6 ms·

Sadly, the West is looking more and more authoritarian though.

by nivenkos 4y ago

augment001 4y ago
Unfortunately so, but by comparison to China it has a very long way to go.
- aarreedd 4y ago
  This comment was marked as "dead" for couple minutes. Visible again now. I was about to ask why.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - akiselev 4y ago
    Likely registered via VPN or Tor.
- drekk 4y ago
  The US imprisons more of its own citizens per capita and in absolute terms than an "authoritarian" nation-state 4x its population. Remind us the last time China invaded a country as "liberators"? Seeing Americans of all people sit on a high horse is unreal. Like every yank forgot about "shock and awe" or "make their economy scream" It would be great to see westerners measure their own societies by the same yardstick. Mainly because as citizens ostensibly living in a democracy (representative republic, whatever) they are complicit and responsible for the choices of their elected bodies. We're not even a few years removed from protestors against police brutality in the US being whisked away in unmarked vans by people not in uniform. It's a race to the bottom and the US is already there, but nobody seems to care as long as they can pat themselves on the back for not being Russia/China.
  - ren_engineer 4y ago
    >Remind us the last time China invaded a country as "liberators" Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, Hong Kong? And constantly abusing other nations territorial waters for fishing and general intimidation
  - verdverm 4y ago
    In the US, the people can force change through protests and elections. What options do the Uyghurs or Chinese people have?
    - vkou 4y ago
      Do you want a real answer to this, or one that self-congratulates us, by playing to our biases and cultural myths, and generally poor understanding of how societies work? The same options that any people have. Soft power. Every government, be it formally representative or not, multi-party or dual-party, or single-party is ultimately only able to govern with the consent of the governed. There are always levers for people to push, and they do, and sometimes government responds and sometimes it does not, and this happens in every country. China has in most ways a worse system for responding to these demands than a system of fair elections, but it does have a system. Its leaders steer public opinion, but have to, in turn, also be steered by it - because their mandate doesn't come from a 4-year election (where they can do whatever the hell they want in the intervening years), it comes from a fear that unpopular dictators end up swinging from lamp posts (while unpopular elected representatives end up, at worst, in retirement). And even a system of fair elections will not protect a repressed minority that everyone wants to crap on. African or native Americans can protest and vote[1] all they want, but if the political zeitgeist sees them as a second-class minority, elections and getting tear-gassed and shot in the face with rubber-coated bullets isn't something that's going to bring about meaningful change. Meaningful change will only happen when they convince the people who hold political capital that they need to be treated like human beings. That doesn't happen at the polls, that happens through culture. There's a reason why the American right has declared a war against 'wokeness', and 'crt', and is trying to convince anyone that will listen that it is actually the underdog, the victim of unparalleled historic repression. It's not afraid of losing the culture war at the polls[2], it's afraid of losing the culture war in people's minds. The loss at the polls comes after. [1] Well, at least, in states that don't actively try to suppress and disenfranchise them. [2] Well, it is, hence gerrymandering, voter suppression, and all the rest.
SllX 4y ago
If this is true, you should substantiate this claim. More authoritarian compared to when? 1789? 1919? 1933? 1945? 1951? 1962? 1974? 1989? 2007? 2019?
- FpUser 4y ago
  Comparatively to before 911 for sure
  - SllX 4y ago
    Just prior to 9/11 or are you talking about the period between 1989 and 9/11?
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I see it with my own eyes that after 9/11 things are getting worse. Not sure how it is not clear from my previous answer
      - SllX 4y ago
        Sure! I don’t necessarily disagree, but what is your point of reference? If September 11th 2001 was the end of an era, what was the starting point of that era? The fall of the Berlin Wall? Something else? Was the period before that starting point more or less authoritarian than today?
      - edgyquant 4y ago
        That users point is that the first half of the Cold War was way more authoritarian and so pre-9/11 is not a benchmark in itself
      - throwawaymaths 4y ago
        I'm not sure you are old enough to remember but at one point a progressive president was aligned with the ku klux klan and put a dissenting socialist journalist in jail.... Just because. Not too long after (different president), shops were required to put emblems in their window showing they supported the regime's economic plan.
dathinab 4y ago
yes but still far far less then china its just you hear about all the problems from the west you mainly only hear about problems from China when they are in context of the west, china is enacting a lot of pressure and tricks to greatly reduce negative reporting about it especially about china's inner politics. Most western people speaking English but but Mandarin helps then there too.

