Los Angeles mayor promising to violate human rights.

[Katie N]

lol "the concept of human rights is cultural imperialism" said the lazy authoritarian cheerleader.

Because it is. Cultural values differ. USA thinks the individual should be as free as possible. In Vietnam we don't think the individual should be as free as possible because that is bad for the stability of society. This is evident in the problems in USA too that you don't have the same social stability as we do, especially now with the virus.

[Elegiac]

Because it is. Cultural values differ. USA thinks the individual should be as free as possible. In Vietnam we don't think the individual should be as free as possible because that disturbs the stability of society. This is evident in the problems in USA too that you don't have the same social stability as we do, especially now with the virus.

Yea, the problem is that "disturbing the stability of society" invariably gets interpreted in such a way as to conveniently brand certain behaviors as fomenting unrest when in actuality the motive is eradicating the people associated with the behavior. We saw this crap in the French Revolution in how religion-based sodomy laws got tossed out by the republican government - which then quickly rebranded it illegal under the rationale that it was an obscenity and thus a public disturbance. Same end, different "cultural value" as to the source.

There's an upper limit as to how far "cultural relativism" can be stretched before it just becomes a blanket apology for authoritarianism. Especially in countries which are still deeply in the throes of a cultural reaction to...Western imperialism, where associating civil rights with western cultural imperialism is a convenient way of turning public opinion against them. The inverse of the United States conducting an internal purity campaign by associating communism with foreigners and ethnic minorities via harnessing a convenient preexisting prejudice with a popular modern framing.

[Thee ANCOM]

Because it is. Cultural values differ. USA thinks the individual should be as free as possible. In Vietnam we don't think the individual should be as free as possible because that is bad for the stability of society. This is evident in the problems in USA too that you don't have the same social stability as we do, especially now with the virus.

human rights and individualism are not synonymous. they do not mean the same thing. I'm shocked I have to explain this to what I assume is a grown ass adult.

[Elegiac]

human rights and individualism are not synonymous. they do not mean the same thing. I'm shocked I have to explain this to what I assume is a grown ass adult.

I'd argue that human rights are utterly essential to any collectivist society simply because they clearly define the expectations of the social contract and thus make it easier to abide by its strictures, anyway.

[Thee ANCOM]

There's an upper limit as to how far "cultural relativism" can be stretched before it just becomes a blanket apology for authoritarianism. Especially in countries which are still deeply in the throes of a cultural reaction to...Western imperialism, where associating civil rights with western cultural imperialism is a convenient way of turning public opinion against them. The inverse of the United States conducting an internal purity campaign by associating communism with foreigners and ethnic minorities by harnessing a convenient preexisting prejudice with a popular modern framing.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd argue that human rights are utterly essential to any collectivist society simply because they clearly define the expectations of the social contract and thus make it easier to abide by its strictures, anyway.

see above.

[Katie N]

human rights and individualism are not synonymous. they do not mean the same thing. I'm shocked I have to explain this to what I assume is a grown ass adult.

Human rights is based on individualist cultures values.

[Elegiac]

Human rights is based on individualist cultures values.

No, they are distinctly not - that's crap put out by capitalists in the vein of the lone artist or inventor so as to de-emphasise the importance of community and social support to the creative and productive process (both of them distinctly antithetical to the profit motive). The notion of rights as we understand them emerged explicitly at the same time as "social" took on its modern meaning, as opposed to its archaic meaning of simply indicating 'polite', and that isn't a coincidence.

[Katie N]

No, they are distinctly not

Yes, they are. Just look at how they are worded. Everything is about emphasizing the individuals rights/freedoms.

[Thee ANCOM]

Human rights is based on individualist cultures values.

so what? I see you can't even argue that it's a bad thing. collectivism and individualism as abstract concepts are not good or bad, they're neutral.

[Elegiac]

Yes, they are. Just look at how they are worded. Everything is about emphasizing the individuals rights/freedoms.

Their universality makes them non-individualistic by definition, hun. The idea that certain things are afforded to people just because they are people is not individualist, that's a distinctly eusocial outlook.

[Katie N]

Their universality makes them non-individualistic by definition, hun. The idea that certain things are afforded to people just because they are people is not individualist, that's a distinctly eusocial outlook.

They are not universal.

[Thee ANCOM]

They are not universal.

except they are, you not liking them doesn't change that people see themselves as individuals in every society, and in every culture.

[Elegiac]

They are not universal.

The fact that they're called "human rights" means that they are assumed as being inherent to all humans; so yes, they are universal. We're not talking about what what Vietnam or other countries think of the universality of human rights, we're talking about whether or not human rights are individualistic - and no, if they are believed to be universal then that is, again, a distinctly eusocial outlook which isn't supportive of individualism as you claim.

You're literally just repeating the nonsense that Western capitalists use to justify opposing social programs in the US and pretending it's somehow taking a stand against cultural imperialism when it's literally a sociocultural product manufactured and distributed by the good old US of A.

[Katie N]

except they are, you not liking them doesn't change that people see themselves as individuals in every society, and in every culture.

Except they aren't. Where is the universality of them manifested? Nowhere.

[Elegiac]

Except they aren't. Where is the universality of them manifested? Nowhere.

The universality refers to the idea they are universally inherent to humans whether or not that is actually respected, not an observation of a natural phenomena. For fucks sake y'all objectivists need to find a better hill to die on.

[Thee ANCOM]

Nowhere.

you being from Vietnam doesn't make you any less entitled to human rights than I am as an American. there's some collectiveism for you to ponder on.

[Katie N]

The universality refers to the idea they are universally inherent to humans whether or not that is actually respected, not an observation of a natural phenomena. For fucks sake y'all objectivists need to find a better hill to die on.

They aren't inherent to humans though.

- - - Updated - - -

you being from Vietnam doesn't make you any less entitled to human rights than I am as an American. there's some collectiveism for you to ponder on.

It's just something that's written in a declaration and then people just like to recite it in arguments or for condemning what they think is violations but then they do nothing about it. So much for how much they value it.

[Elegiac]

They aren't inherent to humans though.

They "ought" to be, however. Humans are generally better off when they are believed to be and respected as such, so it is one of those basic philosophical assumptions that is just 'there'. I'm not interested in nonsense objectivist or solipsist arguments to the contrary because they have no real world bearing, I'm interested in actual human welfare.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just something that's written in a declaration and then people just like to recite it in arguments or for condemning what they think is violations but then they do nothing about it. So much for how much they value it.

Exactly what do you think people are marching in the streets getting gassed and shot at by police for?

Because if your argument is that they aren't fighting hard enough, that's just some bullshit victim blaming. Rofl.

[Thee ANCOM]

It's just something that's written in a declaration and then people just like to recite it in arguments or for condemning what they think is violations but then they do nothing about it. So much for how much they value it.

being a literalist doesn't make you big brained.

[Katie N]

They "ought" to be, however.

No, just look at western countries. Social stability is a major issue in a lot of those countries. Why? Because the individual has rights and freedoms to cause disturbances. Why? Because of cultural mores. Act like many do in the USA and you would find yourself in prison here and that's a good thing instead of allowing them to destabilize society.