What is Happening in Istanbul?(defnesumanblogs.com)
defnesumanblogs.com
What is Happening in Istanbul?
http://defnesumanblogs.com/2013/06/01/what-is-happenning-in-istanbul/
518 コメント
When I see stories like this, I'm always impressed at the wide availability of gas masks. Are we even allowed to own those in the States?*
*Yes, I know how sad of a question that is.
*Yes, I know how sad of a question that is.
Of course we're "allowed" to own them in the United States...
Despite what people on reddit, and other fringe internet forums would have you believe, The United States has some of the strongest personal liberties in the world.
Despite what people on reddit, and other fringe internet forums would have you believe, The United States has some of the strongest personal liberties in the world.
Fairly disingenuous to claim we can own them, which, though true as far as it goes, really doesn't accurately describe the situation.
In most jurisdictions, it's illegal to wear a gas mask during a protest. The ostensible logic for this is that they, as with all masks, obscure the face and hinder personal identification by police (which we'd call "internal security forces" if it were Turkey or China or someplace).
If you're caught wearing one during a protest, you can be arrested ipso facto, and it will be confiscated and not returned to you, and you'll be subject to legal penalties merely for wearing it.
In most jurisdictions, it's illegal to wear a gas mask during a protest. The ostensible logic for this is that they, as with all masks, obscure the face and hinder personal identification by police (which we'd call "internal security forces" if it were Turkey or China or someplace).
If you're caught wearing one during a protest, you can be arrested ipso facto, and it will be confiscated and not returned to you, and you'll be subject to legal penalties merely for wearing it.
[deleted]
We Americans may be allowed to own gas masks, but we are not allowed to wear them. I was at WTO `Battle in Seattle', protesters were
arrested for wearing them, individuals had their gas masks brutally removed then pepper sprayed in the face.
Thank God for not being a police state dystopia like Singapore.
>The United States has some of the strongest personal liberties in the world.
Adorable. Try actually exercising them and get back to us.
Adorable. Try actually exercising them and get back to us.
Here are the rules by US state:
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
Do riot police arbitrarily make these rules up on the fly?
13+ years since WTO Battle in Seattle? Melissa Kaplan still cannot find Washington State wearing gas mask code/regulations?
What is it about Evergreen(Evergray?) Washington State?
Last updated January 13, 2013
State Codes Related To Wearing Masks
Compiled by Melissa Kaplan Need to wear an air filtration mask when you go out to avoid the effects of fragrances, chemicals, pollens and more?
You may be breaking the law.
Each state has its own code relating to masks (though some states may have no such code) and/or disguises. In some, you may be okay wearing a filtration or surgical mask; in others, you may be required to carry a note from your physician stating that you need to wear the mask for health reasons.
If you find the code section for your state and send me a copy of the section and language, I will add it to this listing.
.......................
The only thing I could find:
Seattle municipal court judge dismisses WTO gas mask case on February 17, 2000.
On February 17, 2000, a municipal court judge dismisses criminal charges against a man accused of violating the emergency order prohibiting the possession of "devices commonly known as gas masks" during the period of unrest surrounding the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting which occurred in late November and early December, 1999, in Seattle.
Mayor Paul Schell had issued an emergency order prohibiting the possession of gas masks in Seattle except by military and police on December 1, 1999. Later that day, journalists were allowed to possess gas masks, but the ban did not extend to firefighters.
Justin Reed of Seattle was arrested at City Hall on the day the ban was signed when he attempted to attend a City Council hearing called to discuss and ratify the mayor's order. The judge ruled that prosecutors did not prove that Reed knew of the ban when he was arrested. The charges were dismissed "with prejudice" meaning that Reed could not be charged again with the same crime.
As of February 17, 2000, only 24 persons out of more than 600 arrested during WTO protests were still charged with crimes, including four accused of violating the gas mask ban.
http://www.historylink.org/_content/education/index.cfm?Disp...
13+ years since WTO Battle in Seattle? Melissa Kaplan still cannot find Washington State wearing gas mask code/regulations?
What is it about Evergreen(Evergray?) Washington State?
Last updated January 13, 2013
State Codes Related To Wearing Masks
Compiled by Melissa Kaplan Need to wear an air filtration mask when you go out to avoid the effects of fragrances, chemicals, pollens and more?
You may be breaking the law.
Each state has its own code relating to masks (though some states may have no such code) and/or disguises. In some, you may be okay wearing a filtration or surgical mask; in others, you may be required to carry a note from your physician stating that you need to wear the mask for health reasons.
If you find the code section for your state and send me a copy of the section and language, I will add it to this listing.
.......................
The only thing I could find:
Seattle municipal court judge dismisses WTO gas mask case on February 17, 2000.
On February 17, 2000, a municipal court judge dismisses criminal charges against a man accused of violating the emergency order prohibiting the possession of "devices commonly known as gas masks" during the period of unrest surrounding the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting which occurred in late November and early December, 1999, in Seattle.
Mayor Paul Schell had issued an emergency order prohibiting the possession of gas masks in Seattle except by military and police on December 1, 1999. Later that day, journalists were allowed to possess gas masks, but the ban did not extend to firefighters.
Justin Reed of Seattle was arrested at City Hall on the day the ban was signed when he attempted to attend a City Council hearing called to discuss and ratify the mayor's order. The judge ruled that prosecutors did not prove that Reed knew of the ban when he was arrested. The charges were dismissed "with prejudice" meaning that Reed could not be charged again with the same crime.
As of February 17, 2000, only 24 persons out of more than 600 arrested during WTO protests were still charged with crimes, including four accused of violating the gas mask ban.
http://www.historylink.org/_content/education/index.cfm?Disp...
Yes, and the only mention of a gas mask anywhere on there is in a law explicitly allowing them.
> Despite what people on reddit, and other fringe internet forums would have you believe, The United States has some of the strongest personal liberties in the world.
I must disagree. Any government that would prohibit free agriculture is already on the road to tyranny. Every dictatorship, no matter its form, allows for the existence of some personal liberties as it limits the rest.
I must disagree. Any government that would prohibit free agriculture is already on the road to tyranny. Every dictatorship, no matter its form, allows for the existence of some personal liberties as it limits the rest.
Freedom from "raw" milk, or freedom from your neighbour deciding to start a pig farm or drain your shared aquifer for irrigation?
How about starting with something as simple as being able to grow hemp without being threatened by various police?
The US has been a developing economic police state since at least the 1930's.
The US has been a developing economic police state since at least the 1930's.
According to another on-the-ground account http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1fi07t/im_so_conf...
> The military has been handing out gas masks to civilians and there is a video of then getting into verbal arguments with the police. Although the gendarme look as if they are in with the government the majority of the military look as if they're going to sit this one out while quietly supporting the protests.
> The military has been handing out gas masks to civilians and there is a video of then getting into verbal arguments with the police. Although the gendarme look as if they are in with the government the majority of the military look as if they're going to sit this one out while quietly supporting the protests.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/175-7511757-7036919...
Knock yourself out.
Knock yourself out.
Go to any "Army, Navy" store (they sell old military uniforms etc).
> Are we even allowed to own those in the States?
You, as far as I gathered, and probably depending on state etc, have a constitutional right to arm yourself to the teeth; somehow, gas masks seem a bit trivial compared to rifles.
You, as far as I gathered, and probably depending on state etc, have a constitutional right to arm yourself to the teeth; somehow, gas masks seem a bit trivial compared to rifles.
[deleted]
Via wiki's list of turkish newspapers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Turkey):
http://www.zaman.com.tr/ Democratic, Islamic, Liberal ENGLISH: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/
http://www.posta.com.tr/ Populism
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/anasayfa/ Nationalism, Kemalist, Centre-Right ENGLISH: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/
http://www.sabah.com.tr/ Liberal Conservatism, Center-Right
http://www.sozcu.com.tr/ Nationalism, Kemalism, Secular
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/AnaSayfa/ Kemalist, Nationalist, Secular, Center-Left
http://www.haberturk.com/ Nationalism, Conservatism, Right-Wing
http://www.turkiyegazetesi.com/ Conservatism, Right-Wing
http://www.stargazete.com/ Liberal Conservatism, Center-Right
http://www.gazetevatan.com/root.asp Kemalist, Nationalist, Secular
http://www.bugun.com.tr/ Conservative-Democrat, Nationalism, Center-Right
http://www.takvim.com.tr/ Center-Right
http://www.aksam.com.tr/ Center-Left
http://yenisafak.com.tr Islamism, Conservatism, Right-Wing
edit: added some English links above. Also http://www.goodmorningturkey.com/
http://www.zaman.com.tr/ Democratic, Islamic, Liberal ENGLISH: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/
http://www.posta.com.tr/ Populism
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/anasayfa/ Nationalism, Kemalist, Centre-Right ENGLISH: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/
http://www.sabah.com.tr/ Liberal Conservatism, Center-Right
http://www.sozcu.com.tr/ Nationalism, Kemalism, Secular
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/AnaSayfa/ Kemalist, Nationalist, Secular, Center-Left
http://www.haberturk.com/ Nationalism, Conservatism, Right-Wing
http://www.turkiyegazetesi.com/ Conservatism, Right-Wing
http://www.stargazete.com/ Liberal Conservatism, Center-Right
http://www.gazetevatan.com/root.asp Kemalist, Nationalist, Secular
http://www.bugun.com.tr/ Conservative-Democrat, Nationalism, Center-Right
http://www.takvim.com.tr/ Center-Right
http://www.aksam.com.tr/ Center-Left
http://yenisafak.com.tr Islamism, Conservatism, Right-Wing
edit: added some English links above. Also http://www.goodmorningturkey.com/
What is the significance of being Kemalist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalism
Ideology that Kemalism brings defines the fundamental principles of Turkish Republic.
Ideology that Kemalism brings defines the fundamental principles of Turkish Republic.
The revolutionism part is kindof odd, don't you think? A tradition that calls for the rejection of traditions.
Turkey has long (before Erdogan) hewed towards secularism in public life despite being a majority muslim country, generally guaranteed by the force of the Turkish army. Kind of like how Americans hope that if the US government ever turns on its citizens (or more than it has already), our brothers and sisters in the military won't turn their guns on us and will disobey orders.
Yes, but it's actually quite common in many countries. China has had something similar since the Communist revolution (though it has significantly died down over the years). North Korea still has a very strong "revolutionary tradition" in its propaganda.
The ideology that follows the footsteps and thoughts of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. But in my opinion It's corrupted in today's Turkey.
Loath as I am to cite Buzzfeed, but: the images of the people on the bridge are not from these protests. They are from the 2012 Istanbul Marathon. http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/one-of-the-most-popula...
One image that has been associated with the protests is actually of the marathon. If you see a photo with only one lane of traffic blocked and the other flowing, it is not from the marathon.
The bridge pictures here appear to be legit. http://www.rightnow.io/breaking-news/turkey_bn_1369752659185...
The bridge pictures here appear to be legit. http://www.rightnow.io/breaking-news/turkey_bn_1369752659185...
I did not find a replica of the bridge posted.
Perhaps it is a popular crossing that gets filled up whenever major events are happening?
Perhaps it is a popular crossing that gets filled up whenever major events are happening?
No, it is a major highway. Pedestrian traffic is are not allowed. Getting on the bridge as a group of people is very rare and requires significant critical mass to pull off.
Like a major protest?
The go-to location for major protests is the Taksim Square, which is four miles from the bridge by foot. The protests need to be really widespread and populous to spread to the bridge. I don't remember that happening in my recent memory (except for a local soccer thing).
Those are not the same pictures though. Google image search returns nothing for the one featured in this article from before may.
Picture album from Reddit, shows more pictures from the bridge of people who definitely don't appear to be running a marathon. http://imgur.com/a/wOrZR#11
During the marathons, both ways are closed to the traffic. In the photo, it looks like they occupied the Europe to Asia lane.
I just went to Youtube, and on the first page there was this video of a protester overrun by a police tank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbYQ_dzFniY
EDIT: it looks to me that at the beginning of the video you can spot the feet of another person behind him.
EDIT: it looks to me that at the beginning of the video you can spot the feet of another person behind him.
The man is safe. Good bless him. This video reminds me of Tiananmen Square of 1989 and June 4 Massacre.
Hope every protester is safe.
I don't think they saw him though. And the shield hopefully saved him.
I looked at the video again. If you look it in slow motion, you can see that there is another man crouching in the back. Although the man in the front might not be visible to the tank driver, the one behind should be and has no shield.
Also, just before the impact the tank fires the water cannon in the exact direction of the two. Might be a coincidence or a proof they saw them.
But even in the event they did not see them, you just don't drive a tank against a barrier where you don't know if there are people or not.
But even in the event they did not see them, you just don't drive a tank against a barrier where you don't know if there are people or not.
