Let us make this clear to them chuds in the back, shall we?
Human rights, for anyone, especially for minorities, are not political issues; they're moral issues.
Statements supporting human rights, for anyone, especially for minorities, are not political statements; they're moral statements.
People who oppose statements for human rights, for any reason, are not apolitical; they're amoral.
It's time we stop dancing to their tunes. It's time we stop entertaining their dogwhistles. Let's make this message loud and clear:
Human rights are human rights. Human rights are moral issues. If you're against human rights, you're amoral. If you're amoral, eventually you'll be judged.
This Signal kills Fascists. Repeat the Signal.
@DissidentKitty there are a lot of moral problems with the framing of "human rights": namely that they emphasize formal rights at the expense of substantive rights: if you have a "right" to obtain medical care but you cannot afford it, in what sense is that right meaningful?
and this framing also obscures how law works and how embedded these concepts are to the liberal framework. your ability to exist freely and dignified in the world should not be contingent on the blessing of a state to recognize some right or another by law. rights which can be taken as freely as they are given
Human rights are not anyone's rights: they are the rights of 'human', which is but a concept, an idea, a spook. As all absolute moral frameworks, 'human rights' ultimately represent the attempt by a group of people to impose their own sense of 'right' and 'wrong' on everyone else.
Every individual has a right only to that which they can accomplish, and every person can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong *for them*
Srsly tho, I do find Stirner's ideas compelling. We invoke 'human rights' against bigotry and slavery, but they could be just as easily invoked in defence of monarchies and ethnostates: we mold 'human rights' around what *we* think is good and desirable.
What are we gonna use to justify our values? An appeal to nature? A divine imperative? Idk, Stirner's egoism seems like it provides an apt foundation.
@Passiflora_Caerulea @substack In the end, all human thoughts are composed of indivisible axioms, and if the axioms are vastly different two people will never agree. This is why libs and centrists are more frustrating and arguably worse than fascists and monarchists - while right-wingers are frank in their belief that certain people are inherently better than others, libs claim to share the belief in equality and freedom to open dialogues, but more often than not use them to defend some unstated assumptions.
Yes, I agree, that is the case more often than not
I genuinely don't see the ideas I outlined above as supporting the notion that some people are *inherently* better than some others: that claim presupposes an objective, universally recognized set of values, independent from any one person - which isn't at all compatible with Stirner's extreme emphasis on the subjective nature of morals.
Like, sure, there are people who are naturally *more powerful* than me in some areas: some could punch my chest in without breaking a sweat, others could outsmart me even while they are drunk. That gives them power over me, but it doesn't make them *better* than me: I don't have to recognize their dominion over me as *just*. I just need to bide my time until I can strike and be reasonably sure to win, possibly finding allies in other people who feel oppressed, because there is strength in numbers.
@Passiflora_Caerulea @substack I wasn't saying that you are. I was saying that some people - fascists, not you - believe that not all people are created equal, and it's impossible to reach a consensus with them since they start from an entirely different place in the discussion. That's why converting outright fascists are difficult; you can't convince someone that all people deserve the same rights when they have entirely different definition for "people".
@substack would it be ok if I reposted this on the birdsite? it's very well-put.
@leonidas eh it was kind of shitposty and off-the-cuff. other people have made these arguments better
@substack fair enough, it was just an interesting perspective i hadn't considered before
A cool and chill place for cool and chill people.