SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Original URL: World leaders abandoning human rights: Amnesty
World leaders are undermining human rights for millions of people with regressive policies and hate-filled rhetoric, but their actions have ignited global protest movements in response, a rights group said.
US President Donald Trump, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and China's President Xi Jinping were among a number of politicians who rolled out regressive policies in 2017, according to Amnesty International's annual human rights report published on Thursday.
The human rights body also mentioned the leaders of Egypt, the Philippines and Venezuela.
"The spectres of hatred and fear now loom large in world affairs, and we have few governments standing up for human rights in these disturbing times," Salil Shetty, Amnesty's secretary-general, said.
"Instead, leaders such as el-Sisi, Duterte, Maduro, Putin, Trump and Xi are callously undermining the rights of millions."
[...] The regressive approach to human rights adopted by a number of world leaders has, however, inspired new waves of social activism and protest, Amnesty said, highlighting the example of the Women's March in January last year, which began in the US before becoming a global protest.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:46PM (13 children)
While some of your rhetoric may make sense, like the fact that mass migrations will always trigger frictions and a huge social upheaval, other parts sound like you are trying to drum up excuses for things to regress. Progressist/Regressivist does not need to be a dichotomy. Why not keep with what has worked so well so far. This argument breaks the dichotomy: No need to push for 8 nor 80.
Point one, history is cyclical indeed but last I checked we are not living like the Romans just with better tech. Things effectively changed, it's not a 0 sum game. I would say that history follows more of a spiral with certain adjustments. Technology itself allows for much less strife even on relatively poor parts of society and this creates certain baselines that by game theory would benefit not one going below.
Point 2, Why not make it a matter of national security that the correct orderly leaders "down south" behave. Damn it, so much is done to give weapons or bribes for economic favor or dick swinging. Why not make it a policy to "persuade" others leaders that they need to get their civilization level up. It may sound contradictory, but the good guys also need to go through power struggles. Support them, take nation building with brighter goals.
Point 3, North/South, brown/white reeks of covered racist shit. On the other hand I also find the current American forced equality bullshit (quotas for blacks or whatever?), an admission that America gave up on meritocracy of some kind. My idea is ironically more along the lines of what Martin Luther King said: "Do not judge by the color of skin but by the content of their character". With the current American equality movements, I cannot but be baffled at how contrary and self undermining current movements are to the actual leveling of mankind as one. It actually is so dumb that maybe there is an ultra plot-within-a-plot of haters (attempt at joke just to relax the tone)
Point 4. People do have the right to not like one another, but prejudices and hate should not be fostered nor nourished by any civilized society and again, by pure logic, any group is weaker divided. Of course through the glass of humanism and enlightenment (the founding principles of western thought) any individual or collective person stands for it's self determination, but the tide should be towards the healthy union or variety (see how union and variety can not be antipodes?)
Oh Runaway, if you were not so unbecoming about brown people, a description I am sure my appearance would fit into, I would buy you a beer just for the kicks of the arguments. I think you are just a tiny bit racist but not an idiot (again not always a dichotomy ;)
Cheers
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:57PM (1 child)
Rome kept its populace happy by giving them "bread and circuses".
One such circus was the Coliseum. At first it could be flooded so as to facilitate mock naval battles, then later without water where highly-trained gladiators duked it out with swords.
The losers of the naval battles as well as the gladiators were killed. That's what kept the people entertained.
I was completely unaware that crucifixion was painful until I was fifteen and played a roman soldier in my high school's production of Jesus Christ Superstar. While I always found it odd that they would drive nails through one's hands and feet, I never really thought much beyond that.
It turns out that the crucified die of asphyxiation, because they are too exhausted - or in too much pain - to hold themselves up by their nail-pierced hands.
That exhaustion takes a long time. The gospels speak of the onlookers great surprise that Jesus died so quickly.
Why did the Romans choose crosses over other implements of torture?
They were cheap and easy to build. That was helpful because at the farthest frontiers of the empire there wasn't a whole lot of technology, but wood from trees was always readily avialable.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 24 2018, @10:44PM
True Story:
A very religious Christian I knew from a former job attended one of those radical churches. Every Halloween they would have one of those "fright night" or whatever they are called plays which show graphically that sinners (in their case explicitly depicting homosexuals as hellbound among drug users and other sinners) face the wrath of God.
