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'."















