3 ms·

It is now clear Khashoggi was assassinated. Only in an authoritarian system, can dissent be permanently disabled by killing a human. In a democratic society, th

It is now clear Khashoggi was assassinated. Only in an authoritarian system, can dissent be permanently disabled by killing a human. In a democratic society, there is a well-defined process to determine the outcome of any event, including dissent. Never will I trade a humanitarian crisis for development. What's development for? It is for humans.

manfredo 8y ago
Is the widespread disenfranchisement of women and dependence on an economy that has disastrous effects on the environment not also a humanitarian crisis? If you were at the helm of a trolley-problem scenario, and you had to choose between equal rights for Saudi women and Khashoggi's death what would you choose? Personally, I wouldn't alter the lever either way. Both outcomes have a huge negative effect (disenfranchisement of millions on one end, murder on the other). Of course, this isn't the situation we're in. There's no certainty that Bin Salman will follow through on his promises; there's no guarantee that it wouldn't have been possible without this killing. Again, the goal here isn't to try and justify any action - assassination of a journalist is barbaric, full stop. As I've spoken to people that have lived under governments often considered immoral (Middle Eastern countries as mentioned earlier, China is another example) I've reflected on how moralistic one should be when viewing the world outside of liberal democracies, and I want to share that reflection with others.
- orsenthil 8y ago
  Solving the problem at scale requires a process change. It is driven by a conscious effort, and it is a slow outcome (think 100s of years). The process requires drafting and following the rule of law, and never side-stepping, or short-circuiting for personal gains. This killing of Jamal was a short-circuit with no positive consequence. It is barbaric, and regression due to extremists in USA, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. I cannot equate a trolly problem to this scenario.

manfredo 8y ago

Is the widespread disenfranchisement of women and dependence on an economy that has disastrous effects on the environment not also a humanitarian crisis? If you were at the helm of a trolley-problem scenario, and you had to choose between equal rights for Saudi women and Khashoggi's death what would you choose? Personally, I wouldn't alter the lever either way. Both outcomes have a huge negative effect (disenfranchisement of millions on one end, murder on the other). Of course, this isn't the situation we're in. There's no certainty that Bin Salman will follow through on his promises; there's no guarantee that it wouldn't have been possible without this killing. Again, the goal here isn't to try and justify any action - assassination of a journalist is barbaric, full stop. As I've spoken to people that have lived under governments often considered immoral (Middle Eastern countries as mentioned earlier, China is another example) I've reflected on how moralistic one should be when viewing the world outside of liberal democracies, and I want to share that reflection with others.

orsenthil 8y ago
Solving the problem at scale requires a process change. It is driven by a conscious effort, and it is a slow outcome (think 100s of years). The process requires drafting and following the rule of law, and never side-stepping, or short-circuiting for personal gains. This killing of Jamal was a short-circuit with no positive consequence. It is barbaric, and regression due to extremists in USA, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. I cannot equate a trolly problem to this scenario.