My coworker's character in the play was one of those sinners. As his "punishment" he was forced to be hanged using one of those harness-thingies for realism yet safety. Well, when he was lifted up, his harness snapped (he was very portly) so for a few seconds before everybody caught on he was actually being hanged.
When he showed up to work the next Monday every one of his spoken words was a raspy whisper and he wore a tall collar to hide his neck.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 24 2018, @05:01PM
The era known as The Enlightenmint was hundreds of years ago. You'd think that three or four hundred years of enlightenment would lead to web analytics being illegal.
Consider the challenges faced by closeted gay Republican politicians.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:13PM (8 children)
I was content to treat people fairly. Now? Fuck it.
If your idea of "progress" hurts me and my kind, I'm going to fight it. I do this everywhere I can.
For example, my workplace shows a preference for hiring women and minorities. As soon as this became clear, I stopped referring them for employment.
I used to not think very much about race. Progressives changed that. I get dragged into bullshit "diversity" sessions (hate sessions against me) and my kids get it too. I'm still sore over scholarships and a science camp that were denied to me, and now I see my kids about to suffer in a similar way. Now, I'm real happy to screw over other races. I do it on purpose.
I'm not even that severe... my brother would be KKK and neo-nazi if only he weren't atheist and capitalist.
So... is that the outcome you wanted? You started this shit. Want more and worse? Keep it up.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:37PM (6 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @07:08PM (5 children)
Double standard. You want to let people discriminate based on their own opinions, but trying to balance that by using legal discrimination is bad? I'm not sure how what would be a better method to fix the problem, and I can only hope that soon enough we can remove affirmative action as it is no longer needed.
Maybe if the systemic racism in the US wasn't supported by people like you who vote in shitheads then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nixon literally created the drug war as a covert culture war against blacks, mexicans, and liberals. Tons of cities have very racist policies, with such simple things as freeway offramps not being built for certain communities.
The reason liberals mock conservatives and treat call out racism is because it is a massive problem. It seems to be getting a little better with the new generations not buying into the hate of their parents, but we still get knee-jerk reactionaries like yourself who refuse to see the bigger picture. Come up with some alternatives to fix the problem of black kids not getting decent jobs due to the color of their skin and then you'll get respect and cooperation. Drone on about bootstraps and personal responsibility and get ignored.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 24 2018, @09:36PM (1 child)
Liberals are not less racist than conservatives, judging by their actions. The real difference is that conservatives are a lot more honest about their prejudice. Non-whites are also not less racist than whites; the notion that only whites are racist is a great conceit that is misused for political purposes.
This is a great gift that Donald Trump has given the world: the shattering of a great many harmful illusions.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @08:26AM
I wonder what "actions" you're talking about, sounds like bullshit to me. Even if that was true then you could say that at least they're trying to do the right thing instead of celebrating their failure... Whether "non-whites" are racist or not is largely meaningless, they're not generally in a position to make decisions for others.
I'm sure you're just about as non-racist as your champion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday February 25 2018, @12:19AM
It should be obvious that yes, that is worse because the second situation uses the instruments of the state to enforce your racism. It's Jim Crow law, not just a bunch of petty people with petty biases.
Which is a shame because that's a big part of what a healthy society needs. It is your and the grandparent's responsibility to stop screwing over your fellow people just because they happen to be the wrong race.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 25 2018, @02:01AM
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/flashback-morgan-freeman-ending-racism-stop-talking-about-it [cnsnews.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday March 01 2018, @10:25PM
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @07:02PM
You're full of shit, just another bigot who never thought of themselves as such. Just because you don't go to klan rallies doesn't mean you don't have racist aspects. Viewing sensitivity training as hate against you really shows where your mind is at.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:20PM
>an admission that America gave up on meritocracy of some kind
It never has been. Capitalism and meritocracy are very nearly diametrically opposed - in capitalism, possession of substantial capital is the overpowering "merit", and capital passes almost exclusively down the lines of family dynasties. There is the occasional "rags to riches" story, but they are, by the necessity of limited resources, extremely rare. And very often littered with deeply unethical behavior if you read between the lines.
>any group is weaker divided
Of course. Why do you suppose division is fostered? Keep the white, brown, and black working men at each other's throats, and they don't have the strength or energy to unify against the executive class that's screwing them all over. Hell, the entire concept of "white" was manufactured to unify opposition to the other skin colors - prior to that in the U.S. you were Polish, French, German, etc., but as cultures blended together over time a new, more obvious cause for division was needed.