littlegreenpills posted:i am malala irl
i applaud your unshakable moral character and i wish you well.
swampman posted:I don't "shift the focus from rights to crimes." I shift the focus from abstractions to reality. If the cop really did crack the suspect's molars, then the cop really shouldn't be a cop. Not, if the cop did crack his molar in a way that violated his human right to wisdom teeth or perpetual chewing, then... the cop needs UN monitoring, and quasi-celebrity status in the media over how pleased he is that he smashed that prisoner's face in. And Glenn Greenwald can write something VERY pissy and nobody will really be held accountable.
Are there exceptions? Sure, we could think of millions of them. That is what centuries of legal and moral and philosophical argument, scientific consensus, tons of other things we have agreed are somewhat based in a common and REAL experience of coping with the world and society. That is what judges are for, and judicial systems, to decide specific cases.
Here's a metaphor that probably doesn't make sense to others, at all: It's like you're saying, hockey teams try to win the Stanley Cup because the Stanley Cup is a really nice cup. No, they do it to be the best at hockey. In this metaphor the quality of "cupness" is human rights.
so the thing is that, especially in the example that you're giving, things already work that way. when a cop fucks someone up, the response is already to try and bring up charges of police brutality and i think we all know how often that works. another point that i think is important is that trying to "shift from abstractions to reality" is effectively just ignoring the abstractions that you take for granted. this whole discussion is abstract, and the situations we're talking about are abstract (what's "real" about the state of "being a cop" or even more, whats real about whether or not someone "should be a cop"?). you're still dealing with abstractions and in trying to ignore them to arrive at what's "really real" doesn't change anything because you're still acting in relation to the abstractions.
toy posted:one thought i've had with the rights debate which sidesteps direct criticism of the concept of 'rights' itself is the fact that even if the concept has serious problems built into it, it's almost universally accepted in the West as a CRUCIAL framing tool for emancipation.
i think i'd agree that the concept of rights is "ideological" in the sense that it distorts reality, reifies liberalism/capitalism, or whatever, but from a practical standpoint arguing against rights isn't going to accomplish much. it's one of the most deeply held and taken-for-granted "goods" i can think of. that's one of Gramsci's insights, right? attempting to totally overcome "ideology" is a bad bet, if not impossible. we struggle on an already-existing ideological terrain, and rights are fundamental to that terrain. 'rights' may have to be radicalized, extended, etc., rather than abandoned as inherently flawed.
i dunno though, this is something i plan to think about more.
who in the west uses rights language? i mean, obviously white america. i guess the english? western europe? but when I'm talking to latinos (esp. those from outside the states), i don't frequently hear them talk about rights. I have literally never heard anyone east of vienna talk about rights in real life. I mean, you'll occasionally hear it in press statements to the anglo-phone media, but that's about it. i mean, you'll occasionally here immigrant groups in england, france, and america use it, but that's mostly because that's how they appeal to established middle class in those countries.
toy posted:interesting. yes i was mostly thinking of western europe and i would have guessed that that rights talk would have been all over vienna. have you read anything that discusses the salience of rights talk in different regions?
well, i meant east of vienna as eastern europe and the balkans. naw, i haven't read anything, i was talking from experience.
tpaine posted:who the fuck would want to be a priestess!
*raises paw*
elemennop posted:toy posted:one thought i've had with the rights debate which sidesteps direct criticism of the concept of 'rights' itself is the fact that even if the concept has serious problems built into it, it's almost universally accepted in the West as a CRUCIAL framing tool for emancipation.
i think i'd agree that the concept of rights is "ideological" in the sense that it distorts reality, reifies liberalism/capitalism, or whatever, but from a practical standpoint arguing against rights isn't going to accomplish much. it's one of the most deeply held and taken-for-granted "goods" i can think of. that's one of Gramsci's insights, right? attempting to totally overcome "ideology" is a bad bet, if not impossible. we struggle on an already-existing ideological terrain, and rights are fundamental to that terrain. 'rights' may have to be radicalized, extended, etc., rather than abandoned as inherently flawed.
i dunno though, this is something i plan to think about more.
who in the west uses rights language? i mean, obviously white america. i guess the english? western europe? but when I'm talking to latinos (esp. those from outside the states), i don't frequently hear them talk about rights. I have literally never heard anyone east of vienna talk about rights in real life. I mean, you'll occasionally hear it in press statements to the anglo-phone media, but that's about it. i mean, you'll occasionally here immigrant groups in england, france, and america use it, but that's mostly because that's how they appeal to established middle class in those countries.
latino groups in the US use it all the time. "right to education" "right to a job" etc.
Edited by Bablu ()
gyrofry posted:name one
roseweird.
VoxNihili posted:elemennop posted:toy posted:one thought i've had with the rights debate which sidesteps direct criticism of the concept of 'rights' itself is the fact that even if the concept has serious problems built into it, it's almost universally accepted in the West as a CRUCIAL framing tool for emancipation.
i think i'd agree that the concept of rights is "ideological" in the sense that it distorts reality, reifies liberalism/capitalism, or whatever, but from a practical standpoint arguing against rights isn't going to accomplish much. it's one of the most deeply held and taken-for-granted "goods" i can think of. that's one of Gramsci's insights, right? attempting to totally overcome "ideology" is a bad bet, if not impossible. we struggle on an already-existing ideological terrain, and rights are fundamental to that terrain. 'rights' may have to be radicalized, extended, etc., rather than abandoned as inherently flawed.
i dunno though, this is something i plan to think about more.
who in the west uses rights language? i mean, obviously white america. i guess the english? western europe? but when I'm talking to latinos (esp. those from outside the states), i don't frequently hear them talk about rights. I have literally never heard anyone east of vienna talk about rights in real life. I mean, you'll occasionally hear it in press statements to the anglo-phone media, but that's about it. i mean, you'll occasionally here immigrant groups in england, france, and america use it, but that's mostly because that's how they appeal to established middle class in those countries.
latino groups in the US use it all the time. "right to education" "right to a job" etc.
yeah, i know. but i wasn't talking about advocacy groups.