1951
Tyranny
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
1951 points (98.0% liked)
tumblr
3447 readers
269 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, you just re-affirmed it is both sides. The difference is that you agree with one of the sides.
There's a fundamental difference between someone getting hurt trying to fight for their human rights, versus someone getting hurt fighting to take away other peoples human rights.
There is no such thing as human rights (at least in my country). Calling it that probably makes you feel your cause is superior and the other side is evil. Quite convenient. All my rights are guaranteed by the constitution, and federal/state/local laws. If it's not listed in these examples, it is not a right.
I was just referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which applies to every country across the world, your country included.
This was created by the UN, which has no power to enforce such a document. It does not apply to every country. Not every country is a member of the UN. A group of powerless humans can't go around enforcing their views on others. According to your link, member states: "have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms". With that said...
I believe leftists feel being forced to perform manual labor while imprisoned is a form of slavery/servitude. China is a member of the UN, and their treatment of Uyghur muslims is pretty well known at this point.
There have been many reports (long ago and recently) of the US government using torture as a means to produce information.
I don't have to tell you how often someone is frivolously arrested in the US.
I could go on but you get the picture. My own country doesn't enforce these "universal human rights" thus, in the US, they are meaningless and basically don't exist. Maybe other countries do a better job, and good on'em, but for the United States, there is no such thing as "human rights" only what the law allows and doesn't allow, as I stated previously.
Every time y'all talk like this it makes you sound like you don't think human rights should be respected or enforced.
Yes, prisoners are outsourced via the private prison system to work jobs. In most prisons, this work is required by them. In most prisons, the inmates are paid less than $1 per hour. In several States, they he completely unpaid.
Seeing as the definition of slavery is defined by loss of rights, majority or total dependance on ones captors, and forced labor- yes, imprisonment in the US seems to be definitionally slavery, and so are most prison programs around the world.
These are all railed against by leftists as violationsmof human rights, constantly.
Yes, human rights are not some God-given rule of physics. They have to be fought for constantly.
Yes, the US is a hypocritical body that violates its own tenants constantly.
This does not mean 'human rights don't exist'. They are defined and codified. Their enforcement is does not determine their existence.
I never stated "human rights" shouldn't be respected or enforced. I said, in the US, they don't exist. They were not created by congress, then enshrined into law. It is a concept created by the UN over 70 years ago, and yes, the US was a member at that time, but as you clearly agree, we certainly aren't enforcing all of those "human rights" conceived by the UN. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
A wonderful idea, but unless said country has adopted them, then enforcing them, they're meaningless.
Then continue supporting them and stop spouting drivel about them not existing.
If you want them enforced you need to treat them as something to be taken seriously, and you need to condemn goverments when they violate them.
"drivel" haha alright man. Stay safe out there.
A quick glance shows that even your constitutional rights have no weight. The system makes exceptions all the time and wields ambiguity like a weapon. All rights mean nothing when promised by a hypocritical and opportunistic state.
And they'd probably say the opposite is the case.
Rule 1
They'd be incredibly stupid – bordering on braindead.
I mean, isn't that what most sides say about their opponents? Or that they're evil
"Enlightened centrists" really have no ability to think, huh?
I'm not a centrist in any way
True – you're an astroturfing rightwinger presenting as centrist
No. I am a liberal, I've never said anything different since joining this site. I never presented myself as a centrist or astroturfed.
'murican can't understand the political spectrum. More non-news at 11.
I don't live in America
I never denied being right wing, I denied presenting myself as a centrist.
Right wing and left wing are not effective words for actual communication.
Why do you actively try to make other people who have done nothing to you unhappy?
That's irrelevant, as you are american, by your own admission. You can take a man out of the slums but can't take the slums out of a man sort of thing.
For communication with 'muricans, particularly those with regressivist tendencies, that's true. Then again, I'd rather talk to a literal snail. It'd be more intellectually engaging.
You stalked my profile. I am also Czech...
The purpose of language is to communicate, yeah if they mean different things to every other person on this site why not just not use the words?
So the answer to 4 is you enjoy it.
The difference is that one group is getting excessively hurt because of government response, which is something that can be changed through policy; while the other gets hurt by their own actions because they're fucking r******d and thought disregarding a pandemic was a good idea, not because of the response the government might take
Your disagreement can be justified, that doesn't make it not something said it by both sides.
They're referring to different things, plus when it's referred to disproportionate police action, it serves as justification for the police replying with illegal brutality, rather than investigating and punishing police officers who break the law
Yeah, again, they can be different levels of justified, there is still two sides doing it. Celebrating the death of someone evil vs celebrating the death of someone good is still celebrating someones death.
I have great news for you: advances in biomedicine project that you might be able to grow a brain in the next 50 years.
Rule 1