4 ms·

The author talks about how we are quick to criticize some non-western infringements on rights, but when western countries (like Australia and now Canada) violat

The author talks about how we are quick to criticize some non-western infringements on rights, but when western countries (like Australia and now Canada) violate people's rights we pretend its different. I'm not disputing this, just want to add that I think internal criticism is harder for most people, especially blind adherents to whatever system. For example, I bet Iranians that support their government probably look at western countries and have all kinds of criticisms, but have a hard time applying that same critique to Iran and its allies (just a made up example, I don't know anything about Iran really). So it's more about human nature. We need more questioning an less blind conformance generally.

bigcat123 5y ago
Well it's not about self criticism is harder. It's about rejecting self criticism at all. If you think today the media have a shred of self criticism in the true sense, I.e., they demand things to be changed based on their criticism of the said system, let's say, for example, on the liberal ideology. You will find none. The so-called criticism is nothing more than a quick trigger to release the emotional tension of the viewers. What the author pointed out as a symptom, is the result of the systematic dumbdown of the population by our comparative overload, who might or might not have been conscious about it.
ethbr0 5y ago
I had an interesting conversation with a Bahraini supporter of Iran's government, regarding democracy. He pointed at flaws in the US system. I defended them. I pointed at flaws in the Iranian system. He defended them. We both had good points. F.ex. in his version, the Guardian Council's vetting and required approval of candidates was because "You couldn't have a goat herder be elected president." Which, valid point! It sucks for everyone when democracies elect incompetent people. It's a tension between purer democracy (risking bad winners, but increasing freedom) and more restricted democracy (decreasing risk, but also freedom). There's a reason Kant defined the categorical imperative [0] to cut all ways: because right must be right everywhere, for everyone. "Right for me", but "wrong for you" is indefensible. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
threeseed 5y ago
I am assuming you’re not Australian or Canadian. In both countries the focus is on society and community over the individual. So a person’s individual rights are actually quite limited and the overwhelming majority are perfectly fine with this. For example, Victoria had the longest and harshest lockdown in the world and the government is still massively popular.

bigcat123 5y ago

Well it's not about self criticism is harder. It's about rejecting self criticism at all. If you think today the media have a shred of self criticism in the true sense, I.e., they demand things to be changed based on their criticism of the said system, let's say, for example, on the liberal ideology. You will find none. The so-called criticism is nothing more than a quick trigger to release the emotional tension of the viewers. What the author pointed out as a symptom, is the result of the systematic dumbdown of the population by our comparative overload, who might or might not have been conscious about it.

ethbr0 5y ago

I had an interesting conversation with a Bahraini supporter of Iran's government, regarding democracy. He pointed at flaws in the US system. I defended them. I pointed at flaws in the Iranian system. He defended them. We both had good points. F.ex. in his version, the Guardian Council's vetting and required approval of candidates was because "You couldn't have a goat herder be elected president." Which, valid point! It sucks for everyone when democracies elect incompetent people. It's a tension between purer democracy (risking bad winners, but increasing freedom) and more restricted democracy (decreasing risk, but also freedom). There's a reason Kant defined the categorical imperative [0] to cut all ways: because right must be right everywhere, for everyone. "Right for me", but "wrong for you" is indefensible. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

threeseed 5y ago

I am assuming you’re not Australian or Canadian. In both countries the focus is on society and community over the individual. So a person’s individual rights are actually quite limited and the overwhelming majority are perfectly fine with this. For example, Victoria had the longest and harshest lockdown in the world and the government is still massively popular.