4 ms·

There's nothing slippery slope-y about a political party freezing the bank accounts of the opponents that are protesting against its policies in the streets. Ha

There's nothing slippery slope-y about a political party freezing the bank accounts of the opponents that are protesting against its policies in the streets. Had this been happening in the countries we (meaning the West) don't like the press would have been up in arms about it, for obvious reasons.

ethanbond 5y ago
The obvious reason being that the government in question is democratically elected and the ones that (probably) fall into “countries we don’t like” aren’t democratically elected?
- bombcar 5y ago
  Doesn't matter, all that matters is are they on "your side" or not. Had the USA froze assets of BLM and BLM-associated groups during 2020 the "democratically elected" wouldn't have stopped people complaining.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Right, nor is it stopping people from complaining now, is it?
- parthdesai 5y ago
  Explain this then? And in case you weren't aware, India is the largest democracy in the world https://twitter.com/rahulbetgeri/status/1494963031847337985 https://twitter.com/rahulbetgeri/status/1494963031847337985
  - known 5y ago
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    What’s there to explain? Are you under the impression that all protests are of equivalent legitimacy no matter what tactics they use, what their demands are, and what their non-protest alternatives are?
    - parthdesai 5y ago
      > The obvious reason being that the government in question is democratically elected and the ones that (probably) fall into “countries we don’t like” aren’t democratically elected? I mean India is the world's largest democracy, so clearly that's not the obvious reason. > Are you under the impression that all protests are of equivalent legitimacy no matter what tactics they use, what their demands are, and what their non-protest alternatives are? That doesn't justify freezing a person's bank account.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      Yes, in the sense that all protests should be held to the same standard by the government regardless of legimatcy. As in you can absolutely be against a portest that you don't agree with and deem illegitimate. But, the government does not get to decide what cause is "legitimate" to forbid a group from doing what they encouraged another group to do. The point of protesting is to protest against those in power, not to show how much you agree with them

ethanbond 5y ago

The obvious reason being that the government in question is democratically elected and the ones that (probably) fall into “countries we don’t like” aren’t democratically elected?

bombcar 5y ago
Doesn't matter, all that matters is are they on "your side" or not. Had the USA froze assets of BLM and BLM-associated groups during 2020 the "democratically elected" wouldn't have stopped people complaining.
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Right, nor is it stopping people from complaining now, is it?
parthdesai 5y ago
Explain this then? And in case you weren't aware, India is the largest democracy in the world https://twitter.com/rahulbetgeri/status/1494963031847337985 https://twitter.com/rahulbetgeri/status/1494963031847337985
- known 5y ago
- ethanbond 5y ago
  What’s there to explain? Are you under the impression that all protests are of equivalent legitimacy no matter what tactics they use, what their demands are, and what their non-protest alternatives are?
  - parthdesai 5y ago
    > The obvious reason being that the government in question is democratically elected and the ones that (probably) fall into “countries we don’t like” aren’t democratically elected? I mean India is the world's largest democracy, so clearly that's not the obvious reason. > Are you under the impression that all protests are of equivalent legitimacy no matter what tactics they use, what their demands are, and what their non-protest alternatives are? That doesn't justify freezing a person's bank account.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    Yes, in the sense that all protests should be held to the same standard by the government regardless of legimatcy. As in you can absolutely be against a portest that you don't agree with and deem illegitimate. But, the government does not get to decide what cause is "legitimate" to forbid a group from doing what they encouraged another group to do. The point of protesting is to protest against those in power, not to show how much you agree with them