By shield I meant that thing on a car that saved him from being run over and "just" tossed him to the side.
> If you look it in slow motion,
There is slow motion on youtube?
There is slow motion on youtube?
Enable HTML5 trial http://www.youtube.com/html5 and then on some videos (non-VEVO etc.) you can control the speed.
Interesting. I see the speed setting on some videos now. But clicking on them has no effect. For example when I click on 0.25x the video keeps playing at normal speed. Im using Iceweasel on Debian 7.
Html5 videos have it.You have to join the html5 trial to see all videos in html5.
The police are basically treating this like war. Remember this the next time someone says we should treat the police with respect because they're 'just doing their job'. It's not a stick with a worker at both ends, it a stick with a worker at one end and the state at the other.
It's becoming a civil war.
Looking at it from a class perspective:
"Erdogan’s vision of Turkey is one full of citizens who piously pray in the country’s ubiquitous mosques and then go shopping at one of its equally ubiquitous malls, which are frantically being built in urban areas.
As long as the imports, credit card, and debt-driven Turkish economic bubble remains intact, the government will continue to pursue these and other neoliberal policies to the great praise of western think-thanks, private equity firms, and politicians who all repeat the fallacy of the ‘Turkish [success] model’.
Notwithstanding these neoliberal economic policies, Erdogan is still extremely popular among Turkey’s poor and working people in both urban and rural areas. Most western observers have missed this crucial fact and are, therefore, quick to enthusiastically compare the Gezi Park protests with the ‘Arab Spring’.
One has only to speak with blue-collar workers in Turkey to understand popular attitudes toward the government. Whenever I am in Istanbul, I engage in political small talk with people from various walks of life, including waiters, construction workers, and young men working on the ferries crossing the Bosporus. I also frequently visit my family members, who are from a poor Anatolian background.
In my conversations with these people, I have heard nothing but firm support for Erdogan. When asked about Turkey’s unemployment rate or the Prime Minister’s nepotism, most of these individuals do not hesitate to say, “I know that Erdogan is also ‘siphoning the cash’ (hortumluyorlar). But good for him (helal olsun). At least he is leaving us some crumbs. The previous bastards never gave us everything.” Memories of many decades of economic and political oppression by secular elites are still fresh for many Turks. Because of the AKP, these people now have access to things like privatized health care, credit card use, and unprecedented infrastructure development."
http://muftah.org/why-the-gezi-park-protests-do-not-herald-a...
"Erdogan’s vision of Turkey is one full of citizens who piously pray in the country’s ubiquitous mosques and then go shopping at one of its equally ubiquitous malls, which are frantically being built in urban areas.
As long as the imports, credit card, and debt-driven Turkish economic bubble remains intact, the government will continue to pursue these and other neoliberal policies to the great praise of western think-thanks, private equity firms, and politicians who all repeat the fallacy of the ‘Turkish [success] model’.
Notwithstanding these neoliberal economic policies, Erdogan is still extremely popular among Turkey’s poor and working people in both urban and rural areas. Most western observers have missed this crucial fact and are, therefore, quick to enthusiastically compare the Gezi Park protests with the ‘Arab Spring’.
One has only to speak with blue-collar workers in Turkey to understand popular attitudes toward the government. Whenever I am in Istanbul, I engage in political small talk with people from various walks of life, including waiters, construction workers, and young men working on the ferries crossing the Bosporus. I also frequently visit my family members, who are from a poor Anatolian background.
In my conversations with these people, I have heard nothing but firm support for Erdogan. When asked about Turkey’s unemployment rate or the Prime Minister’s nepotism, most of these individuals do not hesitate to say, “I know that Erdogan is also ‘siphoning the cash’ (hortumluyorlar). But good for him (helal olsun). At least he is leaving us some crumbs. The previous bastards never gave us everything.” Memories of many decades of economic and political oppression by secular elites are still fresh for many Turks. Because of the AKP, these people now have access to things like privatized health care, credit card use, and unprecedented infrastructure development."
http://muftah.org/why-the-gezi-park-protests-do-not-herald-a...
I recommend -
http://occupygezipics.tumblr.com/
What puzzle me the most, is the voluntary cooperation of the media with the government. Even if the media does not support this event, how they not cover it at all? sad, I always thought of Turkey as the most successful example of a Muslim democratic state.
What puzzle me the most, is the voluntary cooperation of the media with the government. Even if the media does not support this event, how they not cover it at all? sad, I always thought of Turkey as the most successful example of a Muslim democratic state.
> Muslim democratic state.
There are very, very few religious democracies, and if you only consider those both officially and effectively religious, I won’t be able to name a single one.
There are very, very few religious democracies, and if you only consider those both officially and effectively religious, I won’t be able to name a single one.
Turkey was famously founded as a secular state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9#Turkey). Things may have changed, but still ... "Muslim" probably just refers to the fact that most people living there are muslim.
I believe this is still a large portion this is Greek Orthodox Christians as well. Yet I do believe the majority are indeed Muslims.
Indonesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila_(politics)
In Indonesia, you are not allowed to be atheist. You must declare yourself as a follower of one of the 6 state sanctioned religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila_(politics)
In Indonesia, you are not allowed to be atheist. You must declare yourself as a follower of one of the 6 state sanctioned religions.
Turkey isn't officially a Muslim state, it's Muslim by vast majority. It's starting to become effectively religious.
I think this description was more akin to describing the USA or Germany as “Christian democratic states” as a majority in both of those are Christians. It doesn’t mean that Christianity is the state religion or something.
Turkey has been a successful majority Muslim but very secular and democratic state for a very long time. Maybe that’s changing …
(Ah, decisions, decisions. Sometimes I think the EU should have accelerated making a move on letting Turkey join. There are substantial risks associated with that, sure, but I also think that the EU would have had a significant chance of changing the trajectory Turkey is on.)
Turkey has been a successful majority Muslim but very secular and democratic state for a very long time. Maybe that’s changing …
(Ah, decisions, decisions. Sometimes I think the EU should have accelerated making a move on letting Turkey join. There are substantial risks associated with that, sure, but I also think that the EU would have had a significant chance of changing the trajectory Turkey is on.)
> Turkey has been a successful majority Muslim but very secular and democratic state for a very long time. Maybe that’s changing …
Uhm. Military coups in: 1960, 1971, 1980, as well as substantial intervention in the succession of power in 1997 that many considers a coup.
The secular nature of the Turkish state has largely remained as secular as it is because the Turkish military has a tendency to conduct coups whenever they deem someone is trying to introduce religiously motivated laws, coupled with a legal system that is frequently used to shut down political parties that mix politics and religion.
Turkey does not exactly have a very solid democratic tradition yet.
We have yet to see if the "Memorandum" issued in 1997 and allowing the current government is a sign the military has softened it's stance, but it's very clear that so far at least, the elected Turkish governments serve at the mercy of the military.
Uhm. Military coups in: 1960, 1971, 1980, as well as substantial intervention in the succession of power in 1997 that many considers a coup.
The secular nature of the Turkish state has largely remained as secular as it is because the Turkish military has a tendency to conduct coups whenever they deem someone is trying to introduce religiously motivated laws, coupled with a legal system that is frequently used to shut down political parties that mix politics and religion.
Turkey does not exactly have a very solid democratic tradition yet.
We have yet to see if the "Memorandum" issued in 1997 and allowing the current government is a sign the military has softened it's stance, but it's very clear that so far at least, the elected Turkish governments serve at the mercy of the military.
The Turkish military is much weaker than it used to be with the government having thrown many of its top leaders into prison accusing them of planning yet another coup and replacing with people that are sided with Erdogan. Still, it has a long history of stepping in if secularism is threatened so it will be interesting to see what happens in the future if Erdogan is able to stay in power and keep on implementing more and more religious policies.
Eh. Close enough, honestly.
The current Turkish government has been jailing journalists for years.
Whilst the constitution makes the country ostensibly secular, the AKP has been slowly turning it into an Islamist state. I assumed that's what was fundamentally behind the protests, but maybe it's just another anti-corporate thing.
Whilst the constitution makes the country ostensibly secular, the AKP has been slowly turning it into an Islamist state. I assumed that's what was fundamentally behind the protests, but maybe it's just another anti-corporate thing.
The initial action was a picnic of 50 people to protest removal of trees from Gezi Parkı which was subjected to intense police reaction.
If you recall the London riots (during which I was in Wales), rude attitude of police and political scandals were among the suggested reasons, which are also among the facts that inducted things happened here in Turkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taksim_Gezi_Park
If you recall the London riots (during which I was in Wales), rude attitude of police and political scandals were among the suggested reasons, which are also among the facts that inducted things happened here in Turkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taksim_Gezi_Park
I wouldn't compare these events. London riots started after a person died while being followed by the police. At night, a group of people went close to the police station and, without any intervention by the police, started burning some of the nearby buildings. Then it just went from there without any police intervention at all. If there's one thing to say about the London riots is how polite police was with the whole events.
You assume correct, this protests are no longer really about a shopping mall or a park. There was a small protest to that and the reaction to it has set in motion a new protest that has been bubbling under the service for a long time now.
It is not that surprising considering how many journalist have been jailed for speaking out against the current government. Turkey has been increasingly becoming more extreme as its secular government is being dismantled piece by piece and and resistance to this is thrown in jail.
Turkey actually is a successful example of a democratic state where Islam is the religion of the vast majority, albeit it is not a Muslim state, as the constitution is religion-agnostic; nowhere in it exists a phrase which even implies that the state has an official religion. Current government follows a conservative policy and has been elected with roughly 49% of votes. This eventually gave them power and resources to work in an autocratical manner. They have also been able to enforce censorship and direct the media companies in the way they want. Turkish parliament has a total count of 550 members and 327 of these are members of AKP, which let's them legislate proposals even in situations where there is no support from the opposition (although they can't in some cases where the required fraction of parliamentarian votes are more that 50%, which is usually demanded by the constitution for some fundamental stuff, like editing the constitution text itself). Added the fact that the president is also descendant from this party, they apparently have a humongous authority, originating from a, so to speak bug in election system: A party with less than 10% vote rate can not have it's members in the parliament, which eventually let them occupy more that 50% of the 550 quota of the number of parliamentarians.
The next elections will be held on 2015, at which I expect that the votes are going to be distributed even among the three major parties, where two of these are CHP and MHP, which are defined to be social-democrat-left and nationalist-concervative-right (with no apparent tendency towards theocratic ideals) respectively. AKP will probably be in the parliament, albeit lack the dominion present today.
The next elections will be held on 2015, at which I expect that the votes are going to be distributed even among the three major parties, where two of these are CHP and MHP, which are defined to be social-democrat-left and nationalist-concervative-right (with no apparent tendency towards theocratic ideals) respectively. AKP will probably be in the parliament, albeit lack the dominion present today.
> A party with less than 10% vote rate can not have it's members in the parliament, which eventually let them occupy more that 50% of the 550 quota of the number of parliamentarians.
Actually it's not a bug, if they would allow smaller parties they would have 10,20,50 parties in there, some with only one person. It would be a mess - hard to make any decision.
Actually it's not a bug, if they would allow smaller parties they would have 10,20,50 parties in there, some with only one person. It would be a mess - hard to make any decision.
I believe 10% leaves out a huge amount of votes, esp. in Turkey where exists 45 million voters and 60 parties. 5% or less would be a better choice.
As a friend of mine once said "In Turkey we have free markets, not free speech."
[deleted]
Another explanation, with more detail "on the ground":
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1fi07t/im_so_conf...
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1fi07t/im_so_conf...
and others on quora, http://www.quora.com/Istanbul/What-is-happening-at-Gezi-Park...
http://www.quora.com/Istanbul/What-is-happening-at-Gezi-Park...
Append "?share=1", and the dumbass registration wall goes away.
Append "?share=1", and the dumbass registration wall goes away.
System hacking detected! Querystrings are our last defense!
It's such a weird thing to implement on top of a registration wall.
I imagine it's something friends, VCs, and the tech press were told about, but the rest of us aren't supposed to use.
I imagine it's something friends, VCs, and the tech press were told about, but the rest of us aren't supposed to use.
No, everybody was told about it. It's an official feature. Because Quora power users keep bitching up a storm about the registration wall.
It is still a weird thing, though. The Quora management swears that forcing people to log up makes things better somehow, although they've never been particularly clear on how that works.
It is still a weird thing, though. The Quora management swears that forcing people to log up makes things better somehow, although they've never been particularly clear on how that works.
@Brown_Moses (https://twitter.com/brown_moses) is one of the best people to follow on these subjects.
Eliot is an interesting example of one a single well-connected individual can accomplish in the digital age: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-brown-moses-blog/x/255....
His feed is a bit of a firehose feed, so I recommend you only follow him, whenever you need to immerse yourself in an ongoing story.
The things going on in Turkey are so insane, they have to be seen to be believed.
