9 ms·

> unless you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble, day-to-day life is mostly similar to life in the west Okay but that is exactly

> unless you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble, day-to-day life is mostly similar to life in the west Okay but that is exactly why I would prefer a western liberal government. It is better and that is ideal is worth criticizing authoritarians for, and fighting to keep in the west.

danny_codes 1y ago
I mean I live in the US and people are getting persecuted right now for being a minority, being politically active, or being in legal trouble. So not seeing a huge difference between liberal democracies and authoritarians.
- freeone3000 1y ago
  Perhaps the US is no longer a liberal democracy?
  - decremental 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, with people getting arrested for their political views instead of just deported. not to mention segregation and such. They even put lawyers defending these politicians in prison for defending them... The constitution doesn't seem to matter since the government apparently don't have to care about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
    - watersb 1y ago
      > Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, Your question deserves an answer. The US was a liberal (post-Enlightenment) democracy. Senator McCarthy was eventually kicked out of Congress for his witch hunt. President Nixon was confronted by Republican members of Congress, and he resigned after this meeting rather than face impeachment. So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law. Many of those same lawmakers might have today been considered racist or misogynist or might have failed some other standard of 21st century society. As a liberal democracy, the United States has never been perfect, but it's always been worth improving.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        > So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law Only when McCarthy and those policies got unpopular, they let him do it as long as he was popular. So we will likely see the same with Trump, as long as he doesn't make as grave overreaches as they did back then likely nobody will do anything to him. That isn't rule of law, that is rule of personality.
        SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
        Or popularity rather.
        Jensson 1y ago
        Yeah, so not exactly liberal democracy. It is a democracy, but doesn't seem very liberal if the checks and balances doesn't work against popular policies.
        inglor_cz 1y ago
        I would argue that in that case, liberal democracy is an oxymoron. Really popular policies have a wide support among the population, which means that they will became law, or even an amendment to the constitution. (Most countries have something like 3/5 supermajority requirements for changing constitutions, which is a lot more practical than the basically-as-of-now-impossible US procedure.) At this moment, if you want to keep "liberal" character of the country, your "checks and balances" institutions have to act in a fairly authoritarian ways and invalidate laws which attracted supermajority support. What is then stopping such institutions to just rule as they see fit? Even checks and balances need checks and balances. Nevertheless, I would say that "liberal democracy" isn't one that can always prevent illiberal policies from being enacted. I would say that it is one that can later correct them. Note that historically, most obvious executive encroachments of liberty (Guantanamo etc.) in the US were later overturned by new administrations.
        1y ago
- hax0ron3 1y ago
  I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Just imagine the difference in the level of fear that you would feel about 1) getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power, vs. 2) getting up in a public square in Russia and yelling that Putin is a terrible person who should be removed from power.
  - pharrington 1y ago
    Have you heard of what ICE has been doing for the last six months? And that Trump has militarized Washington DC?
    - hax0ron3 1y ago
      Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions, and I would have very little to no fear about going to Washington DC right now, standing up on a podium, and yelling that Trump sucks while there are 100 National Guardsmen across the street from me. This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
      - treyd 1y ago
        See Mahmoud Khalil's case. They're trying to and would continue to have done so if they weren't blocked. What is there stopping them from changing the rules and doing it again?
        hax0ron3 1y ago
        I disagree with what has been done in the Mahmoud Khalil matter. But it is a far distance between that on the one hand and what happens in places like Russia on the other. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.
- mattnewton 1y ago
  Yes, because we’re sliding into authoritarianism and we need to criticize and correct course
  - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
    Sliding in? Your head of state declared themselves to be a dictator, declared the end of the rule of law, and ignores the constitution. They openly take bribes without consequences. They, or their handlers, unilaterally decide on the application of justice and the progress of investigations. They unilaterally control international relations (eg tariffs) without oversight. They put armed military on the streets. They have taken action to prevent ongoing democratic elections. At what point does it become authoritarian to you?
    - chasd00 1y ago
      if mid-term elections and the next presidential election are cancelled then i'll call it authoritarian. Until then you're just trolling.
      - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
        So Putin isn't authoritarian because he stages elections. And you require two _cancelled_ elections before declaring someone authoritarian? Reminder that Trump declared Zelensky a dictator for following his country's established democratic process. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        We might get a peak much sooner if the supreme court shoots down his tariffs.
