6 ms·

How is this any different from the Arab Spring? Why should this be silenced while the Arab Spring had to amplified?

by janzij 8y ago

ahje 8y ago
The cynical answer would be: Because it's inconvenient whereas the Arab spring was inconvenient to people we didn't like.
creaghpatr 8y ago
Because this is ‘bad’ while Arab Spring was ‘good’.
close04 8y ago
Because the protests against the democratically elected leadership during the Arab spring... Oh wait. You may hate something equally under any regime but there's a huge difference when that something is done in a democracy versus basically any other common form or government. In democracies issues can be (are?) solved at the election booth. Not so much in a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any "pseudo-democracy" (see China), etc.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  How do you feel about the US riots held for equal protection and rights from the cops? Morally inferior and less deserving of access to social media than the Muslim Brotherhood led riots overthrowing the Egyptian government and installing a (short lived) theocracy?
- zabana 8y ago
  > In democracies issues can be (are?) solved at the election booth. Not so much in a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any "pseudo-democracy" (see China), etc. These people were in these very same election booths last year so clearly issues aren't being solved that way. <rant> Also, we need to step down our high moral horse and stop patronizing other nations by bringing up our holy "democracies". There has been an increasing and almost delusional portrayal of countries like Russia, China, Iran etc. That's not to say they don't have flaws but let's just take a good long look at the mirror before we hop on the <insert non western nation> bashing hype train. </rant> Edit: formatting
  - fabricexpert 8y ago
    Go look in the mirror, you'll see much greater freedoms in western countries than any you've mentioned. The west doesn't actively persecute homosexuals, protects women's rights and supports a free press. The list goes on.
    - zabana 8y ago
      You're confusing democracy with freedom / progress my friend.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Then find me an autocracy with those freedoms.
        zabana 8y ago
        The United States of America.
  - close04 8y ago
    I'm not patronizing any nation or bringing up the "holy" democracy. Even jumping the gun and introducing that "holy" in there makes betrays your message's very... zealoty nature. That is entirely your wording and understanding. If you want to make a point do it without distorting the message you're replying to into oblivion. This being said, to this day there is no better real world alternative to democracy. I take it you know very little of how Russia and China work internally. It's going to sound cynical but if you did you'd appreciate the "lesser evil" of western democracy. Think at least of the fact that you're now free to express these opinions, as you do. You know the upside of democracy? With enough people behind you you can easily install dictatorship. The other way around needs slightly more sacrifices. Pretty sure those people fighting in the Arab spring against their not elected leaders weren't doing it just to jump on the bashing hype train ;).
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  Protesting is very democratic. South Korea showed that to the world. Sure, South Koreans could wait one more year and solve the problem at the election booth, but protesting solved the problem faster.
  - Veen 8y ago
    Protesting is one thing. Vandalism, looting, and firebombing are not legal protests.
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
      - Veen 8y ago
        Macron isn't Hitler or Pol Pot or George III. He wants to put the price of diesel up to reduce environmental damage. He wants to reduce taxes on the rich to spur the economy. You can disagree with those aims, but he's not destroying the French system of government. For that, look to Venezuela.
        janzij 8y ago
        He's a neoliberal who's screwing the working people, and now the working people are protesting. While I agree with the premise that they should've chosen someone else who cared about them like Le Pen, I don't see how this protest is illegitimate. (Not that I'm defending the property damage, of course.)
  - close04 8y ago
    Protesting yes. Breaking the law... maybe also democratic. This doesn't change the fact that there is no comparing this to Arab spring. The same act can have very different meaning in different contexts. In this case it doesn't feel like those protesters have exhausted their options before jumping to violence. As such this is a condemnable act.
Symmetry 8y ago
It's not. This is a phenomenon that'll probably keep going as long as we have pervasive social networks. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22451908-the-revolt-of-the-public-and-the-crisis-of-authority https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22451908-the-revolt-of-t...
Veen 8y ago
Because there is no moral equivalence between the despotisms of the middle east and the elected government of a secular democratic republic. Overturning tyrany is good. Attempting to overturn democracies in favor of mob rule is bad.
- janzij 8y ago
  Democracy is not the perfect system that some people purport it to be. You get someone elected, someone who is far from perfect but he's the only likely candidate to win, so what can you do. And then that person has 4 years to screw you over. That's not just.
  - seren 8y ago
    While not being perfect, that is still far better than regime in Zimbabwe, Venezuela or North Korea, where the head of state keeps the power as long as he is alive, or is replaced by force by another thug.
    - asianthrowaway 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure Venezuela was (and still is) a democracy. I think people tend to conflate liberalism (in the classical sense), and democracy. You can have undemocratic liberal states (the Austro-Hungarian empire was a good example).
      - Veen 8y ago
        Undemocratic liberal states only stay liberal for as long as suits wealthy elites. Venezuala is technically a democracy, but, as I said in another comment, you also need strong institutions for a functioning democracy. Venzuala has a weak court system and Maduro didn't allow opposition parties to take part in the 2017 presidential elections, so it's not exactly a model democracy.
  - Veen 8y ago
    Who said democracy is a perfect system? I certainly didn't. Democracy is flawed because people are flawed. But western representative democracy -- limited democracy supported by strong institutions -- is the best way to avoid autocracy on one side and mob rule on the other. There are no perfect solutions.
ocschwar 8y ago
The French protesters are not risking a stay in the Palmyra prison. (Warning: even text descriptions of what went on there are NSFL)

