7 ms·

In the interest of good faith, here's my affirmative. In short, it can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations.^0

In the interest of good faith, here's my affirmative. In short, it can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations.^0 Articles in particular: 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion (emphasis mine), national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. 29. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. Whether this dialogue can progress further depends on whether we can agree that, despite having no official jurisdiction, a social media mob attacking an individual constitutes being charged with a criminal and penal offense worthy of legal protections as illuminated by the above. If you believe that it not being formal prosecution that such protections don't extend to the accused, then there's no point in progressing further and I reiterate my original post. --- 0 https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

unethical_ban 6y ago
I'll have to chew on it for a while. I would imagine, not being a scholar in it, that the UDHR applies more stringently to government action and use of force, rather than to a group of people without use of force or detainment. Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags, and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their beliefs?
- froasty 6y ago
  > I'll have to chew on it for a while. I would imagine, not being a scholar in it, that the UDHR applies more stringently to government action and use of force, rather than to a group of people without use of force or detainment. I want to be very clear that formal consideration of the UDHR by established authorities is not my contention. If you wanted solely an affirmative vision of an ideal society, then the UDHR is it. > Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags, and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their beliefs? I'm going to elide some details from your hypothetical. "If someone on my street [...] and [...], and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of [...] - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for [...]?" If the elided details merely included his race for example, would you consider that a violation of his fundamental human rights? If the elided details included his colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, at what point does that become a violation of fundamental human rights? To me, the question boils down to this: is redlining a desirable and/or legal practice if the target is a law-abiding citizen in good standing, despite all other possible non-essential attributes? From my perspective, the homophobic Nazi has done nothing unlawful or contrary to the UDHR, if we can agree that imminent harm is the baseline for where speech can infringe upon others' liberty. If we disagree that imminent harm is the baseline for acceptable speech, then we need to figure out the exact location of that disjuncture to continue. As a further point, censorship, shunning, or suppression do not resolve the underlying processes that led to the emergence of the supposed undesirable element in the first place. If this element is a Nazi, it does not address why this person identifies as a Nazi, how he came to be radicalized as a Nazi, and what cultural or societal forces led to him falling through the cracks of the social contract to begin with. Similarly with racists, homophobes, antisemites, misogynists, and all other self-righteous authoritarians of whatever political identity. Censorship, shunning, and suppression in fact lead to the opposite--it ignores their provenance, lets them grow in the dark, and tempers their own narratives of persecution and conspiracy. If the goal is a harmonious society predicated upon love, or at the very least brotherhood, this is not reached by excommunicating people from the very possibility of de-radicalization, de-militarization, and rapprochement. To quote the Buddha: "Hostilities aren’t stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth."

unethical_ban 6y ago

I'll have to chew on it for a while. I would imagine, not being a scholar in it, that the UDHR applies more stringently to government action and use of force, rather than to a group of people without use of force or detainment. Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags, and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their beliefs?

froasty 6y ago
> I'll have to chew on it for a while. I would imagine, not being a scholar in it, that the UDHR applies more stringently to government action and use of force, rather than to a group of people without use of force or detainment. I want to be very clear that formal consideration of the UDHR by established authorities is not my contention. If you wanted solely an affirmative vision of an ideal society, then the UDHR is it. > Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags, and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their beliefs? I'm going to elide some details from your hypothetical. "If someone on my street [...] and [...], and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of [...] - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for [...]?" If the elided details merely included his race for example, would you consider that a violation of his fundamental human rights? If the elided details included his colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, at what point does that become a violation of fundamental human rights? To me, the question boils down to this: is redlining a desirable and/or legal practice if the target is a law-abiding citizen in good standing, despite all other possible non-essential attributes? From my perspective, the homophobic Nazi has done nothing unlawful or contrary to the UDHR, if we can agree that imminent harm is the baseline for where speech can infringe upon others' liberty. If we disagree that imminent harm is the baseline for acceptable speech, then we need to figure out the exact location of that disjuncture to continue. As a further point, censorship, shunning, or suppression do not resolve the underlying processes that led to the emergence of the supposed undesirable element in the first place. If this element is a Nazi, it does not address why this person identifies as a Nazi, how he came to be radicalized as a Nazi, and what cultural or societal forces led to him falling through the cracks of the social contract to begin with. Similarly with racists, homophobes, antisemites, misogynists, and all other self-righteous authoritarians of whatever political identity. Censorship, shunning, and suppression in fact lead to the opposite--it ignores their provenance, lets them grow in the dark, and tempers their own narratives of persecution and conspiracy. If the goal is a harmonious society predicated upon love, or at the very least brotherhood, this is not reached by excommunicating people from the very possibility of de-radicalization, de-militarization, and rapprochement. To quote the Buddha: "Hostilities aren’t stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth."