[ SECRET POST #3176 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3176 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Journey]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Absolutely Fabulous]


__________________________________________________



04.
(Sam Smith, Lana Del Rey, Shirley Bassey, Ellie Goulding)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Tim Drake, DC Comics]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Wakako-zake]


__________________________________________________



07.
[FIFA, World Soccer Championship]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Fear The Walking Dead]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Calvin Dyson - Bond Reviewer, The Anime Man, BobSamurai's Anime Reviews, Retroblasting, Oliver Harper's Retrospective and Reviews]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Higher Ground]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Beelzebub]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Steven Universe]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Robert Stack, Unsolved Mysteries]








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #454.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

1. The world's indifferent response to Syrian refugees. (Not "migrants." I made that mistake myself, but I wish I hadn't.)

2. Other people getting upset about it. Germany and Iceland taking them in with open arms.

There's hope.

[philstar22]

So agreed on 1. And the thing is, most of these countries have signed the 1951 Refugee treaty. The US has their own crazy interpretation of it that lest them say that not all asylum seekers are refugees. But most of these other countries hold to the broader interpretation that says all asylum seekers are refugees and that all refugees are to be granted asylum.

So they are violating the law by what they are doing. But of course no one will be held accountable because there are few actual remedies for violating international law.

[(Anonymous)]

If there are no remedies for it - no enforcement mechanisms and no penalties and none of that - in what sense does it deserved to be called a law at all? Really just fits into the broader fact that 'international law' is a complete misnomer and conceptually incoherent.

sorry just my one weird sticking point slash contrarian political theory

[philstar22]

Enforcement is weak (mostly in the area of human rights, some areas like maritime international law and trade international law are very enforced) because countries were afraid of threats to their sovereignty. And the US didn't help by not signing onto the International Court or ratifying most of the treaties.

However, it can be used in some ways. Certainly some pressure can be put on countries. And the solution to its weakness is to push for strengthening it, not to get rid of it altogether.

There are lots of domestic laws that aren't enforced too. They are still the law.

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that states are sovereign actors in and of itself points to the basic contradiction of international law as a concept. So does the fact that nations can choose to not participate in it with no real penalties or drawbacks. And it also points to the uselessness of most of it.

And I would say that you can put pressure on countries without international law, and that I'm too skeptical about the basis for the project to be sasnguine about strengthening it further.

[philstar22]

Some international law, at least, is necessary. Countries need to trade with each other. There need to be rules for how to use the oceans and seas and who they belong to. Money goes beyond borders and needs to be regulated. So you can't get rid of it altogether. And it has been around at least since European countries began to sail.

Sovereignty has never, ever been absolute. There are always restrictions. And, IMHO, sovereignty is important, but it isn't the most important thing. Things like human rights are superior and transcend borders and governments.

[(Anonymous)]

Probably tl;dr but I've been upset/fuming about this comment all week re the Syrian boy who drowned:


The father had left the life threatening war zone. His desire to rush to a fantasy of a better place ASAP to no heed of or care about the risks for his helpless children.The option to go on NOW was patently unsuitable, nearly double the passengers the boat was potentially able to carry safely. He took it.

Sure it will be a bad phase for a time, but it's memory he'll learn to supress, later most likely he'll remarry and have another family. No parent who is extremely attatched to their little ones takes such a risk once past the immanent immediate threats. Risking your childs death for better immediate or future conditions only makes sense if your concern was more about your own needs, this father could swim well enough.In all these shonky boat fatalities where there are survivors to be rescued or swim out of it are men with the deaths always children and women.

You need to stop presuming that such males have the same level of feeling for their children as presumably our caring men have. The fact this man can make so much noise about the event and speak to media implies he's not as deeply devestated. If he was, he'd be so overwhelmed , broken he'd be tearfuly mute, barely functioning. Anyway the origins of the main blame are the civil war in Syria, Isis, followed by people smugglers, disorganised management of refugees by EU countries heads, and finally fathers like him!


...totally lost my faith in humanity for a while. What's partially restored it is that some countries have been opening their borders, at least temporarily.

[(Anonymous)]

what the fuck is this shit

[(Anonymous)]

Fuck the person who wrote that, fuck them so much.

[a_potato]

Gods, there are so many things wrong with that.

I mean, first, if you believe that staying in a place means certain death for your children, then yes, you may very well make the choice to run with them on the chance that doing so will ensure their survival. He was fleeing with them from a war zone. How can this person argue that it would have been more caring for him to have stayed and subjected his children to that?

And second, everyone responds differently to grief. It's disgusting to suggest that there's only one correct response, and that if you don't respond in that way, then you must not truly care. Goodness.

[philstar22]

I would seriously like to punch that person. Fuck them with a rusty crowbar.

[(Anonymous)]

"The fact this man can make so much noise about the event and speak to media implies he's not as deeply devestated. If he was, he'd be so overwhelmed , broken he'd be tearfuly mute, barely functioning."

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, no. Just...no. Everyone handles grief in a variety of ways, there's no one set way to grieve.

That is one shitty as hell comment and the idiot who wrote it needs to be smacked upside the head. Hard.