When you stop seeing other humans as humans (political opponents, oppressors, police or whoever you hate, even if justifiably so), crimes against humanity start to happen.
Being a police officer is a choice. Just like not blowing the whistle on abuse is a choice. You can blame people for their choices and some choices have consequences.
If I saw one bleeding in the street, I would have to weigh the possibility that getting involved would potentially ruin my life and that saving this person could result in the abuse or death of an innocent down the line.
Scorpion and the frog and all that.
It’s in my nature to help anybody in need, but I have to be responsible and I would naturally hesitate to help a dangerous person who’s a threat to the people around them especially if the system might punish me for the attempt because it was looking for someone to blame.
So sure it’s a person, a potentially monstrous, definitely dangerous, openly awful member of an elective class of abusive psychopaths that chases away any moral, healthy person.
I think you do not fully understand what human rights are. They are not choice based, they cannot be lost by personal decisions or choices.
Maybe you oppose the concept of human rights, fair enough, but then say so openly.
Why doesn’t overall harm reduction trump immediacy when it comes to human rights? If you save the life of an officer who kicked in the teeth of someone’s grandma last week, have you put more good or evil into the world?
Because once you introduce any loopholes to human rights, they will always be exempted when they are being violated and therefore worthless. The concept that some rights should be unalienable, an unalienable right can’t be conditional.
Like I said, maybe you oppose human rights, that is a position one can take. I am just surprised to see it so fervently proposed here on Lemmy. I usually just see that position with the populist right, they are also pushing really hard on abolishing any legal framework to that end, is that something people here would want to see as well?
The paradox of tolerance exists for a reason. (US) Police are a fascist force in service of the ruling class, and fascists are people who exist outside of society and need to be stopped in any way necessary, including death.
Anyone who wants to participate in society deserves human rights.
It’s possible to respect human rights while not tolerating abuse. Fascists should be sent through the courts to receive consequences according to the rule of law.
That’s perfectly in accordance with human rights, and fascists can still be put away.
What the other user is saying is that if you throw out the concept of human rights when it comes to your enemies, then you’re throwing out the concept of human rights as a universal, and therefore your enemies can do the same thing when it comes to you.
Not a smart move, especially for the underdogs. You’re essentially “becoming the monster you sought to destroy” while your head is still inside the jaws of that monster. You’re not going to scare it into letting go, you’re only going to push it to clamp down harder.
What you describe in your last line is not human rights. That is not how human rights work, every human has human rights and cannot lose them. If human rights are conditional they will never be applied to those who need them, the opponent. Then you can just get rid of them altogether and it makes no difference.
If there is internal conflict and one combatant kills another combatant it might be murder or not (depends on perspective) but it is likely not a crime against humanity. If you first catch them, then rape them, than torture them, to then kill them. It likely is a crime against humanity. Your paradox may work against tolerance but not necessarily against human rights, unless you proclaim that the raping part is necessary to oppose the intolerant
I think you’re framing this wrong. Hitler deserved human rights, as in if captured he didn’t deserve to be tortured to death. However, people who exist outside of society cannot participate in society, so they need to either be jailed for life (or until rehabilitation, which doesn’t exist in the US) or killed if they can’t be captured. US police in the current iteration exist outside society, so they can’t be afforded the mercy that society provides to its citizens.
The way I see it the oppressive class and the police have excluded themselves from society by virtue of their abuse of the laws which protect them in cases it would punish a regular citizen. This was a conscious choice, not a trait they are born with. As such, I am fine saying that the rules of polite society do not extend to them.
I guess I do still see them as humans. But humans who have broken the basic tenets of simple humanity and are no longer protected by those tenets because they themselves ignore them.
You can think that way, but that doesn’t change anything about my comment.
Human rights are based on the foundation that humans can’t be exempted from them. For a reason. Look into the history books and you do not have to look back far, actually you don’t have to look back at all.
So not opposing human rights is now “loyal bootlicking”. Mind you I did nowhere say not to resist oppression or to love or even give in to police. All I was saying is that if you stop considering other humans as humans, crimes against humanity start to happen and then just repeated what human rights are. That isn’t my original thinking.
If you oppose human rights, just say instead of going ad hominem.
When you stop seeing other humans as humans (political opponents, oppressors, police or whoever you hate, even if justifiably so), crimes against humanity start to happen.
Being a police officer is a choice. Just like not blowing the whistle on abuse is a choice. You can blame people for their choices and some choices have consequences.
If I saw one bleeding in the street, I would have to weigh the possibility that getting involved would potentially ruin my life and that saving this person could result in the abuse or death of an innocent down the line.
Scorpion and the frog and all that.