EDIT: His YouTube playlist with videos of the clashes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvUktDH-OBM&list=PLPC0Ude....
Eliot is an interesting example of one a single well-connected individual can accomplish in the digital age: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-brown-moses-blog/x/255....
His feed is a bit of a firehose feed, so I recommend you only follow him, whenever you need to immerse yourself in an ongoing story.
The things going on in Turkey are so insane, they have to be seen to be believed.
EDIT: His YouTube playlist with videos of the clashes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvUktDH-OBM&list=PLPC0Ude....
"These people are my friends. They are my students, my relatives. They have no «hidden agenda» as the state likes to say. Their agenda is out there. It is very clear. The whole country is being sold to corporations by the government, for the construction of malls, luxury condominiums, freeways, dams and nuclear plants. The government is looking for (and creating when necessary) any excuse to attack Syria against its people’s will.
On top of all that, the government control over its people’s personal lives has become unbearable as of late. The state, under its conservative agenda passed many laws and regulations concerning abortion, cesarean birth, sale and use of alcohol and even the color of lipstick worn by the airline stewardesses."
It sounds as if the protestors, if the author is genuine, are protesting something I call "Singaporification." It's the fusion of authoritarian quasi-fascist rule with capitalism-- a kind of socially conservative, often (but not always) religious conservative, but economically neo-liberal state of affairs. On the surface it sometimes looks theocratic, but in reality it's more of a dictatorship of gentrification. Religious morality (or sometimes secularized versions thereof) is used as a facade to condemn any form of social deviancy and especially to mentally control the lower classes by manipulating their religious faiths.
(We see the latter in America with the "culture war," which is a way of distracting the largely-religious working classes while their future is sold out from under them.)
In conversations with fellow techies, it's disturbed me to what extent many seem to tacitly support this kind of thing. I've been in many conversations explicitly praising Singapore -- a country that permits death sentences for minor infractions -- as a viable model of the future.
The thing that makes Singaporification scary is that it works. The scariest dystopias are not hideous hellscapes where nobody would want to live, as those tend to self-destruct or at best persist in tiny enclaves and never catch on. Who would want to emulate North Korea? But seductive dystopias are dangerous because they can catch on. Who wouldn't want low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy? In that sense I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today.
Historical precursors include Franco's Spain. Think of Singaporification as a gentler, less overtly violent form of Spanish fascism. But as we see if you openly challenge it, the gloves rapidly come off and your shiny clean utopia busts out the tanks, tear gas, and death penalty sentences.
Edit: on second thought, it also represents a fusion of liberal nanny-statism, conservative social authoritarianism, and neo-liberal economics. Government by and for the uptight, culturally xenophobic urban professional.
As Benjamin Franklin said: those who sacrifice liberty for security and prosperity deserve neither.
Worth watching: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066434/
"Buy, and be happy."
If action flicks are more your thing, this is a fun and a bit underrated riff on the same theme: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/
On top of all that, the government control over its people’s personal lives has become unbearable as of late. The state, under its conservative agenda passed many laws and regulations concerning abortion, cesarean birth, sale and use of alcohol and even the color of lipstick worn by the airline stewardesses."
It sounds as if the protestors, if the author is genuine, are protesting something I call "Singaporification." It's the fusion of authoritarian quasi-fascist rule with capitalism-- a kind of socially conservative, often (but not always) religious conservative, but economically neo-liberal state of affairs. On the surface it sometimes looks theocratic, but in reality it's more of a dictatorship of gentrification. Religious morality (or sometimes secularized versions thereof) is used as a facade to condemn any form of social deviancy and especially to mentally control the lower classes by manipulating their religious faiths.
(We see the latter in America with the "culture war," which is a way of distracting the largely-religious working classes while their future is sold out from under them.)
In conversations with fellow techies, it's disturbed me to what extent many seem to tacitly support this kind of thing. I've been in many conversations explicitly praising Singapore -- a country that permits death sentences for minor infractions -- as a viable model of the future.
The thing that makes Singaporification scary is that it works. The scariest dystopias are not hideous hellscapes where nobody would want to live, as those tend to self-destruct or at best persist in tiny enclaves and never catch on. Who would want to emulate North Korea? But seductive dystopias are dangerous because they can catch on. Who wouldn't want low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy? In that sense I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today.
Historical precursors include Franco's Spain. Think of Singaporification as a gentler, less overtly violent form of Spanish fascism. But as we see if you openly challenge it, the gloves rapidly come off and your shiny clean utopia busts out the tanks, tear gas, and death penalty sentences.
Edit: on second thought, it also represents a fusion of liberal nanny-statism, conservative social authoritarianism, and neo-liberal economics. Government by and for the uptight, culturally xenophobic urban professional.
As Benjamin Franklin said: those who sacrifice liberty for security and prosperity deserve neither.
Worth watching: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066434/
"Buy, and be happy."
If action flicks are more your thing, this is a fun and a bit underrated riff on the same theme: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/
Wow.
I am speechless.
As someone who was born and raised in Turkey, and visited Singapore for long periods of time, let me say very clearly: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Turkey and Singapore are two completely different worlds, with different histories, cultures, and geopolitical situations, and are not related in any shape or form. There may be a few surface-level parallels, but that's where the similarities end.
I am stunned however that a person who very likely has never even visited either place (much less lived in them) has the gall to call what Turkey is going through "Singaporification." I mean, it's not like I haven't noticed the anti-Singaporean sentiments on HN lately - they don't surprise me, since a lot of HN folks are white middle/upper-middle class and lean libertarian[1], which is the exact opposite of Singapore. But using the events in Istanbul as an opportunity to bash Singapore is just... petty and shameless.
I would love to give you a detailed breakdown of the differences between Singapore and Turkey, but that would be an essay. I'll highlight a few important ones.
Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Turkey on the other hand is rampant with corruption, especially the current government. That's part of the reason why the protests started: the contractor that was going to build the mall on top of Gezi Park has ties to the Prime Minister, who was going to profit from it. That's just ONE example.
Singapore is extremely diverse culturally. There are several religions and languages. As a result, there are often no culturally accepted behaviors. In a sense, Singapore does not really fit the traditional definition of a nation, and instead has been called a society in transition. In contrast, Turkey has a very strong cultural identity rooted deeply in the country's history and predominant religion, Islam.
The two country's governments are also extremely different. Singapore is a de-facto one-party state; the dominant party, the PAP, has won every single general election since the first one. In contrast, Turkey is a multi-party system, which creates very complex dynamics in the political landscape.
I can go on, but you get the idea. Hopefully.
[1]Table 10 in http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa580.pdf
I am speechless.
As someone who was born and raised in Turkey, and visited Singapore for long periods of time, let me say very clearly: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Turkey and Singapore are two completely different worlds, with different histories, cultures, and geopolitical situations, and are not related in any shape or form. There may be a few surface-level parallels, but that's where the similarities end.
I am stunned however that a person who very likely has never even visited either place (much less lived in them) has the gall to call what Turkey is going through "Singaporification." I mean, it's not like I haven't noticed the anti-Singaporean sentiments on HN lately - they don't surprise me, since a lot of HN folks are white middle/upper-middle class and lean libertarian[1], which is the exact opposite of Singapore. But using the events in Istanbul as an opportunity to bash Singapore is just... petty and shameless.
I would love to give you a detailed breakdown of the differences between Singapore and Turkey, but that would be an essay. I'll highlight a few important ones.
Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Turkey on the other hand is rampant with corruption, especially the current government. That's part of the reason why the protests started: the contractor that was going to build the mall on top of Gezi Park has ties to the Prime Minister, who was going to profit from it. That's just ONE example.
Singapore is extremely diverse culturally. There are several religions and languages. As a result, there are often no culturally accepted behaviors. In a sense, Singapore does not really fit the traditional definition of a nation, and instead has been called a society in transition. In contrast, Turkey has a very strong cultural identity rooted deeply in the country's history and predominant religion, Islam.
The two country's governments are also extremely different. Singapore is a de-facto one-party state; the dominant party, the PAP, has won every single general election since the first one. In contrast, Turkey is a multi-party system, which creates very complex dynamics in the political landscape.
I can go on, but you get the idea. Hopefully.
[1]Table 10 in http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa580.pdf
For me the greatest truth in this comment lies in the necessity to live in a place to truly understand it. Living in a new and entirely different country challenges your prejudices and preconceptions.
"Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world."
You should ask Shane Todd about that.
You should ask Shane Todd about that.
The latest as of May is that suicide is much more likely than foul play. See the last paragraph in the introduction on Wikipedia (beginning with "A different picture"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Shane_Todd
[deleted]
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it's correct to be comparing the current Singapore with the current Turkey, since the premise is that Turkey is on the way to becoming like Singapore. So from this perspective if you examine the points you gave:
- Singapore is the least corrupt country in the world because of extremely tough laws that were enacted in the past.
- I'll give you that Singapore is much more diverse, but note that China also wants to adopt a Singapore model and has an incredibly strong cultural identity.
- A quick lookup shows that Erdoğan has been in office for the longest time since the 60s (three terms). To me, fears of Turkey becoming a de facto one-party state seems justified, at least absent any other information.
I'm not sure if listing the differences and similarities of the two countries is even relevant to this particular discussion. The thesis was that Turkey might be trying to adopt a Singapore model of using economic growth and social order to offset the demand for political freedom. It doesn't actually matter how different the countries are if the government objectives are similar.
- Singapore is the least corrupt country in the world because of extremely tough laws that were enacted in the past.
- I'll give you that Singapore is much more diverse, but note that China also wants to adopt a Singapore model and has an incredibly strong cultural identity.
- A quick lookup shows that Erdoğan has been in office for the longest time since the 60s (three terms). To me, fears of Turkey becoming a de facto one-party state seems justified, at least absent any other information.
I'm not sure if listing the differences and similarities of the two countries is even relevant to this particular discussion. The thesis was that Turkey might be trying to adopt a Singapore model of using economic growth and social order to offset the demand for political freedom. It doesn't actually matter how different the countries are if the government objectives are similar.
"A quick lookup shows that Erdoğan has been in office for the longest time since the 60s (three terms). To me, fears of Turkey becoming a de facto one-party state seems justified, at least absent any other information."
You're on to something. One of the underlying reasons of the protests is not only Erdoğan has been in the office for a long time, but also secular sections of the society has lost hope of change of government within the political system (Opposition is in shambles, AKP will likely win the elections again, etc.) There is no political alternative within the system, hence the growing discontent manifests itself in other ways.
If you think the worst is a one-party state, you've not been following the news. The worst is that Erdogan completes his mission : turning turkey in a middle-eastern islamic dictatorship where women are beaten for walking on the street and every tiniest bit of culture dies, violently and with beheadings.
You are joking right? Tell me one thing you could do 5,10,20 years ago and cannot do now that supports your future predictions. I am excluding drinking booze in public places.
The press could report on these events 10 years ago. Now they don't.
The workers could celebrate May day in Taksim square just a few years ago, this year they were banned.
People could express themselves more freely if they were not religious or if they were against the government. Now they fear retaliation, losing their job etc. This actually happened to journalists, they did lose their jobs. Hundreds are imprisoned without being convicted or even having a trial for months and years.
There are other indications that Turkey is turning into an Islamic (Sunni in particular) state and our culture is being destroyed. Scientists and artists are ridiculed routinely by the politicians in power. They destroyed Turkish Academy of Sciences. They shut down Feza Gürsey institute. They fired majority of people who made Pardus GNU/Linux distribution and Göktürk satellite from TÜBİTAK.
Unfortunately, this is no joke.
There are other indications that Turkey is turning into an Islamic (Sunni in particular) state and our culture is being destroyed. Scientists and artists are ridiculed routinely by the politicians in power. They destroyed Turkish Academy of Sciences. They shut down Feza Gürsey institute. They fired majority of people who made Pardus GNU/Linux distribution and Göktürk satellite from TÜBİTAK.
Unfortunately, this is no joke.
This was a personal question actually.
I am no supporter of current Government, but most things you say can be counter-answered.
- Some press reports things less than you like. Some reports with exaggeration. Blame the first group if you want for their cowardice. If second group is alive and kicking, your point is proven to be false.
- Taksim Square was actually totally closed to 1st of May events from 1978 to 2010 . It was this government allowed opening it again. This year there is construction so it was not allowed. I remember the horror in Kadikoy in 1996 tough.
"People could express themselves more freely if they were not religious or if they were against the government. Now they fear retaliation, losing their job etc." This is just your opinion. I cannot really prove the opposite either. Nepotism is there tough, and cannot be avoided regardless of any government.
Journalism issue is problematic and a shame. Most are really PKK related and probably this will change. I cannot say this is something new tough.
"Scientists and artists are ridiculed routinely by the politicians in power" they push each others wrong buttons, and politicians are less tolerable indeed. But apart from 1-2 incidents this cannot be generalized. It is a shame that PM does not have a sense of humor.
