ID: MUNROE @MunroeBergdorf posted: “Please don’t be surprised if I block you instead of engaging in ‘a debate’ about issues that don’t affect you, but impact on my life greatly. I do not need to, nor want to converse with people who prioritize their desire to prove a point, over my humanity and rights.”
Amanda Jette Knox @MunroeBergdorf replies: “THIS. You owe no one a debate on who you are, ever. Not online. Not in person. Not in the media.”
This statement is at least twofold:
1 - it says “I do not have to debate to ensure I have basic human rights”, a statement that is clearly true in every instance.
2 - it is a reaction to bad-faith “debating” used as an attack tactic by oppressors; read up on sealioning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Combine those two facts, and you have people weaponizing “I’m just debating” to keep someone in an unending treadmill of debate where they constantly have to try to prove they deserve basic human rights. It’s actually hell.
Good faith debate and discourse on all key topics the media/gov pushes on us right now has been long settled, none of it is new, so someone actually willing to learn can just search “do trans people deserve basic human rights” or “can minorities be discriminated against by systemic factors” and there’s already robust answers that should not shock you!
No need to make a trans person make a case over and over again that they deserve to live or a Palestinian make a case that the system within which they live is an open-air jail. And that is what this person is saying.
I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?
God why
…
That’s factually incorrect. Basic human rights can be taken away. It happened all over the world, along ancient and recent human history. It’s happening right now in Europe and in the USA. Basic human rights must never be taken for granted. They will always be attacked and therefore must always be protected.
Maybe random debate with strangers on the internet is not the most effective way to fight for human rights - but that’s not what you or the OP are implying. You are arguing that you should not need to fight for them. And in an ideal world - you would be right. Meanwhile in the real world - refusing to debate because the matter “has been long settled” does not deprive the other side from their vote.
Fair enough, now that I’m aware of the context I get the spirit of the post. Still I wouldn’t let sea lioning or whatever it’s called dissuade people from having conversations.