6 ms·

This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way. The m

This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way. The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.

perihelions 1y ago
"Not peaceful" is an understatement. They burned innocents alive. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former-nepal-pm-jhala-nath-khanals-wife-rajyalaxmi-chitrakar-burnt-alive-as-protesters-set-his-house-on-fire/articleshow/123790577.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former... ("Former Nepal PM Jhala Nath Khanal’s wife Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar burnt alive as protesters set his house on fire") IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.
- gg-plz 1y ago
  [dead]
- potato3732842 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - scheme271 1y ago
    It was the former PM's wife not the former PM. Also heads of state are probably a lot safer than fishermen or loggers.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    The PM of Nepal is the head of government, not the head of state.
- underlipton 1y ago
  I believe that was after 19 students, non-violent protestors, were gunned down by security forces. It's a tough proposition. The goal is for the elite to have the awareness, humility, and political courage to not let things get so bad. But that point is well before Dauphines lose their heads. It's when peasant children are asking for bread and not getting any. Maybe before even that. Don't reach that tipping point and you won't careen towards the other atrocities.
  - xvector 1y ago
    They were not intentionally killed, the security forces were untrained in the use of rubber bullets and shot them directly at protestors rather than having them ricochet off the ground.
    - nradov 1y ago
      That statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of small arms. If you shoot at someone, regardless of whether you're using less-than-lethal ammunition, death or serious injury is always possible. This was absolutely intentional by the soldiers and those who gave the orders. Don't try to claim it was some kind of accident, regardless of training or lack thereof.
    - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
      if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, then they die from injuries caused by the shot you fired, you killed them. what goes on in your little secret heart between you and jesus might matter to you, but to the real world everyone else lives in you killed them. whether you meant to shoot them in a non-killing way is irrelevant, doubly so if you never learned how to but decided you were qualified to do it anyway.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      I really love the rising justification as of late of "they didn't know" for reckless manslaughter. They're called "less lethal" for a reason. It's not a paintball that splatters on impact (and even then, those can also harm). Even a properly shot rubber bullet carries injury risk if you're too close. What's all that police training for?
- camillomiller 1y ago
  As in the case of the United Healthcare CEO, we are very quick to demonize the immediate violence and killing, and rightly so. But in doing that, we definitely overlook the many thousand uncountable lives that the behavior of the single person might have indirectly killed.
  - ebiester 1y ago
    Except that United is doing the same thing it was before, with only a few months where they dialed back the pressure until their stock price started lagging.
  - tirant 1y ago
    That is all hypothetical. Everyone with certain level of power and wealth could then hypothetically be accountable to thousands of deaths just by mere action or lack of action. Every single politician with power to decide on budgets could be accounted for it. And that still does not justify the death of any of them.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      >And that still does not justify the death of any of them. Surely everyone is the physical cause of everything that results his action or inaction? We differentiate the world through all the interactions and then we get some langrange multipliers and whatnot, or we do it more carefully taking non-linear effects into account to still get some notion of responsibility. Surely these people you mention are in fact responsible, and surely that should make them targets in case they increase deaths, destroy people's potential etc?
    - camillomiller 1y ago
      I agree that it's quite hard to draw a line and it's a slippery slope, but what UH was doing certainly isn't comparable to cutting state budget for political or financial reasons.
- pas 1y ago
  of course the question is where's the line between public-money-gold-digger and innocent wife? Jhala Nath Khanal was PM for less than 1 year in 2011. But he was still in politics, leading party that was part of the governing coalition.
- wolfcola 1y ago
  [flagged]
- chipsrafferty 1y ago
  This did not happen. They set the house on fire.
SilverElfin 1y ago
Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. It removes the process for peaceful and civil change. The protestors had to go there as a result. But revolutions also tend not to result in something better most of the time.
- grafmax 1y ago
  And yet many of the greatest accomplishments of humanity over the past few centuries have been shepherded by violence - abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonizatiom.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    > abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonization It's notable that all of those are pre-democratic.
    - fraggleysun 1y ago
      Could you please clarify your statement?
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        >> Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. GP stated this. Parent replied with a list of scenarios where violence created progress, albeit none of which featured universal democracy before the violence. IOW, they are loudly agreeing with each other.
        komali2 1y ago
        At least in the case of the USA, then, there's still no universal democracy. Corporations have far more powerful and influence, in basically every election you can only vote for a neoliberal, and plenty of people get disenfranchised.
tootie 1y ago
Didn't the government open fire on protesters killing over a dozen people the day before the protesters turned violent?
cakealert 1y ago
Translation: The government lost support of the military. GenZ were allowed to topple the government.
smeeger 1y ago
corruption is only made worse by angry mobs tearing things down. what is erected afterwards is almost always worse ironically. the only way corruption is reduced is citizens becoming smarter somehow and slowly allowing the elite to get away with less and less bad behaviour while also creating an intelligent incentive structure for the elites as well as everyone else to drive productive, pro-social behaviour. whats going on in most of the world and nepal is the opposite of that
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  As you stated, one avenue of resolution has the prerequisite that 'citizens become smarter somehow', however that seems unlikely, particularly since the ruling power is actively sabotaging education.
  - smeeger 1y ago
    the common people are cheering on the damage so i wouldnt say it meets the criteria of sabotage. more like enabling it. and yes its unlikely thats why things are so terrible
Karrot_Kream 1y ago
Nepal isn't a good comparison to the US. Nepal has been extremely politically unstable now for years and was wracked by a giant earthquake too. Nepal doesn't have stable governing institutions. In 2001 a disgruntled member of the royal family massacred the rest of the family, kicking off 20 years of instability.

