2 ms·

You could make a similar argument that the Soviets supported the emancipation of women far more than the west in the mid 20th century, and that women in the USS

You could make a similar argument that the Soviets supported the emancipation of women far more than the west in the mid 20th century, and that women in the USSR had more right to work. That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc. To rephrase the comment above slightly, the gain of rights for a particular group isn’t a replacement for a loss of universal rights. The loss of universal rights is always more serious because it leads to the darkest paths that a society can take. Many western countries have not experienced repression in two or more generations and cultural memory is starting to fade.

reaperman 3y ago
> the gain of rights for a particular group I see gay marriage as a gain of rights for all, not for a particular group. I'm not gay, but I now have the right to marry a man for tax purposes, employer-provided benefits, or citizenship/immigration.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Nitramp 3y ago
> You could make a similar argument that the Soviets supported the emancipation of women far more than the west in the mid 20th century, and that women in the USSR had more right to work. > That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc. I don't think that's absurd? Both can be true at the same time, a government can stop discriminating you for one thing, while starting to repress you for another. Whether that's a net negative for any individual depends on circumstance and detail. It's obvious if you reduce it to the absurd: e.g. if a government decides the abolish slavery (terrible discrimination for a specific group) while also disallowing chewing gum for everyone. Similarly you can construct examples for the inverse (a minor reduction of discrimination vs a great loss of freedom for everyone). History is pretty clear in its opinion on the (lack of) merits of Stalinism, but I don't think you can construct a general principle in the phrasing you chose.

reaperman 3y ago

> the gain of rights for a particular group I see gay marriage as a gain of rights for all, not for a particular group. I'm not gay, but I now have the right to marry a man for tax purposes, employer-provided benefits, or citizenship/immigration.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Nitramp 3y ago

> You could make a similar argument that the Soviets supported the emancipation of women far more than the west in the mid 20th century, and that women in the USSR had more right to work. > That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc. I don't think that's absurd? Both can be true at the same time, a government can stop discriminating you for one thing, while starting to repress you for another. Whether that's a net negative for any individual depends on circumstance and detail. It's obvious if you reduce it to the absurd: e.g. if a government decides the abolish slavery (terrible discrimination for a specific group) while also disallowing chewing gum for everyone. Similarly you can construct examples for the inverse (a minor reduction of discrimination vs a great loss of freedom for everyone). History is pretty clear in its opinion on the (lack of) merits of Stalinism, but I don't think you can construct a general principle in the phrasing you chose.