6 ms·

If this is true, it suggests many Russians actually want their country to become a democracy: > Objectively — though it’s awkward to say — the book has become

by cs702 3y ago

If this is true, it suggests many Russians actually want their country to become a democracy: > Objectively — though it’s awkward to say — the book has become a bit of a phenomenon. But the book, “The End of the Regime: How Three European Dictatorships Ended”, is not about Russia or Vladimir Putin. It’s about three dictatorships — those of Francisco Franco in Spain, Antonio Salazar in Portugal and the colonels in Greece — and how those countries became democracies, returning to the global fold. A large number of Russians haven’t suddenly taken an interest in the history of 20th-century Southern Europe. Rather, discussions of the book have common themes: How do prolonged right-wing dictatorships end? And can Russia become a democracy?

take-10 3y ago
[flagged]
- throw74774 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Russians are of course allowed to post on HN. We don't exclude people because of their country. In fact we don't exclude any population, not only (or even primarily) for ethical reasons but because it would be bad for intellectual curiosity, which is what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). We do ask HN users, from any country or population, to stick to the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and in particular not to post in the flamewar style.
  - take-10 3y ago
    But this is a lie, "dang". Your mythical "site rules", don't prevent people here to justify terrorism inside Russia, call to violence against Russian people, or insults of ethnic character. Just as they don't prevent people from doing it on any other major western public forum. What they do prevent, on the other hand, is expressing point of view which is not aligned, at least partially, to the "point of view" of your state department. There might be no offensive speech in the comments you block, they are just politically unacceptable.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      I don't know what you are on, I admitted in multiple comments on HN over the past year that I was russian. Never got any "calls to violence" or "insults of ethnic character" or heard people justifying terrorism inside russia in replies. The few attempts at insults against russians that I've seen on HN (not even against me, but somewhere in deep down in random related threads) were either extremely downvoted or flagged. If you said "on reddit", that would have been a different story, especially on their large frontpage subs. But reddit comments in general tend to be extremely moronic at times on all sides, so that's not really a surprise.
    - dang 3y ago
      You're right - rules don't prevent people from breaking the rules. I'm just telling you what the rules are, and what their intended spirit is. I'm not telling you that every commenter conforms to them—that's definitely not the case, as you're describing. When we see comments breaking the rules, we ask them not to (and ban users who don't stop). But we only see a small minority of what gets posted to HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). There's another aspect. HN can't be immune from macro trends (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20trends%20macro&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Although HN is a highly international site (only 50% US if not less), its demographics are majority Western, so discourse here will inevitably be dominated by Western views regardless of how we moderate. Moderation power is limited. That puts users with non-Western views in a delicate position. All I can tell you is that as moderators, we're on the side of including minorities, not excluding them. I've defended countless minority users when the majority is ganging up on them, and that will be the case for as long as I'm moderating HN, whenever I see it happening. But we need users from those groups to do their part as well. What happens all too easily and often is that users from the minority groups, feeling stung by the majority, lash back aggressively in a way that breaks the rules. This puts the moderators in a double bind: we can't condone breaking the rules, and we also don't want to exclude minority users, making the minority even smaller. The only solution I know is to persuade you (i.e. you personally and others in this position) that it isn't in your interest to break the rules like that. Your reasons for doing it, and the emotions behind it, are understandable—but the effect of such posts is to discredit your own views (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). This marginalizes you even further—it just gives the majority fresh confirmation that you're wrong and they're right. This doesn't improve your position. What you should do instead—though I know it is not easy—is strictly, scrupulously, meticulously stick to the rules while laying out your position. Let others be the ones to become aggressive and call names and flame. Who knows, maybe they won't! and then you can have the respectful conversation that HN is supposed to be for. But if they do, at least it will be they who are discrediting their own position, rather than you.
yazzku 3y ago
Of course there are many Russians that want an end to the regime. At least, every Russian I know. Why wouldn't they?
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Russians do indeed want to have some different regime eventually, but usually not at cost of losing the war, having their economy destroyed or getting their country torn apart, etc. Only the young 'children of summer' generation who did not witness 1991 fallout would root for immediate uncontrolled regime change via revolution. Hence it is not a very popular point, and many of its adherents have fleed the country.
  - netsharc 3y ago
    Interesting keyword, "regime". Seems like many dictatorships fell in the last decade, in the Arab world, to be replaced by other tyrannical leaders or civil war. Russia seems to have a lot of people in good seats to be a Putin replacement, of course most of them with the same goal of Putin's, i.e. self-enrichment. And to be in such a seat you're usually rich and powerful... And if you're not rich/powerful, you still need their support to be leader, and give them a quid-pro-quo and be nice to them. Just like in many democracies...
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I don't think you're interpreting the case of Vladimir Putin clearly. It's quite obvious he will not have any chance to actually use his money that he may have stowed away. Autocrats don't get to retire. He also has no official family, his suspected relatives are quite well off but nothing spectacular. And it's hard to explain why a kleptocrat would want to start a war which will make his funds actively sought after all across globe and confiscated wherever found. Whatever cuckoo bananas framework of State government Galkovsky has, it sounds more believeable than naive Navalnist "con men and thieves" with regards to Putin. The other people you've mentioned may fit the kleptocrat profile perfectly, but it's hard to argue how the war would benefit their prospects of keeping that money. That's also the weak link of Navalnist's "Putin builds his palace" narrative - it's obvious that for any palace built, Putin does not get to enjoy it now and he certainly is not going to enjoy it afterwards, so it can't be his palace.
jfengel 3y ago
I'm really bad with modern European history, so perhaps you can give me the short version: How bad was it? Did any of those countries become modern states without a ton of bloodshed?

