Comments
0w0 OP wrote
Interesting article, thanks for share. :)
[deleted] wrote
LostYonder wrote
There are a number of radical scholars, associations, and movements in Pakistan that provide a more critical, less state-centric, critique of what is going on there. Pakistan suffers from a long history of horrifically bad scholarship and analysis. the Pakistani left is crushed by the military on one side and the religious right on the other, who are in fact partners, funded by the US to silence, erase, and kill off leftists of all yokes. The religious right came to the forefront in Pakistan in the late 1970s/1980s under the military dictator Zia ul-Haq, the third largest receiver of US foreign aid at the time (behind Israel and Egypt), at the height of the 1st Afghanistan war. They were used to destroy the communists in Pakistan, killing off the labor and peasant movement leaders. Those who had leftist leanings fled into exile, leaving the country with very little critical perspectives. Only recently have they started to reemerge. But you will never find their perspective in any of the mass media which is beholden to the military...
0w0 OP wrote
I agree whith you.
0w0 OP wrote
[deleted] wrote
0w0 OP wrote
O sorry I didn't know that I had to edit the titles to seem interesting.
[deleted] wrote
0w0 OP wrote
In politics I only posted two articles today. I don't know how that's a lot.
JoeMemo wrote
But no one is looking at f/politics, we look at the front page.
JoeMemo wrote (edited )
"Human rights" is a lot like "free speech". Begging a violent state to allow you certain proclivities at the expense of all your actual freedom. It's not really "rights" the state is giving you so much as it's control. You don't need a state to deny you all rights and then meter out a few of them so long as you obey.
0w0 OP wrote
Well, yes but right know there is a state and pressuring it for more freedom is positive. Of course that they should get rid of that, it would be awesome that Pakistani society accept that kind of thinking. But are they in that point now?
JoeMemo wrote
The entire article can be summarized as "the state should really be nicer to us", it's just not worthy of attention.
0w0 OP wrote
Do you reccomend a Pakistani article that says something better?
JoeMemo wrote
Why can't I just downvote a boring article without having to justify it? You post a lot of links, some of them are going to get downvoted sometimes. I don't understand what you expect me to say other than "It wasn't an interesting read".
0w0 OP wrote (edited )
Upvotes are for posts that contribute to the discussion and to the site overall, and are not intended simply to show agreement. Similarly, downvotes are for posts that are not contributing to the discussion or to the site overall, and not simply to show disagreement. That is of course except when explicitly stated, like votes or proposals.
That you didn't find it interesting or you disaggre with the article is not merit to down vote it, I think.
JoeMemo wrote
Similarly, downvotes are for posts that are not contributing to the discussion or to the site overall
But this is exactly why I downvoted your link. You posted a lot of links and only 60% of them were what I'd consider valuable. So downvoting the meh ones is a form of quality control and allows better, more deserving links to stay on the front page longer.
Pop wrote
Here's a critique of rights as currently imagined, that might be useful, but a bit academic
not sure why anybody downvoted this article specifically though