4 ms·

> I don't see the emergence of divisiveness as a good thing. When people vote because they long to belong to a group, not because it is sensible policy, it will

> I don't see the emergence of divisiveness as a good thing. When people vote because they long to belong to a group, not because it is sensible policy, it will undermine the long term prosperity of said democracy. Well, it probably isn't when compared to an utopia. But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? Churchill was a divisive figure in the appeasement years, yet would it have been better if he had been silenced? > Don't more people worry about this? It's been a major topic for years. > Why do I get the feeling that too many people stick to the notion that democracy is automatically good, without considering possible reforms to address its current weaknesses? The Democratic Peace Theory[1], if true, is a damn good reason to see democracies as the best option, despite its weaknesses. The authors' point is that they believe China's current system will lead them to bloody battles instead of peaceful integration. It's not absurd to prefer the ugly divisiveness of current western democracies to war. > If we want China to accept democracy we can't just keep labeling them as 'evil' and call it a day, we should actually come up with a better sell. Is there any reason to think we can convince the CCP any way or the other? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

FooBarWidget 7y ago
> Well, it probably isn't when compared to an utopia. But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? We can be united in the wrong thing, true. But we can also head into an abyss because of divisiveness, which is equally dangerous (see Game of Thrones). I get the feeling that far too little attention is paid to this perspective. I see unity-divisiveness is a spectrum. There's the contemporary divisiveness where people become more and more polarized and people don't listen to each other, nor try to work with each other, but merely try to shutdown the other. There's also a more constructive kind of divisiveness (which is closer to the unity side) where people acknowledge that they have different opinions but try to work with each other nevertheless. There's no reason why we can't (or shouldn't) move the needle more towards "unified" even though there's no way we can (or should) reach it all the way. I don't see enough effort being put into promoting unity more, and that's worrying me. > But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? Churchill was a divisive figure in the appeasement years, yet would it have been better if he had been silenced? I have no answer to that. Perhaps people downvote me because they think I'm suggesting that he should be silenced (i.e. that I'm strongly in favor of CCP's way of doing things), but I'm not. > The Democratic Peace Theory[1], if true That is a big if, considering that the Wikipedia page lists pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 Germany (which were considered democracies) as examples of criticism on this idea. I personally do not believe China is interested in war (at least, not in the way WW2 Germany was), but I also admit that I know far too little about geopolitics to back up this opinion. > Is there any reason to think we can convince the CCP any way or the other? I don't think this is a productive question to ask, because you can ask it about any other entity too. I'd rather turn it around: is there any reason to think that convincing will fail 100% of the time? If the chance isn't 0%, and we are interested in the wellbeing of the Chinese people, then shouldn't we at least give a try no matter how small the chance is? Let's look at it another way: what are the alternatives? Can you go war to overthrow the CCP? Can you "enlighten" Chinese tourists so that when they go back home they'll overthrow the CCP? Can you overthrow the CCP with a trade war or economic sanctions? No. Convincing the CCP is literally the only option we get.

FooBarWidget 7y ago

> Well, it probably isn't when compared to an utopia. But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? We can be united in the wrong thing, true. But we can also head into an abyss because of divisiveness, which is equally dangerous (see Game of Thrones). I get the feeling that far too little attention is paid to this perspective. I see unity-divisiveness is a spectrum. There's the contemporary divisiveness where people become more and more polarized and people don't listen to each other, nor try to work with each other, but merely try to shutdown the other. There's also a more constructive kind of divisiveness (which is closer to the unity side) where people acknowledge that they have different opinions but try to work with each other nevertheless. There's no reason why we can't (or shouldn't) move the needle more towards "unified" even though there's no way we can (or should) reach it all the way. I don't see enough effort being put into promoting unity more, and that's worrying me. > But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? Churchill was a divisive figure in the appeasement years, yet would it have been better if he had been silenced? I have no answer to that. Perhaps people downvote me because they think I'm suggesting that he should be silenced (i.e. that I'm strongly in favor of CCP's way of doing things), but I'm not. > The Democratic Peace Theory[1], if true That is a big if, considering that the Wikipedia page lists pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 Germany (which were considered democracies) as examples of criticism on this idea. I personally do not believe China is interested in war (at least, not in the way WW2 Germany was), but I also admit that I know far too little about geopolitics to back up this opinion. > Is there any reason to think we can convince the CCP any way or the other? I don't think this is a productive question to ask, because you can ask it about any other entity too. I'd rather turn it around: is there any reason to think that convincing will fail 100% of the time? If the chance isn't 0%, and we are interested in the wellbeing of the Chinese people, then shouldn't we at least give a try no matter how small the chance is? Let's look at it another way: what are the alternatives? Can you go war to overthrow the CCP? Can you "enlighten" Chinese tourists so that when they go back home they'll overthrow the CCP? Can you overthrow the CCP with a trade war or economic sanctions? No. Convincing the CCP is literally the only option we get.