hard to send the few, we approached all these goals faster than if we would allocate some of these resources towards the many's needs, like health (prime days of smoking cigarettes).

The second question is what timeframe are we talking? Is it long-term or short-term success we're aiming for? Because in many cases, if we want long-term success fast, the many are those who should "suffer".
Example is where the long-term goal is the glorious evolution of mankind: In one way, we downprioritize the few who are those born with defects, either by culling them or by ensuring they do not make offspring. In another way, we downprioritize the many who are on- or below-average intelligence/capabilities. But then we get the question of how we quantify the few/many; where do we draw the line? And as we get more smart/capable humans, the average constantly shifts - what is the concrete goal?

Suffice to say that this is written without emotion, as that makes this discussion the soup it really is: Ethics, benevolence, discrimination, etc., as you mentioned.