Are human rights a psyop?

[JambledUpWords]

Are they a psyop created to buck break society and make us all cucks? Believing in human rights is how we acquire more debt instead of just letting the weakest die off. The people that promote human rights regularly deny human rights to other nations in the form of war. Human rights organizations regularly inhibit free expression. Believing in human rights is for the weak and the government wants to keep you weak.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

They objectively are. The modern term is called "human rights imperialism" but this goes back a LONG way. The oldest example is probably the Crusades, where part of the official rationale was to save Christians living in the Middle East. The modern secular version started with slavery. They don't tell you that the reason white people went and colonized Africa was because a bunch of people wanted to end slavery or at the very least the slave trade. So it's unsurprising that this tradition continues with modern religions like liberalism and homosexuality. Environmentalism will probably join the list soon.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Believing in human rights is for the weak and the government wants to keep you weak.

The theory is that "human rights" are "universal", but you only have these rights with strong governments enforcing them and keeping the peace.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

Human rights ultimately lead you down the path of "R2P":

https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/

The Responsibility to Protect – known as R2P – is an international norm that seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The concept emerged in response to the failure of the international community to adequately respond to mass atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. The International Committee on Intervention and State Sovereignty developed the concept of R2P during 2001.

The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

And war:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7

Article 42​

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

 

[Mothra1988]

>Durr wouldn't the world be better if we went back to middle age feudalism?

I remember when I thought KF wasn't just a place for autistic 30 year olds going through some emo goth "Fuck you mom and dad!" phase.

 

[The Last Stand]

I remember when I thought KF wasn't just a place for autistic 30 year olds going through some emo goth "Fuck you mom and dad!" phase.

Says the self proclaimed libertarian that would enjoy being under a corporation's boot.

Are they a psyop created to buck break society and make us all cucks? Believing in human rights is how we acquire more debt instead of just letting the weakest die off.

You're right. Just remember that there will always be somebody stronger, more powerful than you. Then you'll be dead along with your whole family.

To answer your question, human rights are essential for any society to prosper. Never mind it being a universal concept for any human being to thrive and live. It's just that "human rights" NOW has turned into a manipulation tactic to kowtow to people that want special privileges above anybody else.

To quote a certain fellow: "Some animals are more equal than others."

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

Niggers aren't human therefore shouldn't have Human Rights.

 

[Magicicada_septendecula]

I'd say some are. The right to speak freely, defend yourself, and the right to not be thrown in jail without a fair trial are real. The right to have the world bend to your fantasies and compel others to say what you want them to say against their own judgement is a psyop. I'm not violating anyone's rights by calling someone with a big jaw and five o'clock shadow "he" no matter what dress he wears.

 

[JambledUpWords]

Trans rights aren’t human rights

 

[NickDigger]

So communists really do post here I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#Use_of_violence

Also seeing as you phrased the thread title as a question but your OP is a declaration that there's only one correct answer is proof that yes, @JambledUpWords you have no rights as a human being because you are a retarded nigger who isn't interested in discussion, thus the world would be better without you in it.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

So communists really do post here I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path#Use_of_violence

Wyświetl załącznik 5393341

Also seeing as you phrased the thread title as a question but your OP is a declaration that there's only one correct answer is proof that yes, @JambledUpWords you have no rights as a human being because you are a retarded nigger who isn't interested in discussion, thus the world would be better without you in it.

And they were right, even if for the wrong reasons. Human rights do not exist in a vacuum and like everything else, serve only the powerful.

If you want proof of that, look at this website. Despite Null having the same freedoms and rights as any other American, he faces constant attacks on his allegedly fundamental rights because powerful people don't like him. The minute you set up an organization to enforce human rights such as a court and its enforcement mechanisms, then that body defines what counts as a human right and who gets to enjoy human rights. And inevitably some people will enjoy more human rights than others. And sure, many people who have their rights violated win in court. But that's still a loss for them, because they had to go through the entire legal process just to have the same rights as the privileged group.

 

[Whatevermancer]

Yes, humans rights were a mistake, we should all become slaves instead.

 

[RybenZ999]

Depends on your definition of human rights. There's a big difference between "Blacks and whites should have the same rights and opportunities, no more, no less" and "Denying your child the right to mutilate himself is an infringement of human rights"

 

[Linako 2.0]

I do think that the past few decades has had an unhealthy obsession for rights, the desire for everything under the sun to have rights and be considered a human right to posses.
All this talk of rights, you hear nothing about your duties and obligations to uphold these rights, and this idea is inconceivable to the modern person who would argue that duty ends where their rights begin, and that they have the right to find someone to do it for them as they engage in their alleged right to become slave to their own vices.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Are they a psyop created to buck break society and make us all cucks?

No, they're a convenience construct slapped together by smart people that got bored with chaotic societies filled with premature death and atrocities, people that wanted to make money, trade safely, invest in technological progress and more.
Sadly, the concept has been anally violated so much by both leftards and rightoids in an attempt to misuse it to promote their own agendas that has become nearly useless.
"trans rights!" - "nuh-uh, religious freedoms!"
yawn

 

[Anasa Tristis]

Simple community rights (that can be exercised or not by choice without excessive damage) have to come before complicated and disruptive individual rights that may really damage the community.

You have a right to speak freely. If you want to. You do not have the right to tell someone to STFU about reality because it hurts your feels or threatens your power, wealth, or authority. You also don't have the right to tell someone else's kid that trying butt sex at 12 is a great idea.

This current emphasis on a zillion muh individual rights marketed by Sex Pozz Big Mommy liberal authoritarianism is having a negative effect on human society. And is a psych op. Social trust, social cohesion and control of degenerate anti social behavior is being undermined.

 

[BeetleBug242]

Yes. In another world I could kill you for being a dick just because I can. Every one would have said, “well he was a dick, oh well”

If people liked you enough no one would bat an eye to you going to town on a retard causing problems.

Now it’s “no I won’t point out the impoverished scholar who cold bloodily stabbed my partner”

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

human rights are essential for any society to prosper. Never mind it being a universal concept for any human being to thrive and live.

No they aren't though. Bismark created the first welfare state under the German empire which, as you already know, didn't have any so-called "human rights." Germany had living conditions comparable to Britain until the Great War. Austria-Hungary, while less developed, also had no conception of human rights and still had a stable society. You might disagree with that, but I do contend that the Austrian empire was stable and prosperous. For more information you can read the book "The Habsburg Empire, A New History."

These Christian monarchies operated under the ten commandments and faith in God. Human rights are meant to supplant the ten commandments with new ideological liberal dogma.

Yes, humans rights were a mistake, we should all become slaves instead.

North Korea, Iran, and China have all signed and ratified the UN's declaration of human rights. Do you think the Chinese aren't slaves because of this UN charter? Whether a country believes in these mythical human rights, which have no intellectual basis, doesn't matter.

Yes. In another world I could kill you for being a dick just because I can. Every one would have said, “well he was a dick, oh well”

If human rights didn't exist you still wouldn't be able to kill because of the 10 commandments. We live in a Christian society. Maybe you're a muslim immigrant so you don't know that

 

[BeetleBug242]

10 commandeeznutz

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I call it empty-handed egalitarianism, but yes. If you're crossing the border into a land with a different group of people to impose your idea of what human rights are (which is absolutely not a consistent thing), you're the bad guy. America is the current age's ultimate bad guy in that respect.

 

[gang weeder]

The issue with the concept of "human rights" is that they are perceived as entitlements that you get just for existing and which can never be revoked. They don't come with any responsibilities attached. So useless people use them as a way to demand resources, or status, or whatever else.