7 ms·

Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press. He does know that that won't ever happen because he wanted. But most the voters of his party will b

by gkya 11y ago

Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press. He does know that that won't ever happen because he wanted. But most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc. This is not that obvious to the opposition. I came to know some supporters only recently, and boy, they have arousals when the guy acts like this. I'm a Turkish citizen BTW. And see, criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough. Criticise Ataturk, and what happens? Lawsuits, and you'll probably be jailed (1). Say that the Armenian Genocide happened, you'll be jailed. Criticise the party leaders, and they sack half of the party, e.g. the recent MHP situation. Erdogan does not like criticism, but it's our culture that allows him to actually enforce a surpression thereof. There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. Here there still is a godly ruling class, the class of devlet buyukleri. Until they become merely the citizens with the duty to decide for us for a limited time and with full responsabilities, the status quo will go on. (1) A very recent example is the havoc against a documentary that criticised him.

madaxe_again 11y ago
It's almost like an Ottoman revival, except less inclusive. I wonder, will Erdogan bring back Janissaries? Or has he already through his full control of the security forces?
- gkya 11y ago
  Ottoman? Janissaries, for a time, were so active in deciding who would be the sultan that, they were abolished by, IIRC, sultan Mahmud II. Erdogan has subjugated the police and the army, which were in the past very active in the political scene (frequent coups d'état, many parliamenters from veterans). And I guess if we preserved the ruling house like the Brits and the spaniards did, and also some form of the Caliphate that acted like Vatican, maybe the things would be easier (I'm a secular agnostic, and I'm completely anti-nationalist). Nowadays there is no entity that is respected as a unifier of the Muslim world. And further, maybe the Empire was better for middle-east. Here, the nation failed, for the bindings among people are mostly based on kinship, belonging to the same mahalle and memleket, and ultimately religion. But in Turkey you'll find many adjacent mosques and churches, for, AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects.
  - steve19 11y ago
    "Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects." Only if you ignore the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians and other minority Christian groups. Think before you write. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
    - gkya 11y ago
      Put your reading glasses on. And mind your language. There are many armenian citizens of turkey, maybe I'm one of them? Where do I say that I'm ethnically turkish? Think before you write. I say this, in the sentence before the one you quote: > AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. The genocide happened during the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. Armenians were under Ottoman rule since long before, so were Greeks.
studentrob 11y ago
> Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press It hurts your country's ability to leverage foreign minds when you begin to censor the outside world. Plus, with the internet, censorship becomes really impractical. China and North Korea don't do this completely successfully and they spend a lot of effort to keep their citizens on some form of lock down. So not only do you end up missing out on the collective conscience of foreigners, but you also lose some portion of your own population's trust and creativity. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working together to solve problems in an open, concerted manner. I'm not saying our world is perfect but I think it's fairly obvious that censorship, in the days of the internet, is not the right way to the future. We need to get over ourselves, stop being so sensitive, and recognize that even when governments make laws to protect people's feelings, people will still say mean and negative things. I don't want to read those garbage comments here on HN because it fills up the thread, but I can tolerate them in the real world because I know I can just walk away. The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence, and I'm sorry to all the extremist Muslims, but drawing a picture is not viewed as inciting violence by most of the world, including most of the people who follow similar forms of that faith.
- gkya 11y ago
  Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business. > The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...] Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
jimbokun 11y ago
A preview of what's in store if the U.S. somehow manages to elect Trump.
- gkya 11y ago
  Rather, a thumbnail. The US actually does have the power to f*ck the world up, unlike our guy, who can only aspire to do so.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  Unlike pissant, shitholes like the UK, France, or Canada we have a first amendment. Obama and Trump can suck my dick.
  - dang 11y ago
    Please don't do this here.
- flatline 11y ago
  Trump is primarily playing off a base of xenophobia and isolationism, for which Americans have always had a certain luxury due to our geographic isolation from the rest of the world. For our one neighbor to the South, he wants to build a wall. I see nothing that would indicate a stifling of the press, individual rights to free expression and assembly, rigged elections, and all the other problems facing Turkey today.
  - untothebreach 11y ago
    I disagree, I believe there would definitely be effects to freedom of the press and free expression. Trump's opinion of the press is well-documented[1], as well as his opinion on free speech[2][3]. 1: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-not-people.html http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-n... 2: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866 http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-... 3: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/business/media/25trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/business/media/25trump.htm...
Grishnakh 11y ago
>There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. What are divorce laws like in Turkey? I'm betting this guy just wanted to get rid of his wife, and found this to be a convenient way to do so.
- gkya 11y ago
  Sound and modern. No need to pull a divorce italian style.
usrusr 11y ago
> most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc. It's even "better" than that, because it is so easy for a leader to re-spin outside criticism from "attack against me" to "attack against us", strengthening his position internally. And this pattern is not even limited to dictators and the like: when Americans made fun of Bush junior, it was perfectly fine application of of free speech. If Europeans did the same, it was antiamericanism making Americans rally around the flag to protect him. So in the interplay between international and domestic opinion, there seems to be some kind of inverse Streisand effect. Can we please have a word for that? It would make the whole world easier to understand... (german has "Burgfriedensmentalität“, but that is the resulting state, not the mechanism that causes it)
tremon 11y ago
criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough So it really is forbidden, just not enforced until you actually start making an impact?
- gkya 11y ago
  The figure of Ataturk and the Turkish national identitiy are immune to any pejorative terms de jure. The rest is forbidden de facto, that is, if you are strong enough, you can try to silence the opposition with lawsuits for hate speech, public insulting, and treason, and laws for detention can be abused to keep them at lenght in prison. See the recent Can Dundar-Ekrem Gul case for treason and publication of statal secrets. So it's mostly an abuse of the law via installed judges and misuse of the constitution. The parliamenters are immune to lawsuits during their duty, so it's easier for them to act so.
nkoren 11y ago
Thanks for explaining this. I was struggling to understand Erdogan's tactics. On the surface they seem simply idiotic: the Streisand effect is hardly news, so the result of protesting this video is utterly, utterly predictable whose been paying attention to the world at any point over the past 20 years. But however much I might disagree with Erdogan, I know that he probably isn't actually be an idiot: people who can grab and hold that much power rarely are. Your explanation of how he's manufacturing this kerfuffle for a domestic audience makes a lot more sense.

by gkya 11y ago

madaxe_again 11y ago

It's almost like an Ottoman revival, except less inclusive. I wonder, will Erdogan bring back Janissaries? Or has he already through his full control of the security forces?

gkya 11y ago
Ottoman? Janissaries, for a time, were so active in deciding who would be the sultan that, they were abolished by, IIRC, sultan Mahmud II. Erdogan has subjugated the police and the army, which were in the past very active in the political scene (frequent coups d'état, many parliamenters from veterans). And I guess if we preserved the ruling house like the Brits and the spaniards did, and also some form of the Caliphate that acted like Vatican, maybe the things would be easier (I'm a secular agnostic, and I'm completely anti-nationalist). Nowadays there is no entity that is respected as a unifier of the Muslim world. And further, maybe the Empire was better for middle-east. Here, the nation failed, for the bindings among people are mostly based on kinship, belonging to the same mahalle and memleket, and ultimately religion. But in Turkey you'll find many adjacent mosques and churches, for, AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects.
- steve19 11y ago
  "Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects." Only if you ignore the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians and other minority Christian groups. Think before you write. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
  - gkya 11y ago
    Put your reading glasses on. And mind your language. There are many armenian citizens of turkey, maybe I'm one of them? Where do I say that I'm ethnically turkish? Think before you write. I say this, in the sentence before the one you quote: > AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. The genocide happened during the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. Armenians were under Ottoman rule since long before, so were Greeks.

