The recent example of the U.K. Labour Party shows that “compromising” rarely stops at some acceptable midpoint.

Overall, weak-willed centrists are slowly losing the intraparty debate.

Hold the line, and have faith. We are in this together, and we will get through this together.

  • Curious_Canid@piefed.caEnglish
    381·
    3 days ago

    There is no middle position on human rights. If you aren’t for them, you are against them.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      120·
      3 days ago

      Their are valid criticisms of “human rights”, and legitimate reasons to reject the concept. The biggest reason is the concept of ‘human rights’ is just a re-tread of the ‘rights of kings’, that is a justification for State violence.

      When the cops crack your skull, they’re protecting property rights. When the US invaded Iraq, Bush said we were protecting the freedom and human rights of Iraqi citizens. The invasion of Ukraine was justified as protecting the rights of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.

      The idea that “human rights” protect human beings is pretty dubious.

      • 🇨🇦GreenBeard🇨🇦@lemmy.caEnglish
        26·
        3 days ago

        When the cops crack your skull, they’re protecting property rights.

        I’m sorry, when did property rights become human rights?

        When the US invaded Iraq, Bush said we were protecting the freedom and human rights of Iraqi citizens.

        1. No he didn’t,
        2. There is literally no principle that people haven’t used as casus belli for war. That doesn’t mean those principles are wrong, or that the justification even makes sense. You may as well be declaring that since people still commit murder when it’s illegal, there’s no point to having laws.
      • khornechips@sh.itjust.works
        18·
        3 days ago

        None of your examples actually have anything to do with human rights. At best they’re using the concept in bad faith as a shield for imperialism and genocide, and that’s what you should be critical of.

      • SippyCup@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 days ago

        Well that took a wild turn.

        Human rights supercede property rights, the rights of kings, and whatever other crazy nonsense you went on about after that.

        The rights of people to thrive in their natural environment shall not be put down upon by any other party so long as they do not inflict themselves upon the rights of others. Specifically, if a person’s existence is a problem for you, that’s a problem for you. Not them.

        Those with the power and authority to do violence will always impede upon the rights of others in pursuit of wealth. It’s our right to do violence back.