4 ms·

My parents lived in Jordan (as expats) for over 30 years. Back in 1980, Jordan was a very modern country and had great rulers, my father was in good relations w

My parents lived in Jordan (as expats) for over 30 years. Back in 1980, Jordan was a very modern country and had great rulers, my father was in good relations with one of the king's sons (I don't remember which one) and he met the king several times, he was speaking highly about them and he considered Jordan one of the most modern and free Muslim countries. At the same time, rights and freedoms are limited in most of the world, not just in the Muslim countries. There is no first amendment anywhere outside USA, there is no second anywhere else, even in Europe the rights and freedoms are very limited. For example there is something similar to 1st amendment in the Romanian Constitution, but you can still go to jail just for opinions, while in UK even for thoughts (recent event confirms that). I would not bash the Muslim countries for brainwashing, everyone is doing it.

m0ntag 4y ago
Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. Though I do not see how mixing the state with any religion would help in this regard. But sure, let's bash all authoritarianism to avoid hypocrisy :D
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  I don't see how "everyone is doing it" is your reading of "some rights are more of an exception than a rule". What is the "do" part that everyone does? Not having it? The history is that there were no rights, then in some places some rights appeared, that means some countries are more or less behind, but not "doing it".
  - m0ntag 4y ago
    I am a bit confused by your reply. The "everyone is doing it" is your own words in reference to brainwashing? My statement was that I agree that western countries are likewise authoritarian and have issues with freedom of it's citizens. Nevertheless, I don't see a theocratic government as a step in the right direction to say the least.
    - AdrianB1 4y ago
      My point is that Muslim countries, the religion or their theocracy (limited to only few countries, to be honest) is not the cause of the lack of freedom, you can see the lack of freedom and rights everywhere. The history of the Old World (Europe, Asia) is the cause, while USA made a positive change and huge leap forward with their revolution. Canada, Australia and New Zeeland inherited too much lack of freedom from UK, in my opinion, and that is visible from far and beyond. Also these countries are bragging with their democracy and liberalism, not Saudi Arabia or Iran.
kmeisthax 4y ago
>There is no first amendment anywhere outside USA This is wrong on every level except technical[0]. While other countries in Europe aren't as free-speech extremist as the US, there are still protections on speech in those countries. The biggest exception to that I can see in France or Germany would be the constitutional prohibitions on being a literal Nazi[1]. I Googled "romanian arrested for opinions" and got a bunch of stuff about Andrew Tate. To be clear, he wasn't arrested for opinions, he was arrested for running a sex trafficking ring. I'll give you that the UK has some really scary anti-protest laws. Though to be clear, when I Googled "UK arrested for thoughts" I got one article about someone being arrested for praying in front of an abortion clinic, written by someone with an axe to grind about abortions. I've seen worse - I'm reminded of the recent push to ban Extinction Rebellion protests in that same country. Without more specifics I can't elaborate further beyond "UK bad". >there is no second (amendment) anywhere else sigh Say it with me now: The 2nd Amendment is not an adequate backstop against the abuse of government power. As a specific response to things the Brits did in the colonies, it's fine. But if there's, say, a fascist uprising in the US, I do not expect private gun ownership to save me. The amount of power that a government can wield in order to roadkill you is absolutely enormous, and makes your pile of AR-15s look like child's play. In order to fight back against tyranny, you need consensus about what the tyranny even is, and that's a whole load of collective action problems. They're also adversarial - as in, if the threat is internal, then your adversary is going to use this against you. If the tyranny only affects a small group of people, then they will not have the power to fight back, even in the case where they would need to resort to guns. [0] Well, they don't call it the First Amendment... [1] To be clear, this is an act of self-defense against censorship. Nazis do not give two shits about your freedom of speech, except if they can use the 1st Amendment to eat itself. Affording them freedom of speech is a fool's errand.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  Who was talking about Tate or "adequacy" of the second? It was just a list of examples of rights that don't exist outside USA, not about effectiveness, morality, adequacy etc. Want it or not, the world is mostly not free. Romanian law: Law 107 of 2006. UK: you can even find even lawyer's explanations for that prayer thing, with full details, just look for it. Please explain how most of European countries, for example, have free speech. Most don't, Australia and Canada don't, who is left ... China or North Korea?

m0ntag 4y ago

Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. Though I do not see how mixing the state with any religion would help in this regard. But sure, let's bash all authoritarianism to avoid hypocrisy :D

AdrianB1 4y ago
I don't see how "everyone is doing it" is your reading of "some rights are more of an exception than a rule". What is the "do" part that everyone does? Not having it? The history is that there were no rights, then in some places some rights appeared, that means some countries are more or less behind, but not "doing it".
- m0ntag 4y ago
  I am a bit confused by your reply. The "everyone is doing it" is your own words in reference to brainwashing? My statement was that I agree that western countries are likewise authoritarian and have issues with freedom of it's citizens. Nevertheless, I don't see a theocratic government as a step in the right direction to say the least.
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    My point is that Muslim countries, the religion or their theocracy (limited to only few countries, to be honest) is not the cause of the lack of freedom, you can see the lack of freedom and rights everywhere. The history of the Old World (Europe, Asia) is the cause, while USA made a positive change and huge leap forward with their revolution. Canada, Australia and New Zeeland inherited too much lack of freedom from UK, in my opinion, and that is visible from far and beyond. Also these countries are bragging with their democracy and liberalism, not Saudi Arabia or Iran.

kmeisthax 4y ago

>There is no first amendment anywhere outside USA This is wrong on every level except technical[0]. While other countries in Europe aren't as free-speech extremist as the US, there are still protections on speech in those countries. The biggest exception to that I can see in France or Germany would be the constitutional prohibitions on being a literal Nazi[1]. I Googled "romanian arrested for opinions" and got a bunch of stuff about Andrew Tate. To be clear, he wasn't arrested for opinions, he was arrested for running a sex trafficking ring. I'll give you that the UK has some really scary anti-protest laws. Though to be clear, when I Googled "UK arrested for thoughts" I got one article about someone being arrested for praying in front of an abortion clinic, written by someone with an axe to grind about abortions. I've seen worse - I'm reminded of the recent push to ban Extinction Rebellion protests in that same country. Without more specifics I can't elaborate further beyond "UK bad". >there is no second (amendment) anywhere else sigh Say it with me now: The 2nd Amendment is not an adequate backstop against the abuse of government power. As a specific response to things the Brits did in the colonies, it's fine. But if there's, say, a fascist uprising in the US, I do not expect private gun ownership to save me. The amount of power that a government can wield in order to roadkill you is absolutely enormous, and makes your pile of AR-15s look like child's play. In order to fight back against tyranny, you need consensus about what the tyranny even is, and that's a whole load of collective action problems. They're also adversarial - as in, if the threat is internal, then your adversary is going to use this against you. If the tyranny only affects a small group of people, then they will not have the power to fight back, even in the case where they would need to resort to guns. [0] Well, they don't call it the First Amendment... [1] To be clear, this is an act of self-defense against censorship. Nazis do not give two shits about your freedom of speech, except if they can use the 1st Amendment to eat itself. Affording them freedom of speech is a fool's errand.

AdrianB1 4y ago
Who was talking about Tate or "adequacy" of the second? It was just a list of examples of rights that don't exist outside USA, not about effectiveness, morality, adequacy etc. Want it or not, the world is mostly not free. Romanian law: Law 107 of 2006. UK: you can even find even lawyer's explanations for that prayer thing, with full details, just look for it. Please explain how most of European countries, for example, have free speech. Most don't, Australia and Canada don't, who is left ... China or North Korea?