- 286
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 27
- Wasteland, baby!
- Seen Oct 3, 2020
So I've noticed a trend in the debate forum...
... and I thought I'd make a thread about this. The basic questions, as far as I can tell, is Do you think it's better to fight specifically for the rights of minorities (think lgbt people or poc) or to fight for general, all encompassing "human rights"?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know where you guys are coming from and I'm not sure if that's because I'm misunderstanding you or because this is just ♥♥♥♥ing dumb. My post in the mra thread pretty much sums up my thoughts and hopefully it (and the other quoted posts) will get the ball rolling:
In response to some of the other people who have replied, I still find it difficult to understand why we choose to tackle the issue of human rights as separate groups of individuals. Instead of us all coming together to fight against injustice, we split into groups that focus mainly on elevating the rights of that group, falsely believing that by doing so everyone's rights will somehow be elevated in the process. Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but to me, I'd be much more likely to fight for a cause that was intent on working with all human beings, not specific divisions of human beings.
That stance does put me vehemently against LGBT advocates, feminists etc. who only care about their own interests.
Why do we need to split up the rights of our citizens based on our gender?
I think you're misconstruing things. (I think) what he's saying (and also what I outlined earlier) is that fighting for equality using the disadvantaged (aka the oppressed) as a vector is fallacious. While it may seem to be the right thing to do at a glance, it's better to advocate for both the oppressors and the oppressed – in reality that is true equality. Think about it with an analogy: If you have an unbalanced table, wouldn't stabilizing both sides be more logical than simply pushing up on the side that's down?
... and I thought I'd make a thread about this. The basic questions, as far as I can tell, is Do you think it's better to fight specifically for the rights of minorities (think lgbt people or poc) or to fight for general, all encompassing "human rights"?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know where you guys are coming from and I'm not sure if that's because I'm misunderstanding you or because this is just ♥♥♥♥ing dumb. My post in the mra thread pretty much sums up my thoughts and hopefully it (and the other quoted posts) will get the ball rolling:
Because fighting for "equality" brushes aside the issues faced by queer people/poc/women, ignores the differences between these issues and lumps them all into one happy-go-lucky equality movement that overly simplifies oppression (and inevitably ends up as very white-washed and cis/heteronormative). Oppression isn't just someone getting their feelings hurt on the playground and we're not going to make it go away by preaching some "be nice to people" bs. We need to recognise the problems lgbt+/poc/women face if we're going to destroy the sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia in society and some blanket equality movement isn't going to cut it.
Are you against activists who only care about their own interests or activists, who all only care about their own interests (I mean I know the answer, but)? Because while excluding poc and trans people is a big problem in mainstream activism, fighting for your rights does not make you self-centered. Like wow... an lgbt+ person who wants to campaign against homophobia... what an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥...