3 ms·
Just because someone in your favored tribe had their rights violated doesn’t mean you should argue in favor of violating the rights of another group. It’s sad
by nostromo 4y ago
Just because someone in your favored tribe had their rights violated doesn’t mean you should argue in favor of violating the rights of another group.
It’s sad people are duped by this bad reasoning. You’re seeing the world through tribal scorekeeping lens.
The obvious solution is to extend the rights more universally. This used to be what the ACLU did in America - fight for everyone’s access to free speech. (Sadly they’ve lost their way and no longer do this.)
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoI am not arguing in favour of the repression of people's rights. You're misreading me entirely. But I am arguing about the nature of said rights and where they come from. People like me on the socialist left have never harboured any illusion that pieces of paper like constitutions protect people from oppression by the state. Rights come from collective, mass power. People in the streets. When the state and its corporate masters is threatened, it will use force to put it down. It's not a matter of favoured tribe. It's a matter of pointing out the preposterous nature of libertarian ideology. It tries to refocus the frame out of the actual material conditions of what is happening to the world, onto pieces of paper. But remains blind to the actual physical conflicts in the world. And in the end most so-called constitutionalists will turn a blind eye to repression of the left when it becomes a threat to the order that they benefit from.