To me, Turkish Academy of Sciences issue is overrated. "Most" guys there weren't doing anything useful in terms of science there anyway. They continue their work in universities or in Tubitak without a loss. Handling of Science and Technology by this government can be criticized but for better or worse, they pour perhaps x10 more money on R&D than previous governments.
Do not know what really happened behind pardus and Gokturk issue. Sattelite is on the sky and Pardus turned to Debian, that is what I know.
I am no supporter of current Government, but most things you say can be counter-answered.
- Some press reports things less than you like. Some reports with exaggeration. Blame the first group if you want for their cowardice. If second group is alive and kicking, your point is proven to be false.
- Taksim Square was actually totally closed to 1st of May events from 1978 to 2010 . It was this government allowed opening it again. This year there is construction so it was not allowed. I remember the horror in Kadikoy in 1996 tough.
"People could express themselves more freely if they were not religious or if they were against the government. Now they fear retaliation, losing their job etc." This is just your opinion. I cannot really prove the opposite either. Nepotism is there tough, and cannot be avoided regardless of any government.
Journalism issue is problematic and a shame. Most are really PKK related and probably this will change. I cannot say this is something new tough.
"Scientists and artists are ridiculed routinely by the politicians in power" they push each others wrong buttons, and politicians are less tolerable indeed. But apart from 1-2 incidents this cannot be generalized. It is a shame that PM does not have a sense of humor.
To me, Turkish Academy of Sciences issue is overrated. "Most" guys there weren't doing anything useful in terms of science there anyway. They continue their work in universities or in Tubitak without a loss. Handling of Science and Technology by this government can be criticized but for better or worse, they pour perhaps x10 more money on R&D than previous governments.
Do not know what really happened behind pardus and Gokturk issue. Sattelite is on the sky and Pardus turned to Debian, that is what I know.
When the events were escalating, while there were clashes between the police and thousands of protesters and hundreds were walking across a bridge over the Bosphorus only one TV channel reported these. And you are dismissing this neglect of the media by "Some press reports things less than you like. Some reports with exaggeration."???
The events unfolding at the moment shows that it was possible to celebrate the May Day in Taksim. "This year there is construction so it was not allowed." does not hold water.
As I gave an example (the journalists being fired), it is not my opinion, it is a fact. And if you do not observe other examples around you then you are simply not looking. Of course every government benefits their supporters to some extent, but getting journalists fired? When was the last time did that happen? And regardless of this happening before or not, is it not suppression of free speech?
You say, "To me, Turkish Academy of Sciences issue is overrated", to me it is not. To a lot of my scientist friends it is not (For the record, I am an astrophysicist). People spent a lot time and energy to build the Turkish Academy of Sciences and the Feza Gürsey Institute. And I know these developments did hurt scientists for a fact; I work in a university and I am personally affected. They may be pouring more money into R&D but did you look at the projects in the last science project fair? http://www.sendika.org/2013/05/kuran-mucizesinden-seriat-huk... Do you recall what the Science and Technology minister said about faculties of science or the theory of evolution? That's where a lot of money is going. It is hard to quantize how much real science is getting.
The satellite is in the sky and the team that built that satellite is mostly fired. Pardus was an independent distribution, the team that built Pardus is also gutted and the distribution is now a (badly) translated Debian.
The events unfolding at the moment shows that it was possible to celebrate the May Day in Taksim. "This year there is construction so it was not allowed." does not hold water.
As I gave an example (the journalists being fired), it is not my opinion, it is a fact. And if you do not observe other examples around you then you are simply not looking. Of course every government benefits their supporters to some extent, but getting journalists fired? When was the last time did that happen? And regardless of this happening before or not, is it not suppression of free speech?
You say, "To me, Turkish Academy of Sciences issue is overrated", to me it is not. To a lot of my scientist friends it is not (For the record, I am an astrophysicist). People spent a lot time and energy to build the Turkish Academy of Sciences and the Feza Gürsey Institute. And I know these developments did hurt scientists for a fact; I work in a university and I am personally affected. They may be pouring more money into R&D but did you look at the projects in the last science project fair? http://www.sendika.org/2013/05/kuran-mucizesinden-seriat-huk... Do you recall what the Science and Technology minister said about faculties of science or the theory of evolution? That's where a lot of money is going. It is hard to quantize how much real science is getting.
The satellite is in the sky and the team that built that satellite is mostly fired. Pardus was an independent distribution, the team that built Pardus is also gutted and the distribution is now a (badly) translated Debian.
When talking about press, I was talking in general. But yes, on recent events, few press focused on police brutality, and some focused on protester's vandalism. I still believe all mass media is business so I am not shocked with their behavior.
May Day issue. To me it holds water. You are dismissing the fact I told you. I put my money on this, once the re-construction is finished (if ever) I bet they will allow it. Mark this thread to remember.
Yes, I dislike the way Government's handling of press. They should never interfere. However, journalists are not being fired by PM. They are fired by their bosses. No matter what, blame and shame is on them. Also, my personal opinion, the fired journalists were mediocre at best. Perhaps they just screwed up and got fired afterwards. They could easily find places in anti-government press. Where are them now?
Sorry that you got personally effected from the Turkish Academy of Sciences issue. But from what I see Academy is very much alive and doing okay. Probably we will not reach to an agreement on this issue. I am not a believer of so called autonomous science academies. For fundamental science, I prefer actual research. And Universities are the places for that.
Also ouch!. Do you base your ideas on a single stupid project on a science fair for high schools? You are a man of Science, I would expect better.
Pardus was meant to replace MS dependency in government desktop and servers. It was funded by Tubitak. There were many full time paid developers. Initial developers were very strong - top notch. Some of them I know personally. But they left the project one by one. It was long ago. Call it miss management, or lack of vision of higher hierarchy, apparently they could not deliver afterwards. After the change of administration, group is dissolved and they went to plan-B. My point of view, Pardus was gone long before. It was not an ideological issue but a management problem. People may disagree with me, or shed light on the issues I do not know, but that is how I see this. I cannot comment on the satellite crew fired because it is hard to follow the correct information. If they were fired without a good reason, why didn't then fight using lawyers and Union? I do not know.
I do believe there is excessive nepotism and communitarianism in governmental institutions today (They may see it as their right, a form of 'revenge'. I call it bullsh*t). Of course It was there before opposing governments, even when republic was founded. There is no way of getting rid of it. Perhaps libertarians are right on this, you can only beat it by making government as small as possible. Okay I am carried away and wrote too much when I could do actually useful things instead.
May Day issue. To me it holds water. You are dismissing the fact I told you. I put my money on this, once the re-construction is finished (if ever) I bet they will allow it. Mark this thread to remember.
Yes, I dislike the way Government's handling of press. They should never interfere. However, journalists are not being fired by PM. They are fired by their bosses. No matter what, blame and shame is on them. Also, my personal opinion, the fired journalists were mediocre at best. Perhaps they just screwed up and got fired afterwards. They could easily find places in anti-government press. Where are them now?
Sorry that you got personally effected from the Turkish Academy of Sciences issue. But from what I see Academy is very much alive and doing okay. Probably we will not reach to an agreement on this issue. I am not a believer of so called autonomous science academies. For fundamental science, I prefer actual research. And Universities are the places for that.
Also ouch!. Do you base your ideas on a single stupid project on a science fair for high schools? You are a man of Science, I would expect better.
Pardus was meant to replace MS dependency in government desktop and servers. It was funded by Tubitak. There were many full time paid developers. Initial developers were very strong - top notch. Some of them I know personally. But they left the project one by one. It was long ago. Call it miss management, or lack of vision of higher hierarchy, apparently they could not deliver afterwards. After the change of administration, group is dissolved and they went to plan-B. My point of view, Pardus was gone long before. It was not an ideological issue but a management problem. People may disagree with me, or shed light on the issues I do not know, but that is how I see this. I cannot comment on the satellite crew fired because it is hard to follow the correct information. If they were fired without a good reason, why didn't then fight using lawyers and Union? I do not know.
I do believe there is excessive nepotism and communitarianism in governmental institutions today (They may see it as their right, a form of 'revenge'. I call it bullsh*t). Of course It was there before opposing governments, even when republic was founded. There is no way of getting rid of it. Perhaps libertarians are right on this, you can only beat it by making government as small as possible. Okay I am carried away and wrote too much when I could do actually useful things instead.
I remember your comment from yesterday, where you wrote about what is happening in Ankara, stating "I don't live there right now".
Of course, not even living anywhere near where you are, I cannot qualify this myself. But my question (that I hope you won't understand as offensive) to you is: Is it possible that you are victim to your somewhat limited horizon and to the possibly biased information that you get from your government?
Of course, not even living anywhere near where you are, I cannot qualify this myself. But my question (that I hope you won't understand as offensive) to you is: Is it possible that you are victim to your somewhat limited horizon and to the possibly biased information that you get from your government?
I don't get any of my information from the government. They are censoring all the newspapers and channels... Social media is a lot more reliable to get up-to-date information. Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Then this comment of yours doesn't make much sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802911
Do you still think this means "fuck-all"?
(And again: Just trying to get a clear picture of what it is you're saying.)
Do you still think this means "fuck-all"?
(And again: Just trying to get a clear picture of what it is you're saying.)
I meant it as in the regime won't resign because of these riots.
Well, reading your comment, especially in the light of how distraught Erdogan seemed in his 1.5 interview with Fatih Altayli, it definitely seems off. Also, Erdogan's party is not a homogenous block, although he's holding everybody in check right now. Even now, some dissident voices among AKP intelligentsia started worrying about the loss of support.
Assuming the government will go after a few days of riots is naive; however, this is a very significant data point for Erdogan.
Assuming the government will go after a few days of riots is naive; however, this is a very significant data point for Erdogan.
The interview was staged, or at least well-rehearsed. You will notice that Altayli could not dare to ask any serious questions or question Erdogan's reasoning in any shape or form.
Basically, Altayli is a spineless coward and lost the respect of the Turkish people.
(He reminded me of the way Wolf Blitzer moderated some of the presidential debates here in the US. Blitzer also didn't have the balls to ask anything difficult.)
Basically, Altayli is a spineless coward and lost the respect of the Turkish people.
(He reminded me of the way Wolf Blitzer moderated some of the presidential debates here in the US. Blitzer also didn't have the balls to ask anything difficult.)
Blitzer has always been useless.
You know, actually the US isn't that much freer in practice compared to Singapore. In theory, perhaps. And the reason has less to do with the decline of rugged individualism amongst soccer moms than the existence of a constant low-level background threat, whether from terrorism, a sizable underclass, law enforcement, or (this might be embarassing for some) alcoholism. They don't check IDs for alcohol in Singapore. If you want to see actual practical examples of freedom, you have to go to western Europe. However, if you say that it is the US which makes sacrifices to provide those freedoms, I will actually agree with you. For the record, I was born and raised in Singapore and have lived in the US for the last decade.
EDIT: all these debates have the political reek of programming language wars... US <-> Lisp; Singapore <-> C++.
EDIT: all these debates have the political reek of programming language wars... US <-> Lisp; Singapore <-> C++.
If you want to see actual practical examples of freedom, you have to go to western Europe.
You have to go where?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1009...
I think if you want to see practical examples of freedom, you can conquer your own island and start inventing them. No modern nation is going to tolerate very much of it.
You have to go where?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1009...
I think if you want to see practical examples of freedom, you can conquer your own island and start inventing them. No modern nation is going to tolerate very much of it.
For all its faults the USA has very strong 1st Amendment protections.
I also find it strange that most western European countries outlaw the Nazi party and denying the holocaust. I suspect this only serves to give them more legitimacy in the eyes of society's downtrodden. The American model of dealing with these groups just seems more sustainable. Give them enough room to say all kinds of stupid things.
Le Pen is an ignorant racist. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give her every opportunity to say all the stupid shit she wants to say.
I also find it strange that most western European countries outlaw the Nazi party and denying the holocaust. I suspect this only serves to give them more legitimacy in the eyes of society's downtrodden. The American model of dealing with these groups just seems more sustainable. Give them enough room to say all kinds of stupid things.
Le Pen is an ignorant racist. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give her every opportunity to say all the stupid shit she wants to say.
[deleted]
Depends on what your talking about. I didn't get a caning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore) last time i threw gum on the sidewalk in the US.
This is a myrh.
Practical example of freedom? Having your bag searched before entering a museum (Paris)? Bomb detectors at a church (Vatican)? Stopped for random police checks (London)? Passport recorded by hotels to use the Internet (Italy)? If this is freedom, I'm not impressed. (Examples are about 5 years old, things may have changed, I hope they have).
I partially disagree with your comment about corruption. This part:"Turkey on the other hand is rampant with corruption, especially the current government."