It’s in my nature to help anybody in need, but I have to be responsible and I would naturally hesitate to help a dangerous person who’s a threat to the people around them especially if the system might punish me for the attempt because it was looking for someone to blame.
So sure it’s a person, a potentially monstrous, definitely dangerous, openly awful member of an elective class of abusive psychopaths that chases away any moral, healthy person.
I think you do not fully understand what human rights are. They are not choice based, they cannot be lost by personal decisions or choices. Maybe you oppose the concept of human rights, fair enough, but then say so openly.
A right is only what can be enforced.
Honestly, I am a bit surprised how unpopular the concept of human rights is around here, judging by the votes but you never stop learning, don’t you?
Why doesn’t overall harm reduction trump immediacy when it comes to human rights? If you save the life of an officer who kicked in the teeth of someone’s grandma last week, have you put more good or evil into the world?
Because once you introduce any loopholes to human rights, they will always be exempted when they are being violated and therefore worthless. The concept that some rights should be unalienable, an unalienable right can’t be conditional.
Like I said, maybe you oppose human rights, that is a position one can take. I am just surprised to see it so fervently proposed here on Lemmy. I usually just see that position with the populist right, they are also pushing really hard on abolishing any legal framework to that end, is that something people here would want to see as well?
The paradox of tolerance exists for a reason. (US) Police are a fascist force in service of the ruling class, and fascists are people who exist outside of society and need to be stopped in any way necessary, including death.
Anyone who wants to participate in society deserves human rights.
It’s possible to respect human rights while not tolerating abuse. Fascists should be sent through the courts to receive consequences according to the rule of law.
That’s perfectly in accordance with human rights, and fascists can still be put away.
What the other user is saying is that if you throw out the concept of human rights when it comes to your enemies, then you’re throwing out the concept of human rights as a universal, and therefore your enemies can do the same thing when it comes to you.
Not a smart move, especially for the underdogs. You’re essentially “becoming the monster you sought to destroy” while your head is still inside the jaws of that monster. You’re not going to scare it into letting go, you’re only going to push it to clamp down harder.
What you describe in your last line is not human rights. That is not how human rights work, every human has human rights and cannot lose them. If human rights are conditional they will never be applied to those who need them, the opponent. Then you can just get rid of them altogether and it makes no difference.
If there is internal conflict and one combatant kills another combatant it might be murder or not (depends on perspective) but it is likely not a crime against humanity. If you first catch them, then rape them, than torture them, to then kill them. It likely is a crime against humanity. Your paradox may work against tolerance but not necessarily against human rights, unless you proclaim that the raping part is necessary to oppose the intolerant
I think you’re framing this wrong. Hitler deserved human rights, as in if captured he didn’t deserve to be tortured to death. However, people who exist outside of society cannot participate in society, so they need to either be jailed for life (or until rehabilitation, which doesn’t exist in the US) or killed if they can’t be captured. US police in the current iteration exist outside society, so they can’t be afforded the mercy that society provides to its citizens.
deleted by creator
The way I see it the oppressive class and the police have excluded themselves from society by virtue of their abuse of the laws which protect them in cases it would punish a regular citizen. This was a conscious choice, not a trait they are born with. As such, I am fine saying that the rules of polite society do not extend to them.
I guess I do still see them as humans. But humans who have broken the basic tenets of simple humanity and are no longer protected by those tenets because they themselves ignore them.
You can think that way, but that doesn’t change anything about my comment. Human rights are based on the foundation that humans can’t be exempted from them. For a reason. Look into the history books and you do not have to look back far, actually you don’t have to look back at all.
How precious of you to pop up and defend the oppressors. Your loyal bootlicking will be richly rewarded in hell
So not opposing human rights is now “loyal bootlicking”. Mind you I did nowhere say not to resist oppression or to love or even give in to police. All I was saying is that if you stop considering other humans as humans, crimes against humanity start to happen and then just repeated what human rights are. That isn’t my original thinking.
If you oppose human rights, just say instead of going ad hominem.
As a Spanish song said “He was a man. Now he’s a cop” (“Era un hombre. Ahora es un poli”, Era un hombre, La Polla Records)
Incredible response 😂😂 I hope your soul is worth it (it isn’t)
The veneer of civilisation is thin indeed, thank you for pointing that out by making this a laughing matter.
Just because they look human does not mean they are.
Cops lack key features that define humanity. For example, functional braincells. Empathy. Self-awareness. Etc.
Nazis aren’t people. Full stop.
That was also the spirit of the Brno death march. So I guess you think it was a great thing?
Of course, but pigs are a different taxonomical family from humans.
But it’s not a crime against humanity because the pigs aren’t human.
*pigmanity
I agree with half of that, but police and oppressors sometimes deserve it.