4 ms·
He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.
by grandempire 2y ago
He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.
- reaperducer 2y agoThis is a basic high school question. It serves no purpose other than to deflect the discussion. If you genuinely don't understand soft power, Google is your friend.
- grandempire 2y agoThere are several different replies here and they are all very different. Some replies even say it is bad, but that it’s a kind of necessary evil. So no I don’t think I’m asking a leading question and no it’s not obvious. That’s a reply that’s used when you don’t want to test your answer. And why would we be so naive to think that Google would discern the intent of American political propaganda for us?
- ouilala 2y ago(copying another reply) It might be an unpopular viewpoint....but neocolonialism is necessary. Perhaps not the right choice of word but I mean the term 'neocolonialism' here in the sense of introducing peoples to our ways of life: democracy, capitalism, human rights. The long and short of it is that, you can only get with the web of conflicting interests, pure monetary dealings, etc so far. You don't make any lasting alliance with a peoples and a system fundamentally opposed to you. If you isolate away, they will continue falling into the trap of systems like China and Russia who are quite happy to take your place and have completely opposite ideals to you. Eventually you will be left more and more alone on the world stage with no true allies if you let them keep doing it, and one day you will be finished off by soft or hard means when those entities, who kept expanding their outreach, became powerful enough. Tldr; Defensive fire. Its not that you want to engage in neocolonialism, but you will have to do so as long as your enemies engage in neocolonialism. The logic is no different than that behind maintaining a traditional military power really.
- grandempire 2y agoThis is 2001-2004 all over again. I just don’t believe in the Us policing the world and establishing democracy any more. I get no satisfaction knowing an African is listening to American radio or Chinese radio. If we want to win some kind of ideological battle let’s start by actually having a better place to live that others want to emulate. We have no moral authority to influence others and preach a better way of living if we can’t solve our own problems at home.
- ouilala 2y agoSome cultures are constitutionally unable to be good. I have no hope Afghans or Iranians will ever become civilized of their own accord. I strongly believe a strong program of colonialism (unlike the ultra soft approach used in Afghanistan previously) is needed for these peoples.
- Aloisius 2y agoBecause getting what you want through persuasion is cheaper and less bloody than through coercion.
- XorNot 2y agoAlso the world is not a zero sum game and cooperation generally produces much greater rewards then hostile competition.
- grandempire 2y agoWhy is it inevitable that we if we didn’t have US propaganda we would just be shooting people instead? I just don’t follow that.
- Aloisius 2y agoIt's not inevitable. It is merely extremely likely if history is a guide. That's not to say it will be the US doing the shooting. The natural state of the world is not one of peaceful co-existence.
- QuadmasterXLII 2y agoYou don’t seem dumb enough for that to be a good faith question.
- bink 2y agoI think you'd be better off explaining why you think these changes are good for the country or the world. Otherwise it just comes off as Sealioning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- bagels 2y agoSoft power benefits Americans. The foreign aid and cooperation is helpful to both sides.