perihelions 1y ago

"Not peaceful" is an understatement. They burned innocents alive. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former-nepal-pm-jhala-nath-khanals-wife-rajyalaxmi-chitrakar-burnt-alive-as-protesters-set-his-house-on-fire/articleshow/123790577.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former... ("Former Nepal PM Jhala Nath Khanal’s wife Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar burnt alive as protesters set his house on fire") IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.

gg-plz 1y ago
[dead]
potato3732842 1y ago
[flagged]
- scheme271 1y ago
  It was the former PM's wife not the former PM. Also heads of state are probably a lot safer than fishermen or loggers.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  The PM of Nepal is the head of government, not the head of state.
underlipton 1y ago
I believe that was after 19 students, non-violent protestors, were gunned down by security forces. It's a tough proposition. The goal is for the elite to have the awareness, humility, and political courage to not let things get so bad. But that point is well before Dauphines lose their heads. It's when peasant children are asking for bread and not getting any. Maybe before even that. Don't reach that tipping point and you won't careen towards the other atrocities.
- xvector 1y ago
  They were not intentionally killed, the security forces were untrained in the use of rubber bullets and shot them directly at protestors rather than having them ricochet off the ground.
  - nradov 1y ago
    That statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of small arms. If you shoot at someone, regardless of whether you're using less-than-lethal ammunition, death or serious injury is always possible. This was absolutely intentional by the soldiers and those who gave the orders. Don't try to claim it was some kind of accident, regardless of training or lack thereof.
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, then they die from injuries caused by the shot you fired, you killed them. what goes on in your little secret heart between you and jesus might matter to you, but to the real world everyone else lives in you killed them. whether you meant to shoot them in a non-killing way is irrelevant, doubly so if you never learned how to but decided you were qualified to do it anyway.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    I really love the rising justification as of late of "they didn't know" for reckless manslaughter. They're called "less lethal" for a reason. It's not a paintball that splatters on impact (and even then, those can also harm). Even a properly shot rubber bullet carries injury risk if you're too close. What's all that police training for?
camillomiller 1y ago
As in the case of the United Healthcare CEO, we are very quick to demonize the immediate violence and killing, and rightly so. But in doing that, we definitely overlook the many thousand uncountable lives that the behavior of the single person might have indirectly killed.
- ebiester 1y ago
  Except that United is doing the same thing it was before, with only a few months where they dialed back the pressure until their stock price started lagging.
- tirant 1y ago
  That is all hypothetical. Everyone with certain level of power and wealth could then hypothetically be accountable to thousands of deaths just by mere action or lack of action. Every single politician with power to decide on budgets could be accounted for it. And that still does not justify the death of any of them.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    >And that still does not justify the death of any of them. Surely everyone is the physical cause of everything that results his action or inaction? We differentiate the world through all the interactions and then we get some langrange multipliers and whatnot, or we do it more carefully taking non-linear effects into account to still get some notion of responsibility. Surely these people you mention are in fact responsible, and surely that should make them targets in case they increase deaths, destroy people's potential etc?
  - camillomiller 1y ago
    I agree that it's quite hard to draw a line and it's a slippery slope, but what UH was doing certainly isn't comparable to cutting state budget for political or financial reasons.
pas 1y ago
of course the question is where's the line between public-money-gold-digger and innocent wife? Jhala Nath Khanal was PM for less than 1 year in 2011. But he was still in politics, leading party that was part of the governing coalition.
wolfcola 1y ago
[flagged]
chipsrafferty 1y ago
This did not happen. They set the house on fire.

SilverElfin 1y ago

Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. It removes the process for peaceful and civil change. The protestors had to go there as a result. But revolutions also tend not to result in something better most of the time.

grafmax 1y ago
And yet many of the greatest accomplishments of humanity over the past few centuries have been shepherded by violence - abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonizatiom.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  > abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonization It's notable that all of those are pre-democratic.
  - fraggleysun 1y ago
    Could you please clarify your statement?
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      >> Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. GP stated this. Parent replied with a list of scenarios where violence created progress, albeit none of which featured universal democracy before the violence. IOW, they are loudly agreeing with each other.
      - komali2 1y ago
        At least in the case of the USA, then, there's still no universal democracy. Corporations have far more powerful and influence, in basically every election you can only vote for a neoliberal, and plenty of people get disenfranchised.

tootie 1y ago

Didn't the government open fire on protesters killing over a dozen people the day before the protesters turned violent?

cakealert 1y ago

Translation: The government lost support of the military. GenZ were allowed to topple the government.

smeeger 1y ago

corruption is only made worse by angry mobs tearing things down. what is erected afterwards is almost always worse ironically. the only way corruption is reduced is citizens becoming smarter somehow and slowly allowing the elite to get away with less and less bad behaviour while also creating an intelligent incentive structure for the elites as well as everyone else to drive productive, pro-social behaviour. whats going on in most of the world and nepal is the opposite of that

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
As you stated, one avenue of resolution has the prerequisite that 'citizens become smarter somehow', however that seems unlikely, particularly since the ruling power is actively sabotaging education.
- smeeger 1y ago
  the common people are cheering on the damage so i wouldnt say it meets the criteria of sabotage. more like enabling it. and yes its unlikely thats why things are so terrible

Karrot_Kream 1y ago

Nepal isn't a good comparison to the US. Nepal has been extremely politically unstable now for years and was wracked by a giant earthquake too. Nepal doesn't have stable governing institutions. In 2001 a disgruntled member of the royal family massacred the rest of the family, kicking off 20 years of instability.