How is this any different from the Arab Spring? Why should this be silenced while the Arab Spring had to amplified?

by janzij 8y ago

How is this any different from the Arab Spring? Why should this be silenced while the Arab Spring had to amplified?

ahje 8y ago

The cynical answer would be: Because it's inconvenient whereas the Arab spring was inconvenient to people we didn't like.

creaghpatr 8y ago

Because this is ‘bad’ while Arab Spring was ‘good’.

close04 8y ago

Because the protests against the democratically elected leadership during the Arab spring... Oh wait. You may hate something equally under any regime but there's a huge difference when that something is done in a democracy versus basically any other common form or government. In democracies issues can be (are?) solved at the election booth. Not so much in a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any "pseudo-democracy" (see China), etc.

merpnderp 8y ago
How do you feel about the US riots held for equal protection and rights from the cops? Morally inferior and less deserving of access to social media than the Muslim Brotherhood led riots overthrowing the Egyptian government and installing a (short lived) theocracy?
zabana 8y ago
> In democracies issues can be (are?) solved at the election booth. Not so much in a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any "pseudo-democracy" (see China), etc. These people were in these very same election booths last year so clearly issues aren't being solved that way. <rant> Also, we need to step down our high moral horse and stop patronizing other nations by bringing up our holy "democracies". There has been an increasing and almost delusional portrayal of countries like Russia, China, Iran etc. That's not to say they don't have flaws but let's just take a good long look at the mirror before we hop on the <insert non western nation> bashing hype train. </rant> Edit: formatting
- fabricexpert 8y ago
  Go look in the mirror, you'll see much greater freedoms in western countries than any you've mentioned. The west doesn't actively persecute homosexuals, protects women's rights and supports a free press. The list goes on.
  - zabana 8y ago
    You're confusing democracy with freedom / progress my friend.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Then find me an autocracy with those freedoms.
      - zabana 8y ago
        The United States of America.
- close04 8y ago
  I'm not patronizing any nation or bringing up the "holy" democracy. Even jumping the gun and introducing that "holy" in there makes betrays your message's very... zealoty nature. That is entirely your wording and understanding. If you want to make a point do it without distorting the message you're replying to into oblivion. This being said, to this day there is no better real world alternative to democracy. I take it you know very little of how Russia and China work internally. It's going to sound cynical but if you did you'd appreciate the "lesser evil" of western democracy. Think at least of the fact that you're now free to express these opinions, as you do. You know the upside of democracy? With enough people behind you you can easily install dictatorship. The other way around needs slightly more sacrifices. Pretty sure those people fighting in the Arab spring against their not elected leaders weren't doing it just to jump on the bashing hype train ;).
sanxiyn 8y ago
Protesting is very democratic. South Korea showed that to the world. Sure, South Koreans could wait one more year and solve the problem at the election booth, but protesting solved the problem faster.
- Veen 8y ago
  Protesting is one thing. Vandalism, looting, and firebombing are not legal protests.
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
    - Veen 8y ago
      Macron isn't Hitler or Pol Pot or George III. He wants to put the price of diesel up to reduce environmental damage. He wants to reduce taxes on the rich to spur the economy. You can disagree with those aims, but he's not destroying the French system of government. For that, look to Venezuela.
      - janzij 8y ago
        He's a neoliberal who's screwing the working people, and now the working people are protesting. While I agree with the premise that they should've chosen someone else who cared about them like Le Pen, I don't see how this protest is illegitimate. (Not that I'm defending the property damage, of course.)
- close04 8y ago
  Protesting yes. Breaking the law... maybe also democratic. This doesn't change the fact that there is no comparing this to Arab spring. The same act can have very different meaning in different contexts. In this case it doesn't feel like those protesters have exhausted their options before jumping to violence. As such this is a condemnable act.

Symmetry 8y ago

It's not. This is a phenomenon that'll probably keep going as long as we have pervasive social networks. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22451908-the-revolt-of-the-public-and-the-crisis-of-authority https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22451908-the-revolt-of-t...

Veen 8y ago

Because there is no moral equivalence between the despotisms of the middle east and the elected government of a secular democratic republic. Overturning tyrany is good. Attempting to overturn democracies in favor of mob rule is bad.

janzij 8y ago
Democracy is not the perfect system that some people purport it to be. You get someone elected, someone who is far from perfect but he's the only likely candidate to win, so what can you do. And then that person has 4 years to screw you over. That's not just.
- seren 8y ago
  While not being perfect, that is still far better than regime in Zimbabwe, Venezuela or North Korea, where the head of state keeps the power as long as he is alive, or is replaced by force by another thug.
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure Venezuela was (and still is) a democracy. I think people tend to conflate liberalism (in the classical sense), and democracy. You can have undemocratic liberal states (the Austro-Hungarian empire was a good example).
    - Veen 8y ago
      Undemocratic liberal states only stay liberal for as long as suits wealthy elites. Venezuala is technically a democracy, but, as I said in another comment, you also need strong institutions for a functioning democracy. Venzuala has a weak court system and Maduro didn't allow opposition parties to take part in the 2017 presidential elections, so it's not exactly a model democracy.
- Veen 8y ago
  Who said democracy is a perfect system? I certainly didn't. Democracy is flawed because people are flawed. But western representative democracy -- limited democracy supported by strong institutions -- is the best way to avoid autocracy on one side and mob rule on the other. There are no perfect solutions.

ocschwar 8y ago

The French protesters are not risking a stay in the Palmyra prison. (Warning: even text descriptions of what went on there are NSFL)