3 ms·
I would define it as “someone I disagree with and I would like you to disagree with too because they are not like us”. Essentially another approach to trying t
by mnd999 5y ago
I would define it as “someone I disagree with and I would like you to disagree with too because they are not like us”.
Essentially another approach to trying to create division and tribalism in discourse where it suits the person using it to do so.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoIn this specific case, the argument seems to be we should disagree with them because they are too like us (US educated UN Ambassadors), and that the whole concept of human rights is cultural imperialism. Which is one of many recent right-wing stances I’d applaud as very 'woke' and sophisticated takes on complex issues if I didn't think they were just lying about caring about it in order to justify something horrible they do actually want to do.
- zozbot234 5y agoAre you saying that the UN has come up with a novel "human right" to having dysfunctional families around? I wasn't aware of that, but it makes a lot of sense now! The UN itself is certainly dysfunctional enough.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoThe UN Human Rights Charter explicitly includes the right to marriage and the fair treatment of people entering, during and at the breakup of marriage.
- gruez 5y ago> I would define it as “someone I disagree with and I would like you to disagree with too because they are not like us”. Yeah but if you disagreed with appalachian coal miners, you wouldn't call them "elite".
- mnd999 5y agoWould it matter if I did? It’s essentially meaningless. There’s not really any logic involved.