I love how Article 3 of the declaration of human rights says

Everyone has the right to life

and then states just kill people. Like, why did we even bother to write it down?

Or, you know, as we talk democracy, talk to and convince other people?

As we do not share values, let’s disuss technicalities instead:

• what to do with immigrants, of whom we do not know the state of origin?
• what to do with immigrants where the state of origin does not want to take them back?

Then everybody is like “Muh, but Dublin rules”. Yeah right, because those will work out perfectly for Europe, when all the southern states are left alone with all the immigrants.

In consequence, every “we want immigration to go down” comes down to using brutal violence against those immigrants. And now we’re back to square one: questions about human rights ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Democrayies should bend to the will of the people

Yep, if one has an understanding of democracy pre-WW II

The new understanding the west came to agree upon also contained

Democracies should bend to the will of the people, but there are some unnegotiable core principles, which are to be upheld, even if the will of the people dictates differently. We call them human rights

Funnily enough those human rights basically are the extension of core Christian values, which are usually not considered progressive.

And among them are the right to asylum and the right not to be deported somewhere, where murder and torture are to be expected.

Yep NYT, what if for progressivism to flourish it needs to be less progressive and more reactionary and fascist?

Deep thoughts with The Deep.

At a friend’s wedding. He is known for being clumsy. Literally 30 seconds out of church after the ceremony. He shows off the ring, just hear a cartoonish pling pling and the ring rolls straight down the street drain in slow-mo. Next 30 minutes are spent recovering the ring, people in suits and dresses digging through the gutter XD