      - 20after4 1y ago
        Trolling? They were stating facts.
- gadders 1y ago
  Yes, never happened under Biden. Completely new and unheard of.
gipp 1y ago
Sure; I think his point was that people much less likely to even notice/acknowledge the slide towards authoritarianism when their own individual experience isn't changing much. Not that it changes authoritarianism's moral standing.
Bukhmanizer 1y ago
Yes, I agree
aslannn 1y ago
Well, if you're in this category in the US (equivalent is being on some kind of arbitrary list that you're not allowed to see and have no way to appeal) your life will also be horrible.
- jl6 1y ago
  The US being imperfect, or currently on an authoritarian swing, in no way makes it equivalent to countries that are all-in on authoritarianism. The US is still among the very best places in the world to be a minority, politically active, or in legal trouble.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    Despite the noted slide, it feels accurate. I, for one, would not want to move back to EU despite some QoL notables. At this time, it is still hard to find a better spot for a random nobody ( when you have money and/or power, 'where you can live well' calculus changes ).
  - watwut 1y ago
    How is US being a good place to be at if you are in legal trouble? It is super expensive, trial penalty is huge so you are severely motivated to sign plea deal and not push it. The punishments are huge and incarceration rates among highest in the world. Protections seems to be largely theoretical - technically you have them, practically they do not do much but make you pay more money.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      "It's super expensive" is still different from "you disappear". Yes, the US system is flawed, but the difference really matters.
      - don_esteban 1y ago
        But it is not "The US is still among the very best places in the world" And the incidence of 'being in legal trouble in USA' vs 'being disappeared in BAD COUNTRY XXX' is quite different, for almost all bad countries.
coldtea 1y ago
In certain things it can be better. Singapore might be a state run authoritatively with the same party in power for 60 years, but you're free to walk around at any time without fear of any crime happening to you. Or public projects that "just work" where in the "western liberal" case their deteriorate or are tied up in bureucracy. And life if "you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble" is not roses in the west either. From murder by police (e.g. "walking while black") to having stuffed being pinned on you because you're a union activist or for civil rights, etc. And that's not "now with Trump". That was the case under Obama, Bush, Clinton, all the way to McCarthy, and even all the way after and before the Civil War.
- pbhjpbhj 1y ago
  Prevalence of masked gangs (ostensibly a Gestapo, but without uniform or id) kidnapping people in government buildings without police intervening appears (as an outside observer) to be ~100% higher than under recent USA administrations. Are you saying this was already happening, just as much, under Obama, say?
  - AngryData 1y ago
    Of course it didn't happen as much, but the fact that we already had active black sites and people getting pulled off the streets and abused at all paved the way towards apathy about its expansion now. If city or state police forces can do such things to random citizens for decades before now, why would we expect federal agencies under the direction of the president and his cabinet to not be able to get away with it too?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - idiomat9000 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - 1y ago
benreesman 1y ago
There isn't an "authoritarian bit", it's not binary. When I was young the idea that your own computer would spy on you, or the one in your phone, or in your car? That was a William Gibson novel, wiretaps happened to mob bosses, you didn't worry about it happening to you as part of a dragnet. Security camera? You mean in a bank right? Microsoft bundling IE was so egregious that the department of justice took time off from chasing drug dealers and terrorists and came within an inch of being split up if it didn't back the fuck off on strangling the web. Financial fraud on Wall St or in the boardroom? Skilling, Fastow, Ebers. Hard prison time. Clinton lied about chasing skirt in the office, ended his career, real consequences. Even once the Internet was becoming common, the idea that something typed into it might get you fired? Preposterous! I don't know what being a "western liberal" government means to you, but this thing where all the walls have ears and billionaires do fucking anything they want and no scandal can damage a politician and all the surveilance and technology is an ever-tightening noose and everything is on a permanent record? Sounds pretty damned Soviet to me.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Okay but no scandal can damage a politician because you the American people are currently choosing to let that be the case. Same with the billionaires. The entire problem gets painted as "other" but it's you: you're actually promulgating it by your very choice of language here!
  - benreesman 1y ago
    I'm not saying that the decline of Enlightenment values and the rise of crony-nepo-central-committee surveilance nightmare is "other", I'm saying it is indifferent to the stated political system, it's about the de facto political system no matter what you call it. What I care about is outcomes, what actually happens, what norms and institutional posture actually obtains in reality. And on that basis, "western liberal" society has very little business holding its nose up about "authoritarianism" as a blanket term for rival nations in 2025. No one here is talking about Sudan or Turministan, they're talking about other advanced nations with participatory politics, robust social welfare programs, limited influence for oligarchs, and highly competent governance.
holoduke 1y ago
Liberal in words. If you don't follow the rules you are expelled anyway. There is a reason why 99% of all politicians and CEOs are coming from the same universities and bubbles.

