Agreed.

To illustrate, say you live inside a fenced-off city. You say you don’t discriminate, anyone is welcome to come and talk to and trade with you. Somebody points out that there are people outside the city, behind the fence, that aren’t able to come talk to you. You are free to act or not act on that, but speaking out against the one that merely points it out and tries to change it means you take an active position to support the current discriminatory situation, rather than a passive, opportunistic one that supports whatever the political situation happens to be.

All positions are valid positions to take. They do however reflect an active choice and an active act. All of them are political. All of them come from a position of privilege, being inside the city, not outside.

No-one is "speaking out against" the one who is pointing out any wider discrimination, beyond whatever aribtrary circle you choose to draw.

What is being "spoken out against" is the idea that taking the moral (or political) action within whatever circle you feel able or willing to support is insufficient, or even discriminatory in itself. After all, this is exactly how this conversation started. Good for you if you want to change the world - let's not forget 3rd party discrimination against other 3rd parties! For many of us, it's one of numerous pressing problems to be addressed. If you wish to bring privilege into it, having the freedom to make fighting any and all discrimination a primary concern is a sign of privilege that few have.

I am raised in hindu religion and we have a saying here basically meaning, treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself and I am sure that literally every main religion and philosophy can kind of share the sentiment and create a tolerant society overall.

Shame that those same religions and people in power forget this core part I suppose. I think that the forgetfulness might be on purpose but I basically hope we can treat literally everyone others the way we wish to be treated ourselves, with dignity and respect.

Of course, some people who are clearly bad shouldn't be treated this way but I hope you can get what I mean by the general sentiment of this idea I guess.

> treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself

This is often called The Golden Rule because it is one of the most common tenets of every religion and ethical framework ever made

Wow, I had just observed that this seemed very common in religions I didn't know I was this accurate as that was called the golden rule!

Now hearing it, I remember hearing something similar but thanks for refreshing and thanks for letting me know

Now that we are talking about golden rule, I often wonder, if this is the case, then why not skip all the other aspects of religion which were meant in tribal times or have issues which still persist to put more emphasis on this "golden rule"

Is this what humanitarianism is (sort of?)

People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years.

I just do not believe it anymore when it is used exclusively to shut up people who want to say an unfairness exists.

So your belief is that anyone who would claim to treat everyone the same falls into that camp?

That's quite the characterisation to make, and a bit difficult in the context of discrimination which is based on lumping people together based on one trait and making assumptions about everyone in that group.