Re:Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are ...
by anigbrowl on Friday August 10, 2018 @02:47PM
(#17735821)
That doesn't follow. If group A enjoys a right and group B does not, and that right is extended to group B, Group A no longer enjoys the same advantage over Group B but hasn't suffered any limitation of rights. To use the supplied example, if you're a male driver in Saudi Arabia your driving privileges are unimpaired by the novel legality of female drivers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are ...
by webmaven on Wednesday August 15, 2018 @06:32PM
(#17770321)
> if you're a male driver in Saudi Arabia your driving privileges are unimpaired by the novel legality of female drivers.
Your right to drive is unimpaired, but the privilege of driving that you enjoy most definitely is.
Most movements to expand rights to new groups are opposed by those who would thereby experience a diminution of their privelege (which is always relative).
This is also why you have the wealthy so often opposing policies that will create more wealth for everyone including themselves, because those same policies reduce their relative advantages.
Re:Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are ...
by lmm on Friday August 10, 2018 @06:45PM
(#17737236)
Group A will always find some way to define the change as them losing a "right". E.g. in the US if you propose to extend the right to life that born people currently enjoy to the unborn, many born people will claim this is a violation of their rights.