Corruption on upper levels probably never disappears, but at least on the lower levels, where people really got hurt and dreaded most, things got better with current government. As someone who lived in Turkey for quite long time, I can say I was pleasantly surprised that one didn't have to bribe anyone buy a small property. Before, it would be impossible to buy property without bribing everyone in the land register office including janitor and tea server.
Also, in the recent perceived corruption index charts Turkey's position is not so bad, wish it is much better (54.th in 176 countries, Singapore is 5th. Source: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results)
Corruption on upper levels probably never disappears, but at least on the lower levels, where people really got hurt and dreaded most, things got better with current government. As someone who lived in Turkey for quite long time, I can say I was pleasantly surprised that one didn't have to bribe anyone buy a small property. Before, it would be impossible to buy property without bribing everyone in the land register office including janitor and tea server.
Also, in the recent perceived corruption index charts Turkey's position is not so bad, wish it is much better (54.th in 176 countries, Singapore is 5th. Source: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results)
Interesting map, but I have to question it a bit. I mean, Switzerland is 6th which speaks highly to their local situation, but their banks enable all manner of international corruptions.
Excellent comment - the saga of stolen Jewish stuff took just a wee while to start to be repatriated...
The fact that swiss banks stuck to their rules and required ownership to be established in the normal way even in the wake of such a dramatic tragedy speaks to their incorruptibility.
It's a pity that wasn't done with the initial deposits.
Huh? The burden of proof for for pulling property out of someone else's account in their name is and should be higher than for depositing things in your own account.
Absolutely agree. Some of the looted stuff was obviously just that however, and they hung onto it rather too long as well. Just who they should give it back to wouldn't have been easy though.
USA, the land of the free - land of no corruption - land of emancipator - land of liberating bombings - land of the powerful, ranks 9. Wow! Interesting map.
I really do not know what this map considered as corruption. A little explanation shall sure help!
I really do not know what this map considered as corruption. A little explanation shall sure help!
I've never had to bribe anyone, ever in the US. In my parent's home country this is absolutely not true.
I hate this overly cynical "i get all my politics and ideas from wikileaks and reddit" on how horrible the US. The US is a fairly pleasant place to live in. If you think a speeding ticket is oppression then its really time to grow up.
I hate this overly cynical "i get all my politics and ideas from wikileaks and reddit" on how horrible the US. The US is a fairly pleasant place to live in. If you think a speeding ticket is oppression then its really time to grow up.
RTFM? The source questions are listed in the download.
The list I'm looking at ranks the US at 19th. did something change drastically in the last 9 hours?
Also, who says the US is the "land of no corruption"? The US has some famously corrupt cities, states, senators, even a President or two, and has throughout its history. I don't think we're claiming superiority in that department. Are we?
Also, who says the US is the "land of no corruption"? The US has some famously corrupt cities, states, senators, even a President or two, and has throughout its history. I don't think we're claiming superiority in that department. Are we?
>anti-Singaporean sentiments on HN lately
To be honest I doubt Singapore is on the radar of most HN participants in any shape or form whether positive or negative. Thats not to say that its insignificant - its just that there haven't been any 40k people riots there lately...so not at the front of people's minds.
To be honest I doubt Singapore is on the radar of most HN participants in any shape or form whether positive or negative. Thats not to say that its insignificant - its just that there haven't been any 40k people riots there lately...so not at the front of people's minds.
As a Singaporean who just spent the last hour or so rapidly scanning through Turkey's history, it seems the situation in both countries is the entrenchment of political power within a single party.
As for corruption in Singapore, well, let me just say that one of the caveats of these corruption indices is that whether you perceive it. If you are a foreigner visiting Singapore or even a local living here for a while, your daily life in general will probably be pleasant as long as you are not involved in any form of political activism.
Most of the shenanigans in Singapore are related to politics and how the incumbent party has maintained its power. There is a reason for Singapore being placed in the nether regions (144th rank in the Press Freedom Index) in various press freedom rankings and why we are labeled as a "hybrid regime".
As for people who keep gushing about Singapore and how awesome our country is, all I have for them is a wintry smile and the old phrase, "Not all that glitters is gold".
As for corruption in Singapore, well, let me just say that one of the caveats of these corruption indices is that whether you perceive it. If you are a foreigner visiting Singapore or even a local living here for a while, your daily life in general will probably be pleasant as long as you are not involved in any form of political activism.
Most of the shenanigans in Singapore are related to politics and how the incumbent party has maintained its power. There is a reason for Singapore being placed in the nether regions (144th rank in the Press Freedom Index) in various press freedom rankings and why we are labeled as a "hybrid regime".
As for people who keep gushing about Singapore and how awesome our country is, all I have for them is a wintry smile and the old phrase, "Not all that glitters is gold".
> Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Turkey on the other hand is rampant with corruption
I haven't lived in either, but I did live as a child under dictatorship until I was 7 years old and 1989 happened. My parents and grandparents have fresh memories of the dynamics at play in our country and did their best to explain them to me.
I do have a problem with the quoted statement.
It really depends on how you define corruption. If you define it as fraudulent behaviour by those in power, well, technically those in power do not need to behave fraudulently if they bend the law to support whatever they want to do. On paper, at some point Romania was amongst the least corrupted countries in the world. In practice, our society was rotten at its core.
Ending corruption is not the end goal in itself, corruption being a symptom of other problems in society, like the ability to live free, free to build a business, free to own stuff, free to put food on the table, free to have your own voice and your own opinions and beliefs, free to be happy. Not having corruption can either mean that the problems have been solved, or that those in power forwarded whatever agenda they wanted while crushing all opposition. This is especially doable if the country is doing well economically, such that its citizens do not have to worry about putting food on the table, or providing quality health-care to their family or whatever basic needs humans have. The true test that a form of government faces in regards to corruption is not when things are going well economically, but rather when things go awry and one thing to keep in mind is that corruption also goes bottom-up, starting with normal people closing their eyes at fraudulent behaviour of which they themselves are guilty of.
Also, I do have Turkish friends and I have visited Istanbul twice and judging by their own stories of Istanbul, by how the city evolved during my visits and by how dynamic it is, Istanbul is in my top 10 cities I'd want to live in, while Singapore is not.
I haven't lived in either, but I did live as a child under dictatorship until I was 7 years old and 1989 happened. My parents and grandparents have fresh memories of the dynamics at play in our country and did their best to explain them to me.
I do have a problem with the quoted statement.
It really depends on how you define corruption. If you define it as fraudulent behaviour by those in power, well, technically those in power do not need to behave fraudulently if they bend the law to support whatever they want to do. On paper, at some point Romania was amongst the least corrupted countries in the world. In practice, our society was rotten at its core.
Ending corruption is not the end goal in itself, corruption being a symptom of other problems in society, like the ability to live free, free to build a business, free to own stuff, free to put food on the table, free to have your own voice and your own opinions and beliefs, free to be happy. Not having corruption can either mean that the problems have been solved, or that those in power forwarded whatever agenda they wanted while crushing all opposition. This is especially doable if the country is doing well economically, such that its citizens do not have to worry about putting food on the table, or providing quality health-care to their family or whatever basic needs humans have. The true test that a form of government faces in regards to corruption is not when things are going well economically, but rather when things go awry and one thing to keep in mind is that corruption also goes bottom-up, starting with normal people closing their eyes at fraudulent behaviour of which they themselves are guilty of.
Also, I do have Turkish friends and I have visited Istanbul twice and judging by their own stories of Istanbul, by how the city evolved during my visits and by how dynamic it is, Istanbul is in my top 10 cities I'd want to live in, while Singapore is not.
> protesting something I call "Singaporification."
I love how people always cast Singapore as some kind of horror story cautionary tale. No-one seems to have told the actual people of Singapore, who are perfectly free to leave their nightmarish dystopia at any time, and yet seem perversely inclined to stay. Somehow this obvious, central, crucial fact gets left out of the "we don't want to turn out like Singapore!" narrative.
I think the real reason people demonise Singapore isn't because it's a bad place to live; it's because it is actually a really good place to live, and this fact causes a certain conflict in the libertarian mind, a fundamental undermining of the whole axiomic structure of their beliefs and no-one wants to face that. So, instead, they try to villify it in vague terms of being some kind of anti-freedom devil state - a North Korea that, by Satan's blessing, works.
I'll tell you the really scary thing about Singapore. It's a better place to live than 99.9% of these so-called "freedom" countries. I'd live there over any city in America bar maybe NYC, and certainly over Istanbul. The scary thing is that, when you consider the outcome, maybe the Singapore formula is a better form of government, and a lot of people don't even want to contemplate that.
I love how people always cast Singapore as some kind of horror story cautionary tale. No-one seems to have told the actual people of Singapore, who are perfectly free to leave their nightmarish dystopia at any time, and yet seem perversely inclined to stay. Somehow this obvious, central, crucial fact gets left out of the "we don't want to turn out like Singapore!" narrative.
I think the real reason people demonise Singapore isn't because it's a bad place to live; it's because it is actually a really good place to live, and this fact causes a certain conflict in the libertarian mind, a fundamental undermining of the whole axiomic structure of their beliefs and no-one wants to face that. So, instead, they try to villify it in vague terms of being some kind of anti-freedom devil state - a North Korea that, by Satan's blessing, works.
I'll tell you the really scary thing about Singapore. It's a better place to live than 99.9% of these so-called "freedom" countries. I'd live there over any city in America bar maybe NYC, and certainly over Istanbul. The scary thing is that, when you consider the outcome, maybe the Singapore formula is a better form of government, and a lot of people don't even want to contemplate that.
"No-one seems to have told the actual people of Singapore, who are perfectly free to leave their nightmarish dystopia at any time, and yet seem perversely inclined to stay."
Many (native) singaporean are too poor to leave the country.
Many (native) singaporean are too poor to leave the country.
> It's a better place to live than 99.9% of these so-called "freedom" countries.
For migrant workers?
For gay people?
Then there's the caning, censorship, draconian drug laws etc. - doesn't seem like that nice a place to live if I'm honest.
For migrant workers?
For gay people?
Then there's the caning, censorship, draconian drug laws etc. - doesn't seem like that nice a place to live if I'm honest.
The problem with using Singapore as an example of anything is that it's a sovereign city-state, as opposed to a more geographically and demographically dispersed nation.
Absolute power can scale up to a certain point. At the end of the day, the dictator-for-life can drive around and see things in his city that need fixing. He can also limit rivals to the throne by centralizing authority.
In a larger country, you can't scale up the dictatorial machine as effectively... you're dependent on the bureaucracy or governors/viceroys to run things in the provinces, which creates a raft of other problems.
Absolute power can scale up to a certain point. At the end of the day, the dictator-for-life can drive around and see things in his city that need fixing. He can also limit rivals to the throne by centralizing authority.
In a larger country, you can't scale up the dictatorial machine as effectively... you're dependent on the bureaucracy or governors/viceroys to run things in the provinces, which creates a raft of other problems.
Seriously, though. I mean, a ban on chewing gum, though? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore
Right, I dont want to contemplate that.
Right, I dont want to contemplate that.
In Minnesota, it is against the law to hang male and female underwear together on the same washing line.
So what?
So what?
So both are ridiculous laws that have no place in modern society.
That said, I thought Singapore has repealed the chewing-gum ban already.
That said, I thought Singapore has repealed the chewing-gum ban already.
My point was more that you cannot judge a country based on 1 law.
And also, what's the big deal of banning chewing gum? :)
And also, what's the big deal of banning chewing gum? :)
The big deal of banning chewing gum is that it betrays a ridiculously authoritarian, controlling government. Any government concerned about such matters is obviously abusively intrusive on every level of citizen life: "The government maintained virtually unlimited powers to detain suspects without charge or judicial review, using the Internal Security Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. These laws have been used to incarcerate outspoken activists for prolonged periods without trial, as well as criminal suspects who should be charged under the penal code. In dealing with terrorism suspects, the government should use the criminal code to prosecute in accordance with international due process standards, Human Rights Watch said." http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/23/singapore-stop-hiding-beh...
Of course you can judge a country based on one law. Would you enter a country that had a law stating that if your first name was jason that they had the right to execute you? Singapore has shown it has been willing to enforce caning people over graffiti, so obviously laws have consequences. If some customs official doesnt like the way I look, he can throw a dime bag of weed in my suitcase on entrance to the country and have my life ended. So yeah, laws have life and death consequences.
I honestly don't understand your criticism here. The entire point of the post was that Singapore is a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom. Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success, but it doesn't take an especially libertarian mindset to decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth.
> a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom
I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means.
> decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth
Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point?
"Well, the company didn't make any profits, can't pay its bills and the building is falling down around it, but at least the workers all had a say!"
I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means.
> decide that you'd rather prize political freedom over wealth
Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point?