Sadly, the West is looking more and more authoritarian though.

augment001 4y ago

Unfortunately so, but by comparison to China it has a very long way to go.

aarreedd 4y ago
This comment was marked as "dead" for couple minutes. Visible again now. I was about to ask why.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  [flagged]
- akiselev 4y ago
  Likely registered via VPN or Tor.
drekk 4y ago
The US imprisons more of its own citizens per capita and in absolute terms than an "authoritarian" nation-state 4x its population. Remind us the last time China invaded a country as "liberators"? Seeing Americans of all people sit on a high horse is unreal. Like every yank forgot about "shock and awe" or "make their economy scream" It would be great to see westerners measure their own societies by the same yardstick. Mainly because as citizens ostensibly living in a democracy (representative republic, whatever) they are complicit and responsible for the choices of their elected bodies. We're not even a few years removed from protestors against police brutality in the US being whisked away in unmarked vans by people not in uniform. It's a race to the bottom and the US is already there, but nobody seems to care as long as they can pat themselves on the back for not being Russia/China.
- ren_engineer 4y ago
  >Remind us the last time China invaded a country as "liberators" Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, Hong Kong? And constantly abusing other nations territorial waters for fishing and general intimidation
- verdverm 4y ago
  In the US, the people can force change through protests and elections. What options do the Uyghurs or Chinese people have?
  - vkou 4y ago
    Do you want a real answer to this, or one that self-congratulates us, by playing to our biases and cultural myths, and generally poor understanding of how societies work? The same options that any people have. Soft power. Every government, be it formally representative or not, multi-party or dual-party, or single-party is ultimately only able to govern with the consent of the governed. There are always levers for people to push, and they do, and sometimes government responds and sometimes it does not, and this happens in every country. China has in most ways a worse system for responding to these demands than a system of fair elections, but it does have a system. Its leaders steer public opinion, but have to, in turn, also be steered by it - because their mandate doesn't come from a 4-year election (where they can do whatever the hell they want in the intervening years), it comes from a fear that unpopular dictators end up swinging from lamp posts (while unpopular elected representatives end up, at worst, in retirement). And even a system of fair elections will not protect a repressed minority that everyone wants to crap on. African or native Americans can protest and vote[1] all they want, but if the political zeitgeist sees them as a second-class minority, elections and getting tear-gassed and shot in the face with rubber-coated bullets isn't something that's going to bring about meaningful change. Meaningful change will only happen when they convince the people who hold political capital that they need to be treated like human beings. That doesn't happen at the polls, that happens through culture. There's a reason why the American right has declared a war against 'wokeness', and 'crt', and is trying to convince anyone that will listen that it is actually the underdog, the victim of unparalleled historic repression. It's not afraid of losing the culture war at the polls[2], it's afraid of losing the culture war in people's minds. The loss at the polls comes after. [1] Well, at least, in states that don't actively try to suppress and disenfranchise them. [2] Well, it is, hence gerrymandering, voter suppression, and all the rest.

SllX 4y ago

If this is true, you should substantiate this claim. More authoritarian compared to when? 1789? 1919? 1933? 1945? 1951? 1962? 1974? 1989? 2007? 2019?

FpUser 4y ago
Comparatively to before 911 for sure
- SllX 4y ago
  Just prior to 9/11 or are you talking about the period between 1989 and 9/11?
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I see it with my own eyes that after 9/11 things are getting worse. Not sure how it is not clear from my previous answer
    - SllX 4y ago
      Sure! I don’t necessarily disagree, but what is your point of reference? If September 11th 2001 was the end of an era, what was the starting point of that era? The fall of the Berlin Wall? Something else? Was the period before that starting point more or less authoritarian than today?
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      That users point is that the first half of the Cold War was way more authoritarian and so pre-9/11 is not a benchmark in itself
    - throwawaymaths 4y ago
      I'm not sure you are old enough to remember but at one point a progressive president was aligned with the ku klux klan and put a dissenting socialist journalist in jail.... Just because. Not too long after (different president), shops were required to put emblems in their window showing they supported the regime's economic plan.

dathinab 4y ago

yes but still far far less then china its just you hear about all the problems from the west you mainly only hear about problems from China when they are in context of the west, china is enacting a lot of pressure and tricks to greatly reduce negative reporting about it especially about china's inner politics. Most western people speaking English but but Mandarin helps then there too.