system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Human rights and discussions about civil liberties ARE political, and any claim that they are not is a dismissal of further conversation.

I see this a lot, “Human rights are NOT political, it should not even be a debate.” It sounds great, because I agree, we shouldn’t have to debate about how to promote equality because it shouldn’t be an issue in the first place. 

However, it is an issue and it’s arguably the most pressing topic going on in the American presidential election. 

I contend that these discussions are political in nature for two reasons:

1. Solutions to civil injustices often do require policy change and legislation which is by definition political. 

2. In a society where the government has a monopoly on violence (state has the authorization of force), discussion of law enforcement and the justice system is also political because these entities are invariably connected with government.
gpt
This is a claim typically made when a topic has become divisive with differing opinions largely organized by party orientation. (i.e. women's reproductive rights, voting rights, capital punishment, etc.)

Based on context, someone may be asking why such an issue is even up for debate. For example, supporters of women's reproductive autonomy would argue that these subjects shouldn't be politicized at all, since women should have the absolute right to make all medical decisions without political interference. Arguably, the only people making the issue political, are people attempting to use a political platform to legally impose their view on an unrelated party. There's no need for political debate or policy change, unless you are part of the majority group attempting to infringe on the minority group's human rights.

If a subject does deserve a public forum, then your statement is typically used to ask why there is disagreement in the first place. I.e. voting rights. We've established repeatedly that all citizens get to vote. But there are still political efforts (on all sides), to try and reduce the political clout of individual electoral groups.

The final use of this statement arises when someone inserts politically loaded comments or ideas into a conversation that is specifically trying to avoid political drama.

There is also a difference between passing legislation to protect an agreed upon human right, and passing legislation to restrict a human right based on party disagreement. Yes, passing legislation is necessarily a political process. But that doesn't automatically make it a politicized process.

For it to be politicized, support for/opposition to legislation designed to protect a human right must become part of a political platform.

For example, being allowed to live free from oppression / torture/ cruelty, would be considered a human right. To protect those rights, we have passed legislation to punish people who infringe upon these rights. Everyone agrees that a murderer needs to be stopped, and dealt with, so that he/she can't do it again.  The subject only becomes politicized when debating what steps to take to prevent such a crime or punish a perpetrator. Mandatory minimum sentences, capital punishment, etc. are politicized. But the underlying idea (that we shouldn't kill eachother) is not political at all.