"Well, the company didn't make any profits, can't pay its bills and the building is falling down around it, but at least the workers all had a say!"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'm not quoting that at you to be self-righteous. I'm using it to illustrate that most people in the world seem to believe that political freedom is considered a good in and of itself. At least in the US, anyway- it's in our mission statement. It's not just a good thing, but one of The Good Things, that's worthy of being pursued independent of wealth.
You seem to consider liberty as a means to an end. That's a perfectly fine viewpoint, but I think you should recognize that you're not debating about singapore, but about that underlying assumption.
I'm not quoting that at you to be self-righteous. I'm using it to illustrate that most people in the world seem to believe that political freedom is considered a good in and of itself. At least in the US, anyway- it's in our mission statement. It's not just a good thing, but one of The Good Things, that's worthy of being pursued independent of wealth.
You seem to consider liberty as a means to an end. That's a perfectly fine viewpoint, but I think you should recognize that you're not debating about singapore, but about that underlying assumption.
> Long term, if political freedom doesn't bring wealth, then what is the bloody point?
Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?
Seriously? You think that everything a government should strive to guarantee is a means where the end is wealth? You don't think that equality, freedom to criticize questionable government practices (even those that improve GDP), or anything else should be a goal in itself?
I think you probably went through the US education system? US schools brainwash kids into thinking that democracy and freedom to criticize the government are inherently good concepts, but in reality they are only desirable because of the practical effects it may or may not produce. There are no universal morals, and because of that you can't say democracy is inherently "right." So I have to side with your parent and say that democracy is only "right" if you believe that its effects in improving society objectively are "right." Schools just simplify it as "democracy is inherently right" because its easier to indoctrinate that principle.
But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point.
An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad.
On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness).
There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad.
On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness).
There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?
I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich.
But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything.
Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything.
Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
> long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash.
Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe.
But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe.
But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
> Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually.
I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle).
Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki.
Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle).
Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki.
Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.
I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.
Someone in this thread already quoted the US constitution, so I won't do it again. This is not just taught by the US school systems, this is the basis on which the United States was founded. It is taught in the school system because the populace of the US believe that there are in fact universal morals. We believe that it is self evident that one of these morals is our right (not privilege) to seek freedom to question the government. It is in the first line of our mission statement.
To tell someone that their beliefs are wrong simply because of where they originated is rather arrogant. You have no idea the OP's background and how deeply they have questioned their own beliefs. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this opinion. However, you must argue against the actual opinion, dismissing it due to where or how it is taught provides nothing to the discussion.
P.S. - Sorry everyone for feeding the trolls.
To tell someone that their beliefs are wrong simply because of where they originated is rather arrogant. You have no idea the OP's background and how deeply they have questioned their own beliefs. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this opinion. However, you must argue against the actual opinion, dismissing it due to where or how it is taught provides nothing to the discussion.
P.S. - Sorry everyone for feeding the trolls.
I never said his beliefs were wrong. In fact, believing in universal morals is the act of treating everyone with different morals as if they are wrong.
I simply argued to the parent post that is there is no such thing as universal morals, and our morals, ideals, goals are all framed around an end we want to achieve. And that end, whatever is, can be arbitrarily defined... so morals therefore are also arbitrarily defined. Believing in universal morals is stating that your morals are better than others because you believe in it. It's just like nationalism. You'll believe your country is better because you were born in it, just as you might believe your morals are better than others (universal) simply because you've been indoctrinated by them.
Just as your school isn't necessarily right when indoctrinating you with morals, your country's founding fathers may not be right either. It might have been right for the purposes of the country, but you really do have to see things from other perspectives.
I hope people reading this also take note of the subtle name calling oillio just committed (calling me a troll). If life were that simple we could just dismiss every opposing viewpoint as a troll, just as in minesweeper marking everything a flag... but it doesn't work that way.
I simply argued to the parent post that is there is no such thing as universal morals, and our morals, ideals, goals are all framed around an end we want to achieve. And that end, whatever is, can be arbitrarily defined... so morals therefore are also arbitrarily defined. Believing in universal morals is stating that your morals are better than others because you believe in it. It's just like nationalism. You'll believe your country is better because you were born in it, just as you might believe your morals are better than others (universal) simply because you've been indoctrinated by them.
Just as your school isn't necessarily right when indoctrinating you with morals, your country's founding fathers may not be right either. It might have been right for the purposes of the country, but you really do have to see things from other perspectives.
I hope people reading this also take note of the subtle name calling oillio just committed (calling me a troll). If life were that simple we could just dismiss every opposing viewpoint as a troll, just as in minesweeper marking everything a flag... but it doesn't work that way.
I agree that there are no universal morals. I propose this solution: we let everyone follow his own morals as much as possible, and when it's impossible for everyone to be satisfied on a given point, we vote on it.
Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.
Constitutional democracy is not a denial that people have different morals - it's based on that fact.
Constitutional democracy only works if the whole population agrees to the moral and practical superiority of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity. And then it is allowed to function. It doesn't happen naturally without conscious human intervention.
Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can.
Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals."
Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral.
As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing.
Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results.
I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
Naturally, if society was a crude free-for-all, we'd have things that resemble Somalia, or the Mexican drug cartels, or North Korea (along with things like The United States). In these examples of political structures, we have the most powerful taking control of whatever they can take control of. Then they hold it there with whatever means they can for as long as they can.
Democracy is like this but all the people say "hey, let's try giving everyone the same amount of power so we can normalize this game called life and control this experiment for longer-term goals."
Basically I'm saying that power supersedes even democracy oh the moral pyramid. There is one level even beyond democracy and here you'll find it in the company of authoritarianism, communism, etc. Power is at the top level of this pyramid. It is based on survival of the fittest. Power is the only universal moral because it is a fundamental law of nature. Democracy is not a fundamental law of nature. It is a construct of a specific subgroup of humans. It was conceived and designed to achieve a specific goal. And because there is a goal, and all goals are different, it is a subjective end. Therefore democracy is arbitrary and subjective—not a universal moral.
As much as you'd like to believe in inalienable rights, if I have a gun to your head, you can bet I can alienate your "natural" rights. Yes, you'll always have the choice of death or obedience, but once you're dead, you're irrelevant. But if you have a bigger gun, then I can no longer "alienate" your rights! You can "alienate" mine! That's power. Democracy is abstracted into laws which are ultimately enforced with power (guns, police... head) Because of this, democracy is not fundamental. It is human-designed construct and therefore it is not a universal thing.
Another way to think of it is like this: we have a 10 x 10 grid and we have 100 people. Democracy assigns each person a square. Power lets people take whatever squares they can defend. The end result of these two philosophies will look different, but democracy was specifically designed to artificially treat each person as equal so we can achieve the end goal of giving people a chance to succeed. Supposedly this will help society be better off, but this goal is still an arbitrary goal (though most people would agree on this) and democracy is just the means. The natural outcome is to give spaces to those who can defend it. If you can't defend the space, you don't deserve to own it. Democracy is human manipulation of this system to try to achieve better results.
I will fully disclose that I am a firm supporter of democracy (because of the way it normalizes society), but I want to make it clear that it's because it's the best method so far, not because it's inherently right.
I agree that force is real and that legal equality is an ideal - this is the best argument I know of for a broad interpretation of the right to bear arms. But the fact that democracy is not a state of nature is hardly an argument against it. "The most workable system we have" is all it usually claims to be.
Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals?
Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals?
I think you didn't fully understand my argument. I never argued, in my reply to you or others, that democracy is undesirable.
> Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals?
Legal equality isn't an ideal. It's not something we strive for because we already have it. A universal moral has to be something that happens automatically because otherwise (like democracy) it can only happen with human intervention. And if it requires human intervention, it is no longer universal. It is an artificial construct of man. And like all things men create, it's subjective and designed to serve the specific goals of its creator. A system like a free-for-all survival of the fittest is universal because it was not created by man to serve a purpose—it just is. Therefore it is universal because everything in the universe abides by it, whereas democracy is only abided by those who subscribe to it voluntarily.
Freedom is not free. Democracy is not free and it requires upkeep. Basically those who have power have used it to provide equal power to those under its jurisdiction. But it is made possible by the more universal law of power, and without the benevolent power holders we wouldn't have a free equal (under the law) society in the West.
> Incidentally, why would you think that a universal moral ideal would be something that happens by itself? Isn't it abundantly clear that humans never fulfil any of their ideals?
Legal equality isn't an ideal. It's not something we strive for because we already have it. A universal moral has to be something that happens automatically because otherwise (like democracy) it can only happen with human intervention. And if it requires human intervention, it is no longer universal. It is an artificial construct of man. And like all things men create, it's subjective and designed to serve the specific goals of its creator. A system like a free-for-all survival of the fittest is universal because it was not created by man to serve a purpose—it just is. Therefore it is universal because everything in the universe abides by it, whereas democracy is only abided by those who subscribe to it voluntarily.
Freedom is not free. Democracy is not free and it requires upkeep. Basically those who have power have used it to provide equal power to those under its jurisdiction. But it is made possible by the more universal law of power, and without the benevolent power holders we wouldn't have a free equal (under the law) society in the West.
So you think freedom to criticize the government isn't really needed? It would be cool if the government could simply murder anyone they wanted and no one could say anything? I can't believe I'm reading this on HN.
And no I don't believe democracy is fundamentally "right", I believe it is the safest option we currently have because the people who want to be in control are often dangerous. How dangerous they can be is dependent on how much power they have. Show me anywhere in the history of the world where not having the right to criticize the government turned out well in the long term.
And no I don't believe democracy is fundamentally "right", I believe it is the safest option we currently have because the people who want to be in control are often dangerous. How dangerous they can be is dependent on how much power they have. Show me anywhere in the history of the world where not having the right to criticize the government turned out well in the long term.
I seem to remember a lottery that was run in 1984 - the Orwell book.
>I'm not arguing with that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it has been conclusively proved that being able to exercise that freedom leads to a better society, and it is that end we should be thinking about, not the means.
There is a problem with centralised political power, and that's that if a nastier, more corrupt and less tolerant clique gets hold of that power there is absolutely nothing that can stop your pleasant and prosperous one party state from becoming an oppressive and dystopian one. That is the problem. In fact it's a historical truism that absolute power eventually does corrupt absolutely, or at least that eventually the absolutely corrupt will gravitate to that position of power.
Simon Hibbs
There is a problem with centralised political power, and that's that if a nastier, more corrupt and less tolerant clique gets hold of that power there is absolutely nothing that can stop your pleasant and prosperous one party state from becoming an oppressive and dystopian one. That is the problem. In fact it's a historical truism that absolute power eventually does corrupt absolutely, or at least that eventually the absolutely corrupt will gravitate to that position of power.
Simon Hibbs
> There is a problem with centralised political power
Well yes, of course. Even the laziest student of history knows that. I am not trying to advocate for that extreme end of the range of political possibilities.
The elephant in the room, though, is that the other extreme - our hyper-egalitarianism; giving everyone, by birth, no matter how uninformed, no matter how disinterested, an unchallenged vote does not seem to be working too well. Especially when one throws such "freedoms" into the mix as the ability for the incumbent ruling class to massively amplify their own voices by the mass media. So "there is a problem" with what we have, too.
You say that there's a problem with centralised political power, and I agree wholeheartedly, but we certainly do have a problem because that centralised power is in every lounge room, car radio and news stand in the land. At least with communism you knew who was pulling the strings!
Well yes, of course. Even the laziest student of history knows that. I am not trying to advocate for that extreme end of the range of political possibilities.
The elephant in the room, though, is that the other extreme - our hyper-egalitarianism; giving everyone, by birth, no matter how uninformed, no matter how disinterested, an unchallenged vote does not seem to be working too well. Especially when one throws such "freedoms" into the mix as the ability for the incumbent ruling class to massively amplify their own voices by the mass media. So "there is a problem" with what we have, too.
You say that there's a problem with centralised political power, and I agree wholeheartedly, but we certainly do have a problem because that centralised power is in every lounge room, car radio and news stand in the land. At least with communism you knew who was pulling the strings!
Australian democracy works quite well with compulsory voting. It seems to have been improved by the "compulsory" part. (It's not very compulsory -- you can show up and submit a blank ballot or not show up and pay a small fine that isn't really enforced, but the effect is significant.) The US political system suffers in significant part from deliberate attempts to disenfranchise huge sectors of society. Black people, or poor people, say. In what first world country do you need to queue for three hours (and I did this in Arlington — one of the richest places in the US, not Mississippi) to vote on a working day?
Democracy isn't the problem in itself, flawed as it may be, but US democracy suffers from special self-inflicted problems: it's a government created by people who were suspicious of government AND democracy, so it's unmanageable by design. To be fair, democracy was an untried idea at the time, but the US is stuck with ridiculous artifacts of those early doubts.
