I think you can tell a lot about how rigorous and committed someone's belief in a human right is by how quickly they are able to name people who they think could or should have that right taken away.
Like "X is a universal human right. (This doesn't include Y people though)"
Either you think X isn't actually a human right, or you think Y aren't people.
Some folks really did go straight to the replies to prove me right.
It's wild to me that people in the notes are all arguing about rapists and murderers and people deserving to get their human rights taken away for doing Bad Things, and...
Yeah, sure, serial killers deserve human rights too, but isn't there a more obvious demographic you're sliding right by? Isn't there a demographic of people so thoroughly erased by human rights discourse that their rights aren't even debated, it's just taken for granted that human rights don't apply to these people?
(It's minors. I'm talking about minors. Also disabled/neurodivergent adults under institutionalization/guardianship who have been reduced to the legal status of minors.)
I literally do this as a first-day activity in my childhood studies courses.
I take a poll: "how many of you would agree that 'everyone deserves the right to privacy' is a pretty uncontroversial statement?"
when 95% of them have put their hands up, I say "now, what if I clarify that 'everyone' includes children?"
and as everyone lowers their hands slowly and gives me a confused look like a deer in headlights, I tell them "okay. this class is about what it means to not be part of 'everyone'."
Children deserve human rights. Pedophiles, rapists, and other types do not.
Hope this helps.
Hi. So this is exactly my original point.
Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, the most evil people you can imagine are, in fact, still people.
What human rights do you think the government should be able to deny you if you are convicted of the right crime?
No, they're not.
All of them, if we're humoring the idea that your government has your best interests at heart and can be relied upon to do the right thing. Which, lol. Lmao, even.
What you seem to be hung up on is that any crime can be forgiven, which is absolutely insane to me.
*My* point is definitely NOT that any government can always be relied on to do the right thing. That is actually pretty clearly one of the cornerstones of why I think this rhetoric is dangerous. If the government can deny a person a basic human right (access to food, water, breathable air, autonomy over your medical choices) if that government convicts them of the correct crimes- that is OBVIOUSLY a system which is incredibly ripe for corruption and horrific state violence. (Insert the obvious argument against the death penalty here)
But also, this has nothing to do with *forgiveness*. I don't have to "forgive" a person for that person to be *a person.* I don't think that only good people are people. I don't think that your humanity is dependent on your innocence or moral purity, and I think it's actually really dangerous to literally dehumanize people, especially as a way to justify state violence against them.
So, the question for YOU becomes, do you think that there are NO human rights, or do you think that certain crimes make you *legally not human*?






