danny_codes 1y ago

I mean I live in the US and people are getting persecuted right now for being a minority, being politically active, or being in legal trouble. So not seeing a huge difference between liberal democracies and authoritarians.

freeone3000 1y ago
Perhaps the US is no longer a liberal democracy?
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]
- Jensson 1y ago
  Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, with people getting arrested for their political views instead of just deported. not to mention segregation and such. They even put lawyers defending these politicians in prison for defending them... The constitution doesn't seem to matter since the government apparently don't have to care about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
  - watersb 1y ago
    > Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, Your question deserves an answer. The US was a liberal (post-Enlightenment) democracy. Senator McCarthy was eventually kicked out of Congress for his witch hunt. President Nixon was confronted by Republican members of Congress, and he resigned after this meeting rather than face impeachment. So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law. Many of those same lawmakers might have today been considered racist or misogynist or might have failed some other standard of 21st century society. As a liberal democracy, the United States has never been perfect, but it's always been worth improving.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law Only when McCarthy and those policies got unpopular, they let him do it as long as he was popular. So we will likely see the same with Trump, as long as he doesn't make as grave overreaches as they did back then likely nobody will do anything to him. That isn't rule of law, that is rule of personality.
      - SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
        Or popularity rather.
        Jensson 1y ago
        Yeah, so not exactly liberal democracy. It is a democracy, but doesn't seem very liberal if the checks and balances doesn't work against popular policies.
        inglor_cz 1y ago
        I would argue that in that case, liberal democracy is an oxymoron. Really popular policies have a wide support among the population, which means that they will became law, or even an amendment to the constitution. (Most countries have something like 3/5 supermajority requirements for changing constitutions, which is a lot more practical than the basically-as-of-now-impossible US procedure.) At this moment, if you want to keep "liberal" character of the country, your "checks and balances" institutions have to act in a fairly authoritarian ways and invalidate laws which attracted supermajority support. What is then stopping such institutions to just rule as they see fit? Even checks and balances need checks and balances. Nevertheless, I would say that "liberal democracy" isn't one that can always prevent illiberal policies from being enacted. I would say that it is one that can later correct them. Note that historically, most obvious executive encroachments of liberty (Guantanamo etc.) in the US were later overturned by new administrations.
        1y ago
hax0ron3 1y ago
I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Just imagine the difference in the level of fear that you would feel about 1) getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power, vs. 2) getting up in a public square in Russia and yelling that Putin is a terrible person who should be removed from power.
- pharrington 1y ago
  Have you heard of what ICE has been doing for the last six months? And that Trump has militarized Washington DC?
  - hax0ron3 1y ago
    Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions, and I would have very little to no fear about going to Washington DC right now, standing up on a podium, and yelling that Trump sucks while there are 100 National Guardsmen across the street from me. This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
    - treyd 1y ago
      See Mahmoud Khalil's case. They're trying to and would continue to have done so if they weren't blocked. What is there stopping them from changing the rules and doing it again?
      - hax0ron3 1y ago
        I disagree with what has been done in the Mahmoud Khalil matter. But it is a far distance between that on the one hand and what happens in places like Russia on the other. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.
mattnewton 1y ago
Yes, because we’re sliding into authoritarianism and we need to criticize and correct course
- pbhjpbhj 1y ago
  Sliding in? Your head of state declared themselves to be a dictator, declared the end of the rule of law, and ignores the constitution. They openly take bribes without consequences. They, or their handlers, unilaterally decide on the application of justice and the progress of investigations. They unilaterally control international relations (eg tariffs) without oversight. They put armed military on the streets. They have taken action to prevent ongoing democratic elections. At what point does it become authoritarian to you?
  - chasd00 1y ago
    if mid-term elections and the next presidential election are cancelled then i'll call it authoritarian. Until then you're just trolling.
    - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
      So Putin isn't authoritarian because he stages elections. And you require two _cancelled_ elections before declaring someone authoritarian? Reminder that Trump declared Zelensky a dictator for following his country's established democratic process. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      We might get a peak much sooner if the supreme court shoots down his tariffs.
    - 20after4 1y ago
      Trolling? They were stating facts.
gadders 1y ago
Yes, never happened under Biden. Completely new and unheard of.

gipp 1y ago

Sure; I think his point was that people much less likely to even notice/acknowledge the slide towards authoritarianism when their own individual experience isn't changing much. Not that it changes authoritarianism's moral standing.