We have a right to bear arms that cannot easily be undone or moderated but no right to, say, transportation, communication, or health care. Our abortion laws were magically derived from some other inferred right rather than designed by legislators with reference to experts (which is how abortion laws everywhere else work) so it's literally a war between people who think a pregnant mother has no rights over her own body until the child is born and other people who think she should be able to kill the baby right up until it's born. In Australia (IIRC) it's twelve weeks or to save the mother's life. No other democracy has this problem.
Democracy isn't the problem in itself, flawed as it may be, but US democracy suffers from special self-inflicted problems: it's a government created by people who were suspicious of government AND democracy, so it's unmanageable by design. To be fair, democracy was an untried idea at the time, but the US is stuck with ridiculous artifacts of those early doubts.
We have a right to bear arms that cannot easily be undone or moderated but no right to, say, transportation, communication, or health care. Our abortion laws were magically derived from some other inferred right rather than designed by legislators with reference to experts (which is how abortion laws everywhere else work) so it's literally a war between people who think a pregnant mother has no rights over her own body until the child is born and other people who think she should be able to kill the baby right up until it's born. In Australia (IIRC) it's twelve weeks or to save the mother's life. No other democracy has this problem.
>You say that there's a problem with centralised political power, and I agree wholeheartedly, but we certainly do have a problem because that centralised power is in every lounge room, car radio and news stand in the land. At least with communism you knew who was pulling the strings!
There is no centralised power controlling news media in the democratic developed world. I can walk out on to the street in the UK and buy publications supporting any political viewpoint with enough people interested in it to make selling such a publication viable. Hop on to the internet, and you can push whatever agenda you like, and I note that that's exactly what you and I are doing. The problem with totalitarianism is that if they decide they don't like what you're saying, you get censored. Those strings get pulled on you, immediately. See the censorship situation for social media in China for details. This conversation would be practically impossible.
If you really want to see an incumbent ruling class pulling no punches and using all the tools available to it to pull those strings as tight as possible, there are several nations out there doing that right now. My wife's family live in one.
There is no centralised power controlling news media in the democratic developed world. I can walk out on to the street in the UK and buy publications supporting any political viewpoint with enough people interested in it to make selling such a publication viable. Hop on to the internet, and you can push whatever agenda you like, and I note that that's exactly what you and I are doing. The problem with totalitarianism is that if they decide they don't like what you're saying, you get censored. Those strings get pulled on you, immediately. See the censorship situation for social media in China for details. This conversation would be practically impossible.
If you really want to see an incumbent ruling class pulling no punches and using all the tools available to it to pull those strings as tight as possible, there are several nations out there doing that right now. My wife's family live in one.
It depends whether you think it is ok for the government:
- to ban chewing gum
- to publicly cane people (limited to "6 strokes" for women, how nice)
- to enforce capital punishment (i.e. killing people for allegedly killing people)
- to limit your rights to criticize your government
- etc
...provided that it guarantees you good money.
There is nothing inherently wrong with your point of view, and I have many friends who live in singapore, dubai, etc who do not have issues with rules such as the above.
However, I also know many people who value personal freedom above all, and do not think that being guaranteed money supersedes these freedoms. (FWIW I count myself in this group).
I know I'm stretching this a bit, but if you've watched the Matrix, this is the difference between the protagonists who wish freedom from the machines, and Cypher (Joe Pantoliano) who thinks the illusion of a good life is just fine with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsgavFvohI
He does have a point, but most of us identified with the protagonists, right?
There is nothing inherently wrong with your point of view, and I have many friends who live in singapore, dubai, etc who do not have issues with rules such as the above.
However, I also know many people who value personal freedom above all, and do not think that being guaranteed money supersedes these freedoms. (FWIW I count myself in this group).
I know I'm stretching this a bit, but if you've watched the Matrix, this is the difference between the protagonists who wish freedom from the machines, and Cypher (Joe Pantoliano) who thinks the illusion of a good life is just fine with him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAsgavFvohI
He does have a point, but most of us identified with the protagonists, right?
I'm both curious and a little teasing here: Where do you live?
I'm talking from the perspective of a (leftist) German who wanted to relocate to Singapore (Wife said no) and lived in Tel Aviv. I've never been to the States, because quite frankly I feel the trip would cost me more 'freedom' than I'm comfortable to part with.
Note that I comment on things I know only online/through the news/from talks with friends. That said, I wonder how many critics of Singapore have actually stayed there for some time..
I'm talking from the perspective of a (leftist) German who wanted to relocate to Singapore (Wife said no) and lived in Tel Aviv. I've never been to the States, because quite frankly I feel the trip would cost me more 'freedom' than I'm comfortable to part with.
Note that I comment on things I know only online/through the news/from talks with friends. That said, I wonder how many critics of Singapore have actually stayed there for some time..
I live in the US (bay area) now, but I've lived for significant periods of time in the middle east and asia in the past.
I know the US gets a bad rap as far as personal freedom is concerned (high incarceration rate, capital punishment, etc) and this is indeed an issue in some other places in the US where I've lived, but I love it here in the bay area.
You should try it for a bit and see what you think. Interestingly, I'm planning to move to Europe, most likely Germany :) and live there for a bit to see what that's like.
I know the US gets a bad rap as far as personal freedom is concerned (high incarceration rate, capital punishment, etc) and this is indeed an issue in some other places in the US where I've lived, but I love it here in the bay area.
You should try it for a bit and see what you think. Interestingly, I'm planning to move to Europe, most likely Germany :) and live there for a bit to see what that's like.
The bad rap is deserved. But the US is so large you can live there your whole life without running into any issues if you're lucky, so don't imagine loving it where you are means there aren't major issues. Swing over to Oakland and you'll probably see some.
I don't know, I wonder if something like public caning might be a more humane and more effective option than sentencing people to anal rape. (Which is de facto what often happens in the US).
Anal rape is not a defacto thing in US jails or prisons. Is it an epidemic? Almost certainly since the justice department has turned a blind eye to it and LEOs use the threat of it to coerce confessions in a few cases. But actual rape amongst nonviolent convicts is not higher (2-2.5%, according to Wikipedia [1]). You're more likely to be sexually assaulted, in general, just by being a woman.
No one is sentenced to anal rape in the US.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_State...
No one is sentenced to anal rape in the US.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_State...
You do raise an interesting point. I think calling jail time what you called it is a bit extreme but yeah, lots and lots of people do get thrown in jail here.
I don't have a good answer as to what I would consider "just punishment" by the state for things like robbery, etc. However, throwing someone in jail for littering is certainly extreme.
I don't have a good answer as to what I would consider "just punishment" by the state for things like robbery, etc. However, throwing someone in jail for littering is certainly extreme.
The thing is, someone is exercising political freedom in even the most repressive governments: the person (or people) at the top who make all the decisions.
Now it's possible that they will make some good decisions, and create wealth and raise living standards for a while.
But eventually, they will either make some bad decisions, or die. And when that happens...then what? Often the answer (as we have seen recently) is violent chaos.
Political freedoms allow a society to reinvent itself without chaotic bloodshed. When leaders make bad decisions, everyone else can talk about it, figure out a better way to go, and vote that into effect.
The power of this approach is ably demonstrated by the U.S., which is the richest, and one of the most stable, nations on Earth, despite having among the strongest protections for free expression.
Now it's possible that they will make some good decisions, and create wealth and raise living standards for a while.
But eventually, they will either make some bad decisions, or die. And when that happens...then what? Often the answer (as we have seen recently) is violent chaos.
Political freedoms allow a society to reinvent itself without chaotic bloodshed. When leaders make bad decisions, everyone else can talk about it, figure out a better way to go, and vote that into effect.
The power of this approach is ably demonstrated by the U.S., which is the richest, and one of the most stable, nations on Earth, despite having among the strongest protections for free expression.
I think you could make the case that Singapore is a dictatorship in a kind of English tradition just as the US is a democracy with the same broad tradition. Despite some differences in detail, broad cultural values are actually pretty close (language probably being a huge contributing factor).
To put it another way: Singapore uses strong central government to achieve the same kinds of effects Americans will cheerfully use other means (e.g. Disneyland, gated communities, giant shopping malls) to achieve.
To put it another way: Singapore uses strong central government to achieve the same kinds of effects Americans will cheerfully use other means (e.g. Disneyland, gated communities, giant shopping malls) to achieve.
Actually, we do have giant shopping malls and some form of gated communities in Sinagpore, too. Disneyland didn't quite make it, despite some attempt in the 90s (I think), but there are other themeparks.
This line of thinking leads to things like the Nazi youth. No, having freedom doesn't lead to a better society, it prevents dangerous extremism. So far, history seems to indicate that dangerous extremism is more problematic than being overly mediocre.
> The entire point of the post was that Singapore is a great place to live as long as you do not try to exercise a political freedom.
This is not true. His exact words were "I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today".
> Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success
This is bullshit. What a sweeping generalisation to make of all the citizens of a country.
> willing to accept less freedoms
What are these "less freedoms" exactly?
> in exchange for economic success
At least the original comment also conceded "low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy"
This is not true. His exact words were "I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today".
> Singaporeans (or at least the ones who are left) happen to be willing to accept less freedoms in exchange for economic success
This is bullshit. What a sweeping generalisation to make of all the citizens of a country.
> willing to accept less freedoms
What are these "less freedoms" exactly?
> in exchange for economic success
At least the original comment also conceded "low crime, clean streets, and a wonderfully healthy economy"
What are these "less freedoms" exactly?
You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum.
Singapore is pretty creepy under the surface and reeks of covert oppression, at least to my American eye. It seems to work for them, but I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum.
Singapore is pretty creepy under the surface and reeks of covert oppression, at least to my American eye. It seems to work for them, but I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
>You know, free elections, the right to arm yourself, the right to buy chewing gum.
It is easier to get chewing gum in Singapore than it is to buy kinder eggs in America.
Additionally, the reason for banning chewing gum was a whole lot more reasonable (it makes the streets dirty & jammed train doors).
>I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
And I wouldn't want to live in America either. I'm happily trading chewing gum and semi-automatic pistols for affordable healthcare, summer every day and clean streets.
It is easier to get chewing gum in Singapore than it is to buy kinder eggs in America.
Additionally, the reason for banning chewing gum was a whole lot more reasonable (it makes the streets dirty & jammed train doors).
>I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, clean streets or not.
And I wouldn't want to live in America either. I'm happily trading chewing gum and semi-automatic pistols for affordable healthcare, summer every day and clean streets.
> free elections
That's ironic, you being an American and all.
> the right to arm yourself
This is rich.
That's ironic, you being an American and all.
> the right to arm yourself
This is rich.
> the right to buy chewing gum.
In San Francisco it is unlawful to use used underwear to wipe off cars in a car wash.
So what?
In San Francisco it is unlawful to use used underwear to wipe off cars in a car wash.
So what?
Don't forget the right to kill people and the right to pollute the environment. Singapore doesn't allow those either.
So, are you suggesting
a) that in the USA you are _legally_ allowed to kill others and to pollute?
or
b) that no, the USA doesn't legally allow that, but in practice it does (any stats on how many guilty people got off the hook?)
or what?
a) that in the USA you are _legally_ allowed to kill others and to pollute?
or
b) that no, the USA doesn't legally allow that, but in practice it does (any stats on how many guilty people got off the hook?)
or what?
There is a difference between laws based on principle, and laws based on observation. I think Singapore has been a model based on empirical observation -- tightly controlled, but prosperous and happy (vague terms, admittedly), despite what most people think (I think most of the people on HN hating on Singapore have actually never been there, let alone know anyone from there).
Contrast this with the USA, whose laws are (supposedly -- it has been much more complex since the Great Depression) based on principle, on a Western logic that, I believe, still holds strong. It is beautiful, as many writers have shown. In past years I have been a great appreciator of this, having held strong libertarian and even anarcho-capitalist values (not a part of the Ayn Rand hype train, I assure you).
But politico-economic systems are much more complex, human nature so rich, that logic and rhetoric cannot fully capture, perhaps ever. As of late I've read a bit more into histories of Communism in the last 100 years, looked at alternative systems of government. And I just don't think the victory and purity of Western idealism -- that it is the One Way, the Only Way -- is as valid as most of us think. There is that banal idea that "Communism works on paper, but not in reality", but I am gradually leaning towards replacing "Communism" with Capitalism.
I know we cannot really compare the Nordic models of governance with Singapore, but I think they, like Singapore, also incorporate many political ideas based on empirical observation, rather than stubborn insistence of value systems.
Unfortunately even the USA isn't so pure. There are so many systems of principles now, that clash all the time -- and they themselves have changed drastically from the USA of 100 years ago. Thus the Libertarian argument still stands. I think the question is, does that Argument even matter?
Contrast this with the USA, whose laws are (supposedly -- it has been much more complex since the Great Depression) based on principle, on a Western logic that, I believe, still holds strong. It is beautiful, as many writers have shown. In past years I have been a great appreciator of this, having held strong libertarian and even anarcho-capitalist values (not a part of the Ayn Rand hype train, I assure you).
