3 ms·
See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other pe
by zo1 6y ago
See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other people something fundamental, essential for life, and "basic" that's been already decided. It's not decided, and a lot of what we've started calling "rights" these days aren't all that basic or universally agreed.
The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. That's a breakdown of communication and has effectively "othered" the individuals/groups based on their disagreement with your framing of the topic.
- yxhuvud 6y ago> The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.