by cs702 3y ago

take-10 3y ago

[flagged]

throw74774 3y ago
[flagged]
dang 3y ago
Russians are of course allowed to post on HN. We don't exclude people because of their country. In fact we don't exclude any population, not only (or even primarily) for ethical reasons but because it would be bad for intellectual curiosity, which is what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). We do ask HN users, from any country or population, to stick to the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and in particular not to post in the flamewar style.
- take-10 3y ago
  But this is a lie, "dang". Your mythical "site rules", don't prevent people here to justify terrorism inside Russia, call to violence against Russian people, or insults of ethnic character. Just as they don't prevent people from doing it on any other major western public forum. What they do prevent, on the other hand, is expressing point of view which is not aligned, at least partially, to the "point of view" of your state department. There might be no offensive speech in the comments you block, they are just politically unacceptable.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    I don't know what you are on, I admitted in multiple comments on HN over the past year that I was russian. Never got any "calls to violence" or "insults of ethnic character" or heard people justifying terrorism inside russia in replies. The few attempts at insults against russians that I've seen on HN (not even against me, but somewhere in deep down in random related threads) were either extremely downvoted or flagged. If you said "on reddit", that would have been a different story, especially on their large frontpage subs. But reddit comments in general tend to be extremely moronic at times on all sides, so that's not really a surprise.
  - dang 3y ago
    You're right - rules don't prevent people from breaking the rules. I'm just telling you what the rules are, and what their intended spirit is. I'm not telling you that every commenter conforms to them—that's definitely not the case, as you're describing. When we see comments breaking the rules, we ask them not to (and ban users who don't stop). But we only see a small minority of what gets posted to HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). There's another aspect. HN can't be immune from macro trends (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20trends%20macro&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Although HN is a highly international site (only 50% US if not less), its demographics are majority Western, so discourse here will inevitably be dominated by Western views regardless of how we moderate. Moderation power is limited. That puts users with non-Western views in a delicate position. All I can tell you is that as moderators, we're on the side of including minorities, not excluding them. I've defended countless minority users when the majority is ganging up on them, and that will be the case for as long as I'm moderating HN, whenever I see it happening. But we need users from those groups to do their part as well. What happens all too easily and often is that users from the minority groups, feeling stung by the majority, lash back aggressively in a way that breaks the rules. This puts the moderators in a double bind: we can't condone breaking the rules, and we also don't want to exclude minority users, making the minority even smaller. The only solution I know is to persuade you (i.e. you personally and others in this position) that it isn't in your interest to break the rules like that. Your reasons for doing it, and the emotions behind it, are understandable—but the effect of such posts is to discredit your own views (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). This marginalizes you even further—it just gives the majority fresh confirmation that you're wrong and they're right. This doesn't improve your position. What you should do instead—though I know it is not easy—is strictly, scrupulously, meticulously stick to the rules while laying out your position. Let others be the ones to become aggressive and call names and flame. Who knows, maybe they won't! and then you can have the respectful conversation that HN is supposed to be for. But if they do, at least it will be they who are discrediting their own position, rather than you.

yazzku 3y ago

Of course there are many Russians that want an end to the regime. At least, every Russian I know. Why wouldn't they?

thriftwy 3y ago
Russians do indeed want to have some different regime eventually, but usually not at cost of losing the war, having their economy destroyed or getting their country torn apart, etc. Only the young 'children of summer' generation who did not witness 1991 fallout would root for immediate uncontrolled regime change via revolution. Hence it is not a very popular point, and many of its adherents have fleed the country.
- netsharc 3y ago
  Interesting keyword, "regime". Seems like many dictatorships fell in the last decade, in the Arab world, to be replaced by other tyrannical leaders or civil war. Russia seems to have a lot of people in good seats to be a Putin replacement, of course most of them with the same goal of Putin's, i.e. self-enrichment. And to be in such a seat you're usually rich and powerful... And if you're not rich/powerful, you still need their support to be leader, and give them a quid-pro-quo and be nice to them. Just like in many democracies...
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I don't think you're interpreting the case of Vladimir Putin clearly. It's quite obvious he will not have any chance to actually use his money that he may have stowed away. Autocrats don't get to retire. He also has no official family, his suspected relatives are quite well off but nothing spectacular. And it's hard to explain why a kleptocrat would want to start a war which will make his funds actively sought after all across globe and confiscated wherever found. Whatever cuckoo bananas framework of State government Galkovsky has, it sounds more believeable than naive Navalnist "con men and thieves" with regards to Putin. The other people you've mentioned may fit the kleptocrat profile perfectly, but it's hard to argue how the war would benefit their prospects of keeping that money. That's also the weak link of Navalnist's "Putin builds his palace" narrative - it's obvious that for any palace built, Putin does not get to enjoy it now and he certainly is not going to enjoy it afterwards, so it can't be his palace.

jfengel 3y ago

I'm really bad with modern European history, so perhaps you can give me the short version: How bad was it? Did any of those countries become modern states without a ton of bloodshed?