Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see that happening. I see lots of propaganda trying to make the same paralyzing arguments, especially the argument that 'it's all the same and you can't tell the difference'. Yes we can, pretty easily.
>Yes we can, pretty easily. Indeed, it's quite easy! If I agree, it's brave truth-telling. If I disagree, it's propaganda.
India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
101–110 of 110 posts
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the old argument of dicators, going back to the Cold War and before. Like much propaganda, it tries to turn around the enemy's own arguments to disrupt and disconcert - the enemy cares about cultures and freedom, so brutal dictators should be 'free' to do what their 'culture' demands - I don't think their victims see it that way. Democracy, with rights, has prospered and been embraced across cultures and arou…
I have no idea what “dictators” you’re talking about. Both my argument and Hamid’s comes from the experiences with fledgling democracies in the Muslim world, where the model of liberal democracy has been tried and failed repeatedly. What does “democracy, with rights” even mean? Who decides what the “rights” are? In Asia, “democracy, with rights” exists primarily in Japan and South Korea, where it was imposed by the U…
People in India learned about computers from the West, but that doesn't make them somehow wrong for India. People in the UK didn't know about democracy at some point in history; does that make it wrong? Can there be no growth or innovation - an extreme conservative argument, but used to meaninglessly oppose anything they don't like.
Rights are also a moral issue. There are people being harmed, who at the same time deserve to be free and live fulfilling, safe lives of their own choosing - not of your choosing (or mine).
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes we can, pretty easily. Indeed, it's quite easy! If I agree, it's brave truth-telling. If I disagree, it's propaganda.
That's the propagandist's argument. But the reality is there is a difference between truth and falsehood, it's not just a matter of perception, and we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy.
Of course, but that's distinct from propaganda vs non-propaganda. A foreign actor can secretly pay for a marketing campaign that spreads the truth. A scientist can make an honest mistake and spread a falsehood.
>we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy.
Depends on the claim. Suppose I tell you that exactly one year from now, at your current location, it will be raining. Is that true or false?
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we just need to encode that in English in specific rules. Well, I encourage you to lead the way, fight this intellectual laziness, and propose specific rules. I suspect that you will find the task more difficult than you thought. Whatever rules you propose will be adversarially interpreted by your political opponents, and by actual propagandists. Ideally, the rules should also be simple enough for any voter to under…
So you're going to do nothing and mock everyone else - unfortunately, that's become the norm, and that was my point.
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're going to do nothing and mock everyone else - unfortunately, that's become the norm, and that was my point.
I didn't mean to mock you. I thought you were serious.
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the propagandist's argument. But the reality is there is a difference between truth and falsehood, it's not just a matter of perception, and we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy.
>there is a difference between truth and falsehood Of course, but that's distinct from propaganda vs non-propaganda. A foreign actor can secretly pay for a marketing campaign that spreads the truth. A scientist can make an honest mistake and spread a falsehood. >we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy. Depends on the claim. Suppose I tell you that exactly one year from now, at your current location, it wi…
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what “dictators” you’re talking about. Both my argument and Hamid’s comes from the experiences with fledgling democracies in the Muslim world, where the model of liberal democracy has been tried and failed repeatedly. What does “democracy, with rights” even mean? Who decides what the “rights” are? In Asia, “democracy, with rights” exists primarily in Japan and South Korea, where it was imposed by the U…
You forgot Taiwan and other countries, all over the world. Every part of China that has had democracy has strived to hold on to it, though tragically not always with success. People in India learned about computers from the West, but that doesn't make them somehow wrong for India. People in the UK didn't know about democracy at some point in history; does that make it wrong? Can there be no growth or innovation - an…
Democracy is consistent with "growth [and] innovation." If the Indian electorate finds certain western ideas to be positive innovations, it can adopt them democratically. Like computers--Indians adopted computers because they found computers to be a western advancement worth adopting. But voting is how you decide what's "innovation" versus what's "regression." How else would you possibly decide that?
> Rights are also a moral issue. There are people being harmed, who at the same time deserve to be free and live fulfilling, safe lives of their own choosing - not of your choosing (or mine).
You're articulating western morality that isn't widely accepted in Asia. "Choice" is a western fixation. Asians know that most individuals need society to help them make good choices. Western parents tell their kids to "follow their dreams." Asian parents tell their kids to "follow the proven track." Likewise, fixating on "harm" to the individual rather than harm to society as a whole is a western fixation. For example, westerners perceive Singapore's practice of caning those that cause public disorder as violating "human rights." But Singaporeans view it as an appropriate trade-off that protects the public's right to live in a clean, orderly, and safe environment.
"Democracy" is good, and widely supported in places like India, Bangladesh, etc. But it's antithetical to the concept of democracy to use it as a backdoor to smuggle in unrelated western moral philosophy.
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there is a difference between truth and falsehood Of course, but that's distinct from propaganda vs non-propaganda. A foreign actor can secretly pay for a marketing campaign that spreads the truth. A scientist can make an honest mistake and spread a falsehood. >we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy. Depends on the claim. Suppose I tell you that exactly one year from now, at your current location, it wi…
It's a game of perfect philosophical definitions, which generally are not needed in practical life.
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't mean to mock you. I thought you were serious.
My point is that you aren't; you aren't contributing (in this interaction), just criticizing others who are.
Re: India's Battle to Control the Democracy Narrative
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is India's close ties to USSR/Russia. That's the western lens.
India didn't have close ties, it successfully took advantage of its neutrality to benefit from both sides of the cold war.