I agree to an extent. I don't think it's a position that you can communicate in a way that would be mass-popular though. Contesting this shit by replacing it with something better is easier than opposing the concept altogether.
In one case we become "the people who want much better rights" vs "the people that oppose human rights".
Part of what makes it difficult is that people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence. I agree that obviously there's a messaging issue, but I suppose I'd say that it should be framed as a matter of "constructing legal rights based on human welfare" rather than "assuming God handed down natural law that dictates that robber barons must be protected by state violence".
The rhetoric of the Declaration is complete bullshit anyway, "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a foundational motto of the country with the largest prison population per capita in the world and likely the largest number of summary executions per capita (courtesy of the police) is just a sick joke.
Unrelatedly, I tried to look up the latter figure and noticed a vector of attack on China that we don't see often. The article nebulously says China executes "1000s" of people per year when the next highest is a couple hundred, citing Amnesty USA statistics (when it wasn't just broken links or home pages). I looked through the file and it never substantiates the number that I can see, it merely asserts it while complaining about China not publishing official numbers on the subject. Didn't stop them for asserting "China executed more people than the rest of the world put together" without even the most basic basis for a calculation shown. Fucking "non-political" NGOs.
I agree again. The way I see it however is that this is an issue that can only be solved post-revolution. We should aim for popularity pre-revolution as a means of gaining mass appeal. This means accepting certain conditions exist that we can't magically change, such as "people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence"
Yeah, one time I was watching youtube with my friend and it showed my previously liked videos, including one called "The problem with human rights". The content was the same as discussed above, but my friend looked at me super sus.
I agree to an extent. I don't think it's a position that you can communicate in a way that would be mass-popular though. Contesting this shit by replacing it with something better is easier than opposing the concept altogether.
In one case we become "the people who want much better rights" vs "the people that oppose human rights".
Part of what makes it difficult is that people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence. I agree that obviously there's a messaging issue, but I suppose I'd say that it should be framed as a matter of "constructing legal rights based on human welfare" rather than "assuming God handed down natural law that dictates that robber barons must be protected by state violence".
The rhetoric of the Declaration is complete bullshit anyway, "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a foundational motto of the country with the largest prison population per capita in the world and likely the largest number of summary executions per capita (courtesy of the police) is just a sick joke.
Unrelatedly, I tried to look up the latter figure and noticed a vector of attack on China that we don't see often. The article nebulously says China executes "1000s" of people per year when the next highest is a couple hundred, citing Amnesty USA statistics (when it wasn't just broken links or home pages). I looked through the file and it never substantiates the number that I can see, it merely asserts it while complaining about China not publishing official numbers on the subject. Didn't stop them for asserting "China executed more people than the rest of the world put together" without even the most basic basis for a calculation shown. Fucking "non-political" NGOs.
I agree again. The way I see it however is that this is an issue that can only be solved post-revolution. We should aim for popularity pre-revolution as a means of gaining mass appeal. This means accepting certain conditions exist that we can't magically change, such as "people have been raised on the notion of "rights" being the unassailable framework of civic existence"
Yeah, one time I was watching youtube with my friend and it showed my previously liked videos, including one called "The problem with human rights". The content was the same as discussed above, but my friend looked at me super sus.