It's profoundly ignorant and disgusting that you think it's OK to say that to a German. Of course he understands this, it isn't a matter of choice. Palestinians understand it, too; but you, on the other hand, are a self-centered buffoon that feels sorry for yourself.

Go live in Gaza for a year and then we'll sit down and discuss the universality of human suffering, and maybe -- just maybe -- you'll have something meaningful to say.

Right, those poor white cishet men.
It was inevitable really.
While you make a perfectly good point, is there any reason these battles cannot be fought simultaneously? What is the sense in ranking all of the worst aspects of the world and trying to tackle them in order?

<twit filter on>

Found it ironic an American speak about the suffering of Palestinian in Gaza.

Prioritization!

The wonderful thing about universal human rights is, if we banded together and formally established them in this world, we would *all* benefit enormously -- even those of us who are too ignorant to appreciate it.

We're *all* human beings, and that's what matters most!

The reason is that money (and other resources) are not made out of thin air. There are a lot of problems in the world that make people suffer and to solve them requires a lot of effort. Spending time and money on other issues means more important issues are not getting attention and resources and thus remain.
Why?

Unusual, but not ironic.

Again, I agree with you in principle but I see no reason to focus on a single issue at a time. Besides, you make it sound easy. How would you propose getting North Korea (for example) to agree to universal human rights?
A moment ago you were arguing that trans people were not a group who are discriminated against, now you're arguing that it's just not a worthy enough cause. Which is it?

Universal human rights encompasses *all* of the rights that human beings need to live, prosper, and be happy; issue and identity politics, on the other hand, do not.

Where is the benefit in dealing with rights in a piecemeal fashion?

As for North Korea, the first thing that needs to be addressed is the UN Security Council, starting with the elimination of permanent membership and veto power, which would allow for international law to become a positive force in our world.

I wasn't talking about transgender rights now.

Exactly. There is no "universal human rights" switch. Every issue has to be fought separately in every country.
It's the only way to do it. A single magic universal human rights switch does not exist, all issues must be fought separately. I don't argue trans rights are more important than any other issue, it's just what the thread happens to be about.


When I said "is there any reason these battles cannot be fought simultaneously?" I thought it was pretty clear one of the battles was trans rights. I'm not sure why you bothered to give the reply you did if you don't think it's a real issue.

That makes no sense at all because issue and identity politics are inherently divisive and polarizing. The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights *does* exist. All that is lacking is it's ratification, and bringing international law into line with it. So no, it doesn't have to be done piecemeal.

Of course discrimination exists. You appear to be under the confusing impression that discrimination is an inherently bad thing.

Discrimination is--like violence, sex, drugs, sugar, and water, for example--not inherently bad. There are circumstances in which discrimination is improper, but it is otherwise something that every person does every day of necessity.

Do you think it is wrong that you discriminate against people when choosing whom to allow in your home? Do you think it is wrong that you discriminate against one brand of coffee or tea in favor of another?

Do you think it is wrong that you discriminate against people when choosing a date? Do you think it is wrong that one discriminates against fat women or bald men? However unfortunate it may be, it's reality and it's every person's right to be discriminating.

Do you think that anyone but you has any right whatsoever to interfere in your choice of whom to hire into your business with your own money? I would love to know who has the right to spend a person's money but that person himself. The choice of a hire is a decision that has potentially negative consequences, as does every business-related decision. If the choice is wrong, it is the owner who suffers, and not the tyrant who interfered in someone else's business. The tyrant loses nothing if the decision is wrong. But the sad, terrifyingly inhumane history of communism is readily available. Unfortunately, Reality Denial is a potent force.

I would also add that no one, except a leftist apparently, has the ability to read a person's mind and discover exactly why he did or did not hire an individual. It's that kind of awesome power that gives leftists the right to interfere in every aspect of private life. That kind of power must be respected.

I know it exists, but good luck getting it universally adopted.
Hah, wow.