Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

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

0

[deleted] wrote

1

0w0 wrote

That's against the etiquette of the site

-2

[deleted] wrote

3

0w0 wrote (edited )

I don't see "Spamming" in the etiquette, and I only posted two links today in politics.

4

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...

4

[deleted] wrote

1

0w0 wrote (edited )

Nation ≠ state

Nations are not institutions.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

0w0 wrote

They are not structures or mechanisms, so is not close at all. Unless that you think that stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior in people are oppresive.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

0w0 wrote

That nation are oppresive? How are oppresive?

1

[deleted] wrote

1

0w0 wrote (edited )

You have to keep in mind the actual context of the Pakistani society, in the current state of things this is positive that these questions are being raised. I would also like to see that the Pakistani society get rid of the thinking that they need a state.

3

LostYonder wrote (edited )

Three points: first, can you name one country where the "current state of things" is that dissimilar from Pakistan? Child abuse, discrimination and violence against women, oppression of marginalized social communities - all seem pretty universal practices in every nation-state.

Second, of course a nation is an institution. You conflate "structure" and "institution". The nation idea - territorialized identity based on some semblance of shared culture and history - is a completely and totally fabricated idea. Nations are made-up artifices that are internalized as "real" through a variety of oppressive mechanism that attempt to homogenize cultures, languages, religions within a given territory. They are produced through schooling, mass media, museums, holidays, etc., that people imagine as real and kill others because of that imagination!

Third, nations are inherently oppressive - even without a state to overtly police the boundaries of the nation. Not everyone in any country belong to the same nation, the same culture, have the same language, or history. The nation must somehow claim and assert commonality, which means erasing the culture of minorities, killing them, keeping others out, forcing a single language on them, etc. It happens as much in France and the US, as in Pakistan and India.

The nation-state is the most destructive artifice mankind has ever come up with, much more destructive than religion!

1

0w0 wrote

I agree. Hovever, do you know of an anarchist Pakistani article to know if the people there are talking about this? There was a magazine, The Arousal, but is not in circulation any more. There are socialist publications but question the nation state doesn't seem to be a current thinking in the pakistani society.

0

ziq wrote

There's no reason something like that would be in English.

1

0w0 wrote

Why not? English is an official language in Pakistan.

1

ziq wrote

It's an official language here too thanks to colonialism but no one would use it to write a radical takedown of the state.

2

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.

1

0w0 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?

2

JoeMemo wrote

The entire article can be summarized as "the state should really be nicer to us", it's just not worthy of attention.

1

0w0 wrote

Do you reccomend a Pakistani article that says something better?

1

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".

1

0w0 wrote (edited )

Read the Raddle Etiquette

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.

2

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.

1

0w0 wrote

Then why are we discussing it right now if there is no value in it?

2

0w0 wrote

1

[deleted] wrote

2

0w0 wrote

O sorry I didn't know that I had to edit the titles to seem interesting.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

0w0 wrote

In politics I only posted two articles today. I don't know how that's a lot.

1

JoeMemo wrote

But no one is looking at f/politics, we look at the front page.

1

0w0 wrote

That's not a good reason to violate the etiquette also. I don't control what is posted in the front page.

1

JoeMemo wrote (edited )

If that wiki were sacred you wouldn't have just 'violated' it by replying to the same comment twice instead of editing your initial comment.

1

0w0 wrote

Nobody is posting thats why you see a lot of my links, because I'm among the few that are posting things.