Bukhmanizer 1y ago

Yes, I agree

aslannn 1y ago

Well, if you're in this category in the US (equivalent is being on some kind of arbitrary list that you're not allowed to see and have no way to appeal) your life will also be horrible.

jl6 1y ago
The US being imperfect, or currently on an authoritarian swing, in no way makes it equivalent to countries that are all-in on authoritarianism. The US is still among the very best places in the world to be a minority, politically active, or in legal trouble.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  Despite the noted slide, it feels accurate. I, for one, would not want to move back to EU despite some QoL notables. At this time, it is still hard to find a better spot for a random nobody ( when you have money and/or power, 'where you can live well' calculus changes ).
- watwut 1y ago
  How is US being a good place to be at if you are in legal trouble? It is super expensive, trial penalty is huge so you are severely motivated to sign plea deal and not push it. The punishments are huge and incarceration rates among highest in the world. Protections seems to be largely theoretical - technically you have them, practically they do not do much but make you pay more money.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    "It's super expensive" is still different from "you disappear". Yes, the US system is flawed, but the difference really matters.
    - don_esteban 1y ago
      But it is not "The US is still among the very best places in the world" And the incidence of 'being in legal trouble in USA' vs 'being disappeared in BAD COUNTRY XXX' is quite different, for almost all bad countries.

coldtea 1y ago

In certain things it can be better. Singapore might be a state run authoritatively with the same party in power for 60 years, but you're free to walk around at any time without fear of any crime happening to you. Or public projects that "just work" where in the "western liberal" case their deteriorate or are tied up in bureucracy. And life if "you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble" is not roses in the west either. From murder by police (e.g. "walking while black") to having stuffed being pinned on you because you're a union activist or for civil rights, etc. And that's not "now with Trump". That was the case under Obama, Bush, Clinton, all the way to McCarthy, and even all the way after and before the Civil War.

pbhjpbhj 1y ago
Prevalence of masked gangs (ostensibly a Gestapo, but without uniform or id) kidnapping people in government buildings without police intervening appears (as an outside observer) to be ~100% higher than under recent USA administrations. Are you saying this was already happening, just as much, under Obama, say?
- AngryData 1y ago
  Of course it didn't happen as much, but the fact that we already had active black sites and people getting pulled off the streets and abused at all paved the way towards apathy about its expansion now. If city or state police forces can do such things to random citizens for decades before now, why would we expect federal agencies under the direction of the president and his cabinet to not be able to get away with it too?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- idiomat9000 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - 1y ago

benreesman 1y ago

There isn't an "authoritarian bit", it's not binary. When I was young the idea that your own computer would spy on you, or the one in your phone, or in your car? That was a William Gibson novel, wiretaps happened to mob bosses, you didn't worry about it happening to you as part of a dragnet. Security camera? You mean in a bank right? Microsoft bundling IE was so egregious that the department of justice took time off from chasing drug dealers and terrorists and came within an inch of being split up if it didn't back the fuck off on strangling the web. Financial fraud on Wall St or in the boardroom? Skilling, Fastow, Ebers. Hard prison time. Clinton lied about chasing skirt in the office, ended his career, real consequences. Even once the Internet was becoming common, the idea that something typed into it might get you fired? Preposterous! I don't know what being a "western liberal" government means to you, but this thing where all the walls have ears and billionaires do fucking anything they want and no scandal can damage a politician and all the surveilance and technology is an ever-tightening noose and everything is on a permanent record? Sounds pretty damned Soviet to me.

XorNot 1y ago
Okay but no scandal can damage a politician because you the American people are currently choosing to let that be the case. Same with the billionaires. The entire problem gets painted as "other" but it's you: you're actually promulgating it by your very choice of language here!
- benreesman 1y ago
  I'm not saying that the decline of Enlightenment values and the rise of crony-nepo-central-committee surveilance nightmare is "other", I'm saying it is indifferent to the stated political system, it's about the de facto political system no matter what you call it. What I care about is outcomes, what actually happens, what norms and institutional posture actually obtains in reality. And on that basis, "western liberal" society has very little business holding its nose up about "authoritarianism" as a blanket term for rival nations in 2025. No one here is talking about Sudan or Turministan, they're talking about other advanced nations with participatory politics, robust social welfare programs, limited influence for oligarchs, and highly competent governance.

holoduke 1y ago

Liberal in words. If you don't follow the rules you are expelled anyway. There is a reason why 99% of all politicians and CEOs are coming from the same universities and bubbles.