Many times I see "anarchy" and "barbarism" used as meaning chaos and mayhem (anarchy) and behavior that violates human rights or is violent (barbarism.) "Barbarians" were, in Roman times, likely the freest people in Europe. They lived in a state of anarchy, that is, they had no rulers or emperors, they lived freely and made their own decisions. Of course, the Romans hated this and treated barbarians as if they were primitive and backward when it was really the Romans who were behaving abominably toward other human beings. So, "barbarism" should be removed from any list of terms that have to do with violent or abusive behavior.
Regarding the last ah-fuck-I'm-forgetting-the-word-little-box-that's-part-of-a-comic, someone needs to learn history cause barbarism has almost (if not actually) NEVER been excluded. it took us almost 200 years to get STARTED on criminalizing marital rape. STARTED. As in, one (1) state criminalizing it. EDIT: I'm forgetting the WORD not the WORLD
There are two kinds of people in the world: exploiters and victims. And that continuum follows a normal distribution. We are all somewhere on that curve depending on which criteria we choose to measure ourselves by, and the degree to which it is appropriate to apply those criteria.
Unfortunately it's hard for people to agree on definitions of the terms in the top right box.
Here's just one example. If embryonic and fetal humans are given legal personhood and the same protection from violence that humans in later life stages have under the law, is that "human rights" or "barbarism"?
hello, France here. We use those in the media. All the time. It doesn't work in a post-truth era.
Peaceful protesters are defined as barbarians, environment-friendly proposals are qualified as "authoritarian", even as terrorism. The gov regularly pushes unconstitutional laws and when they are rejected by the authority in charge of protecting it, the gov says the constitution needs changing.
You can use more words, it doesn't matter if you don't care about their meaning.
Esslar2
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Mark Nay - Sparky
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •bhaugland
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •a fish named dog ✡️♾️
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •EDIT: I'm forgetting the WORD not the WORLD
MostlyTato
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Tâi Siáu-káu 台痟狗 ㄊㄇㄉ 🇳🇫 台灣國
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •WriterOfMinds (she)
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Unfortunately it's hard for people to agree on definitions of the terms in the top right box.
Here's just one example. If embryonic and fetal humans are given legal personhood and the same protection from violence that humans in later life stages have under the law, is that "human rights" or "barbarism"?
peterfisherbooks.com=freescify
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Pete
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •I like to measure the distance from being humane. The closer you are trying to get to that singular point, the more I like and support you.
#KurtVonnegut said “we are healthy to the extent our ideas are humane”
Tom Tom
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •Hibou Chachara
in reply to Jen Sorensen • • •hello, France here. We use those in the media. All the time. It doesn't work in a post-truth era.
Peaceful protesters are defined as barbarians, environment-friendly proposals are qualified as "authoritarian", even as terrorism. The gov regularly pushes unconstitutional laws and when they are rejected by the authority in charge of protecting it, the gov says the constitution needs changing.
You can use more words, it doesn't matter if you don't care about their meaning.