4 ms·

Before anyone flags this for being "political": don't. This is about human rights, not politics. Don't conflate the two.

mhh__ 6y ago
I think the people who flag things like this tend to be doing it (ostensibly for being political) but really because it doesn't hurt their bottom line i.e. I'm alright jack. Have a contrarian reason to praise trump? Have some free upvotes
elvis_thesinger 6y ago
I didn't realize this was a "human rights" social club
dragonwriter 6y ago
Human rights are a subset of politics. (It's fashionable to label as “nonpolitical” any matter of politics that the speaker thinks is important, as if “politics” as a label only applied to trivialities, but that's not what it means and, more relevantly, not why HN often prefers to avoid things that are in that domain but not particularly intellectual novelties.)
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Technically, politics is just "what shoud we do". Almost every discussion is political if you want to work by a strict standard.
- bonchicbongenre 6y ago
  No. Absolutely not. Politics often impinges on human rights, yes. But human rights are not a subset of politics, and absolutely should not be couched in political terms. Issues that are rightly called political are those over which reasonable people may disagree. This highlights that "politics" doesn't only apply to trivialities --myriad real political issues come to mind. My point here is that to argue that this particular issue is political would be beyond the pale, as support of the alleged actions is not a humanly just or reasonable position: one could certainly make it into a political issue, if one were heartless enough, but such evil isn't worth discussion. This is not a political issue. Deciding that it is one would be despicable.
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  It's the other way around. Politics is that which fills the space when violence and scarcity do not dominate psychic considerations. Political discussions can only occur in a context where there are human rights, where human beings in authoritative positions adhere to laws and rules related to their jobs. Public talk that defends the systemic, ungoverned practice of violence is not political, it's propaganda (and worse). Human rights comes first. Then politics. Cheers.
  - bonchicbongenre 6y ago
    Very well said. Thank you
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  Corporate laws are a subset of politics. Labor practices are a subset of politics. Internet governance is a subset of politics. Systemd vs others is a subset of politics. Compensation packages are a subset of politics. Stock ownership is a subset of politics. Available food is a subset of politics. Water purity is a subset of politics. Air quality is a subset of politics. Power generation is a subset of politics.
aaron695 6y ago
> ‘Like an Experimental Concentration Camp’ Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies? Or do we think the USA is making women infertile as a form of population control? Seriously? I suspect it follows your politics which is why it's "not political". We aren't conflating anything. It's an important story nonetheless.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Why do you think that people are being sterilized in a camp at the border at which people are not allowed the right for a trial, did not commit any crimes, and are not allowed to leave? Seriously, I'm hoping there is an explanation that is less horrific.
  - aaron695 6y ago
    I honestly don't know what to say to someone who thinks the USA is systematically sterilising people. I don't know how that mind would work. Do you say it because of true stories we know about the past and are are taught history repeats itself. Do you think it's true on rote? Who would be doing this? Why? How? Is it Illuminati, or Republicans, or a systematic breakdown of processes? I don't know what level you are on. I said this in another comment, but if this was a betting market, 50% didn't happen, 30% rogue doctor, 20% something simple I can't think of. For instance I don't think it's true, but I did look to see if you get special compensations if you get a hysterectomy, it could be driven by the women. There's a few other things to look at.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The US has been systematically sterilizing indigenous populations up until the 70s. Why do you think we did that? If we're willing to get sordid, there are definitely reasons to do so; maiming people at the border sends a strong message to would-be asylum seekers, for one. For another, there are people in ICE with strong white supremacist tendencies. We have camps right now where people are not allowed a fair trial, and are not allowed to leave. This is very, very, very fucked. And no, they don't get any compensation for anything. They don't have a US bank account. They are detainees in a weird legal limbo, without any legal status in the US. Why not read the document in the article? In any case, if you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But it really doesn't compute here.

mhh__ 6y ago

I think the people who flag things like this tend to be doing it (ostensibly for being political) but really because it doesn't hurt their bottom line i.e. I'm alright jack. Have a contrarian reason to praise trump? Have some free upvotes

elvis_thesinger 6y ago

I didn't realize this was a "human rights" social club

dragonwriter 6y ago

Human rights are a subset of politics. (It's fashionable to label as “nonpolitical” any matter of politics that the speaker thinks is important, as if “politics” as a label only applied to trivialities, but that's not what it means and, more relevantly, not why HN often prefers to avoid things that are in that domain but not particularly intellectual novelties.)

sudosysgen 6y ago
Technically, politics is just "what shoud we do". Almost every discussion is political if you want to work by a strict standard.
bonchicbongenre 6y ago
No. Absolutely not. Politics often impinges on human rights, yes. But human rights are not a subset of politics, and absolutely should not be couched in political terms. Issues that are rightly called political are those over which reasonable people may disagree. This highlights that "politics" doesn't only apply to trivialities --myriad real political issues come to mind. My point here is that to argue that this particular issue is political would be beyond the pale, as support of the alleged actions is not a humanly just or reasonable position: one could certainly make it into a political issue, if one were heartless enough, but such evil isn't worth discussion. This is not a political issue. Deciding that it is one would be despicable.
jonahbenton 6y ago
It's the other way around. Politics is that which fills the space when violence and scarcity do not dominate psychic considerations. Political discussions can only occur in a context where there are human rights, where human beings in authoritative positions adhere to laws and rules related to their jobs. Public talk that defends the systemic, ungoverned practice of violence is not political, it's propaganda (and worse). Human rights comes first. Then politics. Cheers.
- bonchicbongenre 6y ago
  Very well said. Thank you
AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Corporate laws are a subset of politics. Labor practices are a subset of politics. Internet governance is a subset of politics. Systemd vs others is a subset of politics. Compensation packages are a subset of politics. Stock ownership is a subset of politics. Available food is a subset of politics. Water purity is a subset of politics. Air quality is a subset of politics. Power generation is a subset of politics.

aaron695 6y ago

> ‘Like an Experimental Concentration Camp’ Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies? Or do we think the USA is making women infertile as a form of population control? Seriously? I suspect it follows your politics which is why it's "not political". We aren't conflating anything. It's an important story nonetheless.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Why do you think that people are being sterilized in a camp at the border at which people are not allowed the right for a trial, did not commit any crimes, and are not allowed to leave? Seriously, I'm hoping there is an explanation that is less horrific.
- aaron695 6y ago
  I honestly don't know what to say to someone who thinks the USA is systematically sterilising people. I don't know how that mind would work. Do you say it because of true stories we know about the past and are are taught history repeats itself. Do you think it's true on rote? Who would be doing this? Why? How? Is it Illuminati, or Republicans, or a systematic breakdown of processes? I don't know what level you are on. I said this in another comment, but if this was a betting market, 50% didn't happen, 30% rogue doctor, 20% something simple I can't think of. For instance I don't think it's true, but I did look to see if you get special compensations if you get a hysterectomy, it could be driven by the women. There's a few other things to look at.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The US has been systematically sterilizing indigenous populations up until the 70s. Why do you think we did that? If we're willing to get sordid, there are definitely reasons to do so; maiming people at the border sends a strong message to would-be asylum seekers, for one. For another, there are people in ICE with strong white supremacist tendencies. We have camps right now where people are not allowed a fair trial, and are not allowed to leave. This is very, very, very fucked. And no, they don't get any compensation for anything. They don't have a US bank account. They are detainees in a weird legal limbo, without any legal status in the US. Why not read the document in the article? In any case, if you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But it really doesn't compute here.