Sentences (#28)

Sailer asks a sharp (and largely self-answering) question:

has the term “human rights” simply become, like “civil rights,” a who?-whom? term to depict whose side you are on, with no relation anymore to general principles?

October 23, 2015admin 18 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

18 Responses to this entry

  • Bettega Says:

    Principles are nice but the best in life is to to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

    Woe of those who think politics is a battle of ideas.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Politics is the continuation of war by other means. 🙂

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means” Clausewitz

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    If one is true, the other one is too.

    Posted on October 23rd, 2015 at 12:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    term “human rights” – is just an attack vector and propaganda stance.

    [Reply]

    Ossipago Reply:

    ^THAT

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2015 at 12:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Sentences (#28) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2015 at 1:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    Wait, someone * just* asked that? Ive been pointing this out for years.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 23rd, 2015 at 1:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    Ah, the fetid fruits of liberalism. Theodore Dalrymple on rights: A belief in a plenitude of rights has arisen in poisonous combination with the radical individualism according to which conformity to social and even ethical norms is suppression of, or violence to, the human personality. A right is conceived as a metaphysical and transcendental permission to do or to have something, which nothing and nobody can abrogate. Once the doctrine of rights has entered a person’s mind, it spreads like a computer virus. Not only does the performance of everything that is not expressly forbidden by the law become transformed into a right (so that, for example, if there is no legal prohibition on eating during a doctor’s consultation, there is an absolute and inviolable right to do so), but even such legal prohibitions as remain are considered in the dissolving light of supposed rights. Social behaviour is judged solely by a thin utilitarian premise – that anything is permissible that does not harm others directly – and when anything, according to this premise, is deemed harmless, it becomes a right whatever the law might say. Alas the satisfaction of a supposed right does not result in gratitude (for it was only what the person was entitled to), and its denial results in resentment. Thus people who believe themselves possessed of more than a few very elementary rights exist in a dialectic between ingratitude at best, and resentment at worst.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Well, would you expect gratitude from someone asking “Don’t tread on me”?

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    No, but one would expect gratitude from people receiving equivalent of $2k/month in gibz…

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Know the difference between a right and a privilege/entitlement.

    OLF Reply:

    Here in Europe it’s the same thing. We have thousands of “rights”, including “free” and “equal” access to medical services, schools, gibz, etc. all in all it’s a socialist bureaucratic nightmare (note that it’s even worse, far, far worse in former Eastern Bloc countries, than in Western European countries, because Eastern Bloc countries have remnant Communist bureaucracies plus all the new EU bureaucracies).

    Exfernal Reply:

    Guess from where I am typing this. 🙂

    OLF Reply:

    From Czech Republic? 🙂

    Exfernal Reply:

    Poland

    Posted on October 24th, 2015 at 8:09 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/10/25) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Nick Land catches Steve Sailer in an, even for him, rather poignant interrogative Sentence. […]

    Posted on October 27th, 2015 at 12:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Civil rights was always status signaling because in the USA at least, it arose from the 1950s fascination with the Other in the form of African-Americans. The cool beatniks knew spades and could score from them, ya dig? That became the suburban version of marching with them for political objectives that no one understood, in the 1960s.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 27th, 2015 at 2:24 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment