Two things can be true. Khamenei is a tyrant and brainrotted Gen zigger Iranians are degens. That's all there is to it.
Human rights is an old Cold War political weapon. It was designed to stall revolutions by offering a bunch of universal rules that would protect ordinary people and who would enforce these laws? The great powers. There is nothing in human rights law that protects you from economic exploitation, being sanctioned by a foreign power so you die without life saving treatment or being killed as "collateral damage" in war. The debate over the legality of the nuclear strikes on Japan (mass murder of civilians) centers around proportionality (was it right to murder 100.000 civilians to kill 1,000 soldiers) and not if the attacks violated the human rights of the victims. In fact, human rights law doesn't protect you from nukes, a weapon that's only purpose is mass murder. So what does it protect? The right to private property, meaning that by definition any non-capitalist economy or even wealth redistribution is potentially a human rights violation. How convenient.
In most (sane) Western countries, its illegal for a woman to walk around naked. In Iran they simply extended this rule to covering the hair but this law is seen as a human rights violation. Why is one considered a sensible law and the other a human rights violation? The murder of civilians by the Iranian police is labelled a human rights violation but the murder of ordinary Americans by federal agents is considered simply police brutality. Its only when we realize that human rights is a political tool that any of this makes sense.
Two things can be true. Khamenei is a tyrant and brainrotted Gen zigger Iranians are degens. That's all there is to it.
Human rights is an old Cold War political weapon. It was designed to stall revolutions by offering a bunch of universal rules that would protect ordinary people and who would enforce these laws? The great powers. There is nothing in human rights law that protects you from economic exploitation, being sanctioned by a foreign power so you die without life saving treatment or being killed as "collateral damage" in war. The debate over the legality of the nuclear strikes on Japan (mass murder of civilians) centers around proportionality (was it right to murder 100.000 civilians to kill 1,000 soldiers) and not if the attacks violated the human rights of the victims. In fact, human rights law doesn't protect you from nukes, a weapon that's only purpose is mass murder. So what does it protect? The right to private property, meaning that by definition any non-capitalist economy or even wealth redistribution is potentially a human rights violation. How convenient.
In most (sane) Western countries, its illegal for a woman to walk around naked. In Iran they simply extended this rule to covering the hair but this law is seen as a human rights violation. Why is one considered a sensible law and the other a human rights violation? The murder of civilians by the Iranian police is labelled a human rights violation but the murder of ordinary Americans by federal agents is considered simply police brutality. Its only when we realize that human rights is a political tool that any of this makes sense.