studentrob 11y ago

> Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press It hurts your country's ability to leverage foreign minds when you begin to censor the outside world. Plus, with the internet, censorship becomes really impractical. China and North Korea don't do this completely successfully and they spend a lot of effort to keep their citizens on some form of lock down. So not only do you end up missing out on the collective conscience of foreigners, but you also lose some portion of your own population's trust and creativity. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working together to solve problems in an open, concerted manner. I'm not saying our world is perfect but I think it's fairly obvious that censorship, in the days of the internet, is not the right way to the future. We need to get over ourselves, stop being so sensitive, and recognize that even when governments make laws to protect people's feelings, people will still say mean and negative things. I don't want to read those garbage comments here on HN because it fills up the thread, but I can tolerate them in the real world because I know I can just walk away. The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence, and I'm sorry to all the extremist Muslims, but drawing a picture is not viewed as inciting violence by most of the world, including most of the people who follow similar forms of that faith.

gkya 11y ago
Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business. > The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...] Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

jimbokun 11y ago

A preview of what's in store if the U.S. somehow manages to elect Trump.

gkya 11y ago
Rather, a thumbnail. The US actually does have the power to f*ck the world up, unlike our guy, who can only aspire to do so.
mikerichards 11y ago
Unlike pissant, shitholes like the UK, France, or Canada we have a first amendment. Obama and Trump can suck my dick.
- dang 11y ago
  Please don't do this here.
flatline 11y ago
Trump is primarily playing off a base of xenophobia and isolationism, for which Americans have always had a certain luxury due to our geographic isolation from the rest of the world. For our one neighbor to the South, he wants to build a wall. I see nothing that would indicate a stifling of the press, individual rights to free expression and assembly, rigged elections, and all the other problems facing Turkey today.
- untothebreach 11y ago
  I disagree, I believe there would definitely be effects to freedom of the press and free expression. Trump's opinion of the press is well-documented[1], as well as his opinion on free speech[2][3]. 1: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-not-people.html http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-n... 2: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866 http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-... 3: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/business/media/25trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/business/media/25trump.htm...

Grishnakh 11y ago

>There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. What are divorce laws like in Turkey? I'm betting this guy just wanted to get rid of his wife, and found this to be a convenient way to do so.

gkya 11y ago
Sound and modern. No need to pull a divorce italian style.

usrusr 11y ago

> most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc. It's even "better" than that, because it is so easy for a leader to re-spin outside criticism from "attack against me" to "attack against us", strengthening his position internally. And this pattern is not even limited to dictators and the like: when Americans made fun of Bush junior, it was perfectly fine application of of free speech. If Europeans did the same, it was antiamericanism making Americans rally around the flag to protect him. So in the interplay between international and domestic opinion, there seems to be some kind of inverse Streisand effect. Can we please have a word for that? It would make the whole world easier to understand... (german has "Burgfriedensmentalität“, but that is the resulting state, not the mechanism that causes it)

tremon 11y ago

criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough So it really is forbidden, just not enforced until you actually start making an impact?

gkya 11y ago
The figure of Ataturk and the Turkish national identitiy are immune to any pejorative terms de jure. The rest is forbidden de facto, that is, if you are strong enough, you can try to silence the opposition with lawsuits for hate speech, public insulting, and treason, and laws for detention can be abused to keep them at lenght in prison. See the recent Can Dundar-Ekrem Gul case for treason and publication of statal secrets. So it's mostly an abuse of the law via installed judges and misuse of the constitution. The parliamenters are immune to lawsuits during their duty, so it's easier for them to act so.

nkoren 11y ago

Thanks for explaining this. I was struggling to understand Erdogan's tactics. On the surface they seem simply idiotic: the Streisand effect is hardly news, so the result of protesting this video is utterly, utterly predictable whose been paying attention to the world at any point over the past 20 years. But however much I might disagree with Erdogan, I know that he probably isn't actually be an idiot: people who can grab and hold that much power rarely are. Your explanation of how he's manufacturing this kerfuffle for a domestic audience makes a lot more sense.