4.3 – There is Good and Bad in Everything Observations Under the same positive anchor posts of interfaith relationships, many users also implied that humanness should be judged by an individual's own conduct of good values, rather than decided based upon the group they share an identity with. Being human was often linked to an emphasis on individual conduct over group membership regardless of identity category. For example: a human is one who is good-hearted. Users mentioned this by saying that in anything there are both good and bad (အဆို်းနှင့်် အစက င််းဒွနတ ် ွွဲ); just as there are bad persons in their own groups (i.e. Buddhists) there are good people in the other (i.e. Muslims)20. Interpretations Such claims could be based upon Burmese Buddhist concepts that there is both good and bad in everything. As this may be based on Buddhist values of individual virtue, where one’s status is determined by one’s own actions, this concept needs to be understood as potentially distinct from notions of universal human rights. The former involves a notion of “every person for themself” that is not necessarily part of notions of international human rights which say that everyone is equal. While human rights talk about fundamental rights of everyone to be treated with dignity and equality regardless of what they do, their origin, or their background, claims like ‘we are all humans’ are more likely based on the Buddhist values of virtue, where it is up to one’s actions to make oneself a good or a bad person. Thus, the assumption behind such comments could be interpreted as “you do good things and you are to be worthy of being treated as a human”. Many comments reflected this notion: စက င််းတွဲ့် အလိုပ်လိုပ်ရင် လူစက င််းလို မမင် ့် ခံရမှ ပွဲ (If you do good thing you’ll be seen as a good person) or လူဆိုတ စက င််းတွဲသ ့် ူနွဲ ဆ ့် ူပွဲ ခွွဲမခ ်းသင်ပ ့် ို်းတွဲလ ့် ါတယ် (for everyone, they should be judged as good or a bad person). Implications This form of speech may be a promising message to build on when it comes to countering group stereotypes. When it is applied as a basis for contesting the interpretation of facts, it may be powerful as a rejection of the logic by which some groups are “proven” to be bad through reference to examples of actions by group members. However, it does not work as a response to claims that something is inherently bad about a group, such as claims about LGBTQ people are unnatural or that Islam is a violent ideology. It can be beneficial, as a challenge to the idea that group membership is the central way of defining a person. However, it may be less beneficial, where certain forms of conduct are made a requirement for treatment with respect. 20 Annex 10 18