So, certain types of people on social media think that things like civil rights, religious rights, gay rights, or women's rights are subject to "debate" and "negotiation"

What a crock of shit.

Seriously, would these straight, white hetero, Christian men like for the rest of us to start "debating" if they should be "allowed" to marry a woman, be straight without losing their jobs and homes, walk down the street without being subject to search because they might be a Christian Nationalist terrorist or opioid addict, or whether they should be allowed to purchase condoms or viagra without the permission of their wives or mothers?  I very much doubt it.

You see, when marginalized people stand up for their rights, they aren't demanding "special" rights. They don't want to jump the line at the county clerk's office for a marriage license, they don't want to annul hetero marriages, they don't want to outlaw Christianity and deport all Christians and white people as suspected Christian Fundamentalist or White Power terrorists.  They don't want to search every white person at least once aevery ten minutes when they're walking down the street, and put them in handcuffs on the ground if they've ever had martial arts training.

That non privileged people just want what the privileged people have - equal rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, ability to work and be paid the same as anyone else with equal skill, the right to have a place to live that isn't in a slum, etc.

These things aren't suitable for debate. Because if a person doesn't think that marginalized people are entitled to equal rights, then they don't believe that those things are rights at all.
mdehners: (Default)

From: [personal profile] mdehners

Yup. It's Kindergarten Behavior; if others are being treated as they are they're the "victims" and whine at the top of their lungs....
dubhain: (Endora_BP_Color)

From: [personal profile] dubhain

[Couldn't resist the Endora icon lurrrrrve. No other reason for it.]

Yeah, that contingent started the whole 'victimhood' thing back in about '04. The idea is/was to turn the Progressives' own rhetoric and terminology back against them. Suddenly, the majority (Straight, White, Cis, Christian, folks) became victims of discrimination against themselves, and bore the yoke of unutterable oppression by horrible, horrible minority and marginalized groups.

It caught-on with the alt-Right quickly, and now they've forgotten it was a political and social tactic. They've come to believe their own propaganda.
siliconshaman: black cat against the moon (Default)

From: [personal profile] siliconshaman

I believe that's what 'inalienable' means. Which certain people seem to have forgotten.
ysabetwordsmith: Cartoon of me in Wordsmith persona (Default)

From: [personal profile] ysabetwordsmith


They aren't rights. They're wishes. If they were rights, they would be respected; or if violated, the perpetrators would be promptly punished. That they are routinely violated indicates they are not rights. I wish they were.

It isn't about rights. It's about power. You have only the "rights" you can defend by force.


ravan: by Ravan (Default)

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags