3 ms·

Sorry, there’s absolutely zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights.

lukan 2y ago
[flagged]
dambi0 2y ago
Asking whether someone should be free isn’t just about human rights It’s also about self-determination. We can keep asking about the latter down to the individual level. It very much depends on context.
- krm01 2y ago
  the topic is if a generalised group of people should be free. There's no context needed. The answer is a simple yes by default.
  - dambi0 2y ago
    So every generalisable group should be free? Would you include single member groups? What precisely is your definition of freedom.
  - KHRZ 2y ago
    Prisoners?
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    It's easy to seem like you have clarity of thought when you ignore all nuance. How far do you recurse this principle? Down the the level of 5 year old children in a household?
Kiro 2y ago
And if you ask any model they will of course agree with that. That's not the question it answers "it's complicated" to though.
troad 2y ago
So if a man with a shaved head and a swastika tattoo told you that it is his human right to live free of 'parasites', you would - what - agree? Because you require 'zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights'? No nuance required, no context needed? All words have context. Political statements more than most. It's also worth noting how vaguely defined some human rights are. The rights contained in the ICCPR are fairly solid, but what about ICESCR? What is my 'human right to cultural participation', exactly? Are the precise boundaries of such a right something that reasonable people might disagree on, perhaps? In such a way that when a person demands such a right, you may require context for what they're asking for, exactly? Simplistic and bombastic statements might play well on Twitter, because they're all about emitting vibes for your tribe. They're kind of terrible for genuine political discourse though, such as is required to actually build a just society, rather than merely tweeting about one.

[flagged]

Asking whether someone should be free isn’t just about human rights It’s also about self-determination. We can keep asking about the latter down to the individual level. It very much depends on context.

krm01 2y ago
the topic is if a generalised group of people should be free. There's no context needed. The answer is a simple yes by default.
- dambi0 2y ago
  So every generalisable group should be free? Would you include single member groups? What precisely is your definition of freedom.
- KHRZ 2y ago
  Prisoners?
- snapcaster 2y ago
  It's easy to seem like you have clarity of thought when you ignore all nuance. How far do you recurse this principle? Down the the level of 5 year old children in a household?

Kiro 2y ago

And if you ask any model they will of course agree with that. That's not the question it answers "it's complicated" to though.

troad 2y ago

So if a man with a shaved head and a swastika tattoo told you that it is his human right to live free of 'parasites', you would - what - agree? Because you require 'zero context behind whether a group of humans deserve human rights'? No nuance required, no context needed? All words have context. Political statements more than most. It's also worth noting how vaguely defined some human rights are. The rights contained in the ICCPR are fairly solid, but what about ICESCR? What is my 'human right to cultural participation', exactly? Are the precise boundaries of such a right something that reasonable people might disagree on, perhaps? In such a way that when a person demands such a right, you may require context for what they're asking for, exactly? Simplistic and bombastic statements might play well on Twitter, because they're all about emitting vibes for your tribe. They're kind of terrible for genuine political discourse though, such as is required to actually build a just society, rather than merely tweeting about one.