3 ms·

Liberal reforms have been implemented by central governments al over the world. England -> Hong Kong, EU -> Poland, US -> Mississippi. That's just more whatabou

Liberal reforms have been implemented by central governments al over the world. England -> Hong Kong, EU -> Poland, US -> Mississippi. That's just more whataboutism. Where other countries fail to do that, I'll fault them just as strongly too. Not that it's relevant, since the Russian government isn't Muslim but Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran have all had governments that at some point implemented liberal reforms using state institutions. And they obviously imposed that on their provinces, just as Russia could - since Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya, not its 'Muslim' vassalage. How long those reforms held up is irrelevant to the effort put in, which Russia doesn't even attempt because its government hates liberalism. You've never spoken to anyone more critical or Daesh or of the instability the sudden US pullout will create in Afghanistan. And you've ignored my central argument. Dubai/Chechnya? It's pretty clear why you're deflecting. Just be upfront that your stance is pro-Putin and your bigotry anti-Muslim and save everyone the time.

thriftwy 4y ago
Ok, let's take a look at the examples. Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya. Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya. Egypt. Had a pointless coup which removed existing corrupt autocratic government and installed a new corrupt autocratic government, with a spark of terrorism in between. Large country which is punching under its weight. Worse outcome than Chechnya. Iraq. I'm not really sure what to say. Let's pretend you didn't suggest it. Iran. Had a lot of time to normalize relations with the West and failed to do so. In some respects a worse theocracy than Chechnya. Unlike Chechnya, which enjoys freedom of movement within Russia, you have nowhere to hide from the deeply islamist regime of Iran short of emigration. The largest outcast state (at least before Feb 24, 2022). Worse than Chechnya. So let's see, it looks that from your list, Chechnya gets silver medal. I think that's quite good. You think that's not enough. Do you agree on the analysis? "Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya" sounds like you expect imperialism to not have any alternatives. So you are saying that Russia can override whatever pre-existing culture there is and "install" liberal democracy? Did it work for you in Iraq? I'm not even sure what's your central argument. Speaking of which, let's return to the original form: "treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia". I think that being the virtual #2 of our successful Muslim states list an OK-ish "treatment". But it works a different way for you: > pro-Putin We don't like Putin -> We don't like Russia -> Let's say something mean about it. This is something I would expect from YouTube comments section, but on HN it's pure disappointment.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen war 15 years after the last one - because it will always be bastion of stability now and tinderboxes aren't a thing. All of those countries listed have had liberal periods (Iraq - check your history) but you fail to explain how the complex causes for subsequent breakdowns can be simply distilled down to 'because Islam'. As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance. I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country. Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry. We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    If having liberal periods does not lead to better outcome for a country, this is a very bad news for liberalism. The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for? I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.

thriftwy 4y ago

Ok, let's take a look at the examples. Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya. Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya. Egypt. Had a pointless coup which removed existing corrupt autocratic government and installed a new corrupt autocratic government, with a spark of terrorism in between. Large country which is punching under its weight. Worse outcome than Chechnya. Iraq. I'm not really sure what to say. Let's pretend you didn't suggest it. Iran. Had a lot of time to normalize relations with the West and failed to do so. In some respects a worse theocracy than Chechnya. Unlike Chechnya, which enjoys freedom of movement within Russia, you have nowhere to hide from the deeply islamist regime of Iran short of emigration. The largest outcast state (at least before Feb 24, 2022). Worse than Chechnya. So let's see, it looks that from your list, Chechnya gets silver medal. I think that's quite good. You think that's not enough. Do you agree on the analysis? "Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya" sounds like you expect imperialism to not have any alternatives. So you are saying that Russia can override whatever pre-existing culture there is and "install" liberal democracy? Did it work for you in Iraq? I'm not even sure what's your central argument. Speaking of which, let's return to the original form: "treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia". I think that being the virtual #2 of our successful Muslim states list an OK-ish "treatment". But it works a different way for you: > pro-Putin We don't like Putin -> We don't like Russia -> Let's say something mean about it. This is something I would expect from YouTube comments section, but on HN it's pure disappointment.

Sporktacular 4y ago
You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen war 15 years after the last one - because it will always be bastion of stability now and tinderboxes aren't a thing. All of those countries listed have had liberal periods (Iraq - check your history) but you fail to explain how the complex causes for subsequent breakdowns can be simply distilled down to 'because Islam'. As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance. I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country. Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry. We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  If having liberal periods does not lead to better outcome for a country, this is a very bad news for liberalism. The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for? I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.