But politico-economic systems are much more complex, human nature so rich, that logic and rhetoric cannot fully capture, perhaps ever. As of late I've read a bit more into histories of Communism in the last 100 years, looked at alternative systems of government. And I just don't think the victory and purity of Western idealism -- that it is the One Way, the Only Way -- is as valid as most of us think. There is that banal idea that "Communism works on paper, but not in reality", but I am gradually leaning towards replacing "Communism" with Capitalism.
I know we cannot really compare the Nordic models of governance with Singapore, but I think they, like Singapore, also incorporate many political ideas based on empirical observation, rather than stubborn insistence of value systems.
Unfortunately even the USA isn't so pure. There are so many systems of principles now, that clash all the time -- and they themselves have changed drastically from the USA of 100 years ago. Thus the Libertarian argument still stands. I think the question is, does that Argument even matter?
> I think Singapore has been a model based on empirical observation -- tightly controlled, but prosperous and happy (vague terms, admittedly) [...]
The expats are happy enough (and the locals I know), but according to surveys, people aren't all that happy. Rather numb, in fact.
The expats are happy enough (and the locals I know), but according to surveys, people aren't all that happy. Rather numb, in fact.
Yes, in fact, in the USA (at least in certain states) you are _legally_ allowed to kill others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Yes, you may legally kill people, either by "standing your ground", through capital punishment or by waging war. You may also pollute, and I'm leaving it up to you to figure out how, because I'm not going to bother arguing for the obvious. Hint: gasoline.
Just saying it's a gray area. You can't argue for all rights, and you can't argue for absolutely no rights. In a free society, you still have to give up some rights.
Well said. I'm a techie but I also have a protest past (don't actively engage in that anymore but support in other ways) and I wasn't aware of the situation in Singapore. I think we saw a lot of this in the US after 9/11 when Bush went from being a 1-term joke to suddenly having clout.
What many younger people here might not know is that only 12 years ago, life in the US was different. You could board planes without going through ridiculous levels of non-security. Your family could actually meet you as you came off the plane. In the first week after 9/11, there was a global outpouring of support for us. There were candlelight vigils held in places like Tehran, Iran for us. In the first few weeks after, there was a growing feeling that maybe this was finally the time that the US would straighten out and take a deep and serious look at our own actions and policies. As you can see, that didn't happen.
We got "buy more stuff" from the president. Indefinite detentions. Men who are still in a prison in Cuba who were kidnapped from their own countries. Whether guilty of something or not, they should have been tried years ago.
We get the FTAA protests in Miami. You get the Democratic convention in Boston and "freedom areas".
You get the Boston of just a couple months ago. A massive police and state over reaction to find one young man. At no other time in American history has an entire metropolitan city of that size been systematically shut down to find one criminal. And everyone went along with it to "feel safe".
Have kids? There's an overwhelmingly large but amorphous in number group of pedophiles waiting to get their hands on them.
You get fear. Be Afraid is the message. And young people have been taught that for so long now, and now they can vote and have kids. And this is how culture changes and restricts.
If you follow Occupy, that didn't start recently. That was going back at least as far as Seattle in 1999.
Don't be afraid. People die and get hurt. Sometimes it's other people that do it to others. Our freedoms collectively are more important than our deaths individually.
As has been said many times before, I may not like what you have to say but I'll punch someone in the nose to make sure you are able to say it.
What many younger people here might not know is that only 12 years ago, life in the US was different. You could board planes without going through ridiculous levels of non-security. Your family could actually meet you as you came off the plane. In the first week after 9/11, there was a global outpouring of support for us. There were candlelight vigils held in places like Tehran, Iran for us. In the first few weeks after, there was a growing feeling that maybe this was finally the time that the US would straighten out and take a deep and serious look at our own actions and policies. As you can see, that didn't happen.
We got "buy more stuff" from the president. Indefinite detentions. Men who are still in a prison in Cuba who were kidnapped from their own countries. Whether guilty of something or not, they should have been tried years ago.
We get the FTAA protests in Miami. You get the Democratic convention in Boston and "freedom areas".
You get the Boston of just a couple months ago. A massive police and state over reaction to find one young man. At no other time in American history has an entire metropolitan city of that size been systematically shut down to find one criminal. And everyone went along with it to "feel safe".
Have kids? There's an overwhelmingly large but amorphous in number group of pedophiles waiting to get their hands on them.
You get fear. Be Afraid is the message. And young people have been taught that for so long now, and now they can vote and have kids. And this is how culture changes and restricts.
If you follow Occupy, that didn't start recently. That was going back at least as far as Seattle in 1999.
Don't be afraid. People die and get hurt. Sometimes it's other people that do it to others. Our freedoms collectively are more important than our deaths individually.
As has been said many times before, I may not like what you have to say but I'll punch someone in the nose to make sure you are able to say it.
> In the first few weeks after, there was a growing feeling that maybe this was finally the time that the US would straighten out and take a deep and serious look at our own actions and policies.
I agree we did overreact, but this sentence is just nonsense. Are you really implying that our actions and policies are what caused muslims to hate us, and that therefor we should change them???????????
I agree we did overreact, but this sentence is just nonsense. Are you really implying that our actions and policies are what caused muslims to hate us, and that therefor we should change them???????????
what
Dicking around in a country or region's political and economic affairs can certainly lead people there to hate you. You certainly can't think the US didn't have its hands mucking about the middle-east before 9/11.
Yes, obviously. What did you imagine it was? Something mind-numbingly ignorant like "they hate us for our freedoms"?
Here is a free clue for you:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796
And some notes on his influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq
They do indeed "hate us for our freedoms" and the mind-numbingly ignorant position is to deny it.
And some notes on his influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq
They do indeed "hate us for our freedoms" and the mind-numbingly ignorant position is to deny it.
Wow this place has really gone down if people like you feel comfortable expression your ignorance so openly. "Hate us for our freedoms" was the idiotic excuse Bush used because he wasn't intelligent enough to give us anything meatier. Only the simplest of the simple ever actually believed it.
I would tell you to go educate yourself but if you honestly buy this line now in 2013 I don't suppose there's anything more than can be done for you.
I would tell you to go educate yourself but if you honestly buy this line now in 2013 I don't suppose there's anything more than can be done for you.
> "caused muslims to hate us"
Well, that's a few simultaneous fallacies.
But, yes, your policies led to the 9/11 attackers deciding to attack you. Is this not blisteringly obvious?
> and that therefor we should change them???????????
Oh gosh no, change? Not mid-stream.
Well, that's a few simultaneous fallacies.
But, yes, your policies led to the 9/11 attackers deciding to attack you. Is this not blisteringly obvious?
> and that therefor we should change them???????????
Oh gosh no, change? Not mid-stream.
> But, yes, your policies led to the 9/11 attackers deciding to attack you. Is this not blisteringly obvious?
In exactly the same way that wearing miniskirts leads to rape. Take for example UBL's main grievance: the presence of the international Desert Shield force, or as UBL put it, allowing infidels to live in the land of the two holy cities. That force was there at the request of King Saud of Arabia. So what makes this agreement between King Saud and 30+ other powers a valid cause for the King's subjects, or anybody else, to wage war against the US? What makes Usama bin Laden the superior authority to say who is allowed to live in Arabia? What justifies forbidding people from holding any other religious belief than the approved one? What makes Usama bin Laden the sole authority on religious matters in Arabia who can decide what religion people are allowed to believe?
In exactly the same way that wearing miniskirts leads to rape. Take for example UBL's main grievance: the presence of the international Desert Shield force, or as UBL put it, allowing infidels to live in the land of the two holy cities. That force was there at the request of King Saud of Arabia. So what makes this agreement between King Saud and 30+ other powers a valid cause for the King's subjects, or anybody else, to wage war against the US? What makes Usama bin Laden the superior authority to say who is allowed to live in Arabia? What justifies forbidding people from holding any other religious belief than the approved one? What makes Usama bin Laden the sole authority on religious matters in Arabia who can decide what religion people are allowed to believe?
Ehm, didn't USA support Israel which was/is very hostile towards Muslims living on its territory (Gaza Strip)? So it's not like their politics weren't giving Al-Queda a reason to be provoked.
To use your metaphor, it's a lot like wearing a miniskirt and flashing the perpetrator. Neither side is really 100% clean in this.
To use your metaphor, it's a lot like wearing a miniskirt and flashing the perpetrator. Neither side is really 100% clean in this.
Do you think people decide to just blow themselves up for no reason? Or maybe installing the shah in Iran, giving military aid in abundance to Israel, giving guns to Osama, giving guns to Saddam might, just might, have had something to do with it?
God forbid the Iranian people benefit from their own oil fields! That'd fuck over BP!
God forbid the Iranian people benefit from their own oil fields! That'd fuck over BP!
[deleted](1)
Boston wasn't systematically shut down -- The call to stay indoors was voluntary. There were plenty of people out, plenty of pictures from people shooting photos of deserted freeways and streets. Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment.
Noted. Interesting, my perception was much more authoritarian. I'll admit to some bias on my part when everything seems over handed.
You should also look into the "door to door searches", that was a more serious issue, especially since there is a real danger of a slippery slope for this particular policing strategy.
Yikes! 'Singaporification' of Turkey makes geopolitical tourist analyst hacks look like Nobel prizewinners.
Some stuff is not like other stuff -
http://pawelmorski.com/2013/06/02/turkey-some-stuff-isnt-ver...
This is messy and local and not understandable through pie-in-the-sky comparisons and metaphors and abstractions (or by reading clippings-job 'intelligence services', ZeroHedge-meets-Mossad-reject conspiracy theorists, or the propaganda plants of every Middle Eastern talking-point mill)
Just read TFA and ignore the out-of-body hallucinatory comments.
Hugh Pope is also pretty good
http://hughpope.com/2013/06/01/a-ringside-seat-as-istanbul-p...
Some stuff is not like other stuff -
http://pawelmorski.com/2013/06/02/turkey-some-stuff-isnt-ver...
This is messy and local and not understandable through pie-in-the-sky comparisons and metaphors and abstractions (or by reading clippings-job 'intelligence services', ZeroHedge-meets-Mossad-reject conspiracy theorists, or the propaganda plants of every Middle Eastern talking-point mill)
Just read TFA and ignore the out-of-body hallucinatory comments.
Hugh Pope is also pretty good
http://hughpope.com/2013/06/01/a-ringside-seat-as-istanbul-p...
This is also some pretty good background
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_...
I don't know how the media is governed in Singapore, but the traditional media in Turkey didn't cover the protests at all. News about the protests (could only) spread through the internet, and today I'm proud to be a techie.
The Turkish Prime Minister expressing his concerns on news spreading, "There is now a menace which is called Twitter. The best examples of lies can be found there. To me, social media is the worst menace to society.”
http://goo.gl/MLTCL (Washington Post)
The Turkish Prime Minister expressing his concerns on news spreading, "There is now a menace which is called Twitter. The best examples of lies can be found there. To me, social media is the worst menace to society.”
http://goo.gl/MLTCL (Washington Post)
Is he wrong though? Misinformation spreads easier than ever through social media, and we instinctually trust a lot of it because it's coming from our friends/acquaintances.
Oh please. Singapore's leadership exhibits far more compassion for the citizenry that the Turkey news bulletins show. I am certain that in the matter of handling crime Singapore needs no lessons from any western country no matter what ideals they (claim to) operate by. In fact they can take a page out of Singapore's book where people don't need to worry about their safety when walking home after 12:00 midnight (which btw I wouldn't dream of doing in Pittsburgh, Berkeley, SF and other major US cities) - IMO a far more important freedom than anything else.
Why on Earth wouldn't you walk home after midnight in those places? I mean sure you would avoid some particular areas, but you named entire cities! Why do you think it is unsafe for you and not for everyone else?
This discussion should be about Turkey. Instead it looks like a bunch of startup-oriented programmers talking about Singapore because they're only interested in a small list of countries that they associate with startup culture.
> It's the fusion of authoritarian quasi-fascist rule with capitalism
Were the two ever separate?
Were the two ever separate?
Yes. Fascism and capitalism were separate in Italy, Germany, and Franco's Spain.
"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others" - Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Mus...
Fascism calls for state control and direction of the economy, which ultimately means Fascist Party control of the same because Fascism denies the legitimacy of any other party to ever govern the state. Capitalism calls for few to no state controls over economic activity so as to allow all businesses to operate with minimal interference.
Germany followed Italy's lead in state direction of the economy and notoriously seized the assets of Jews and sent them to "work" camps in the name of increasing the productivity of their labour. Franco banned international trade and watched his economy crash for a decade.
"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others" - Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Mus...
Fascism calls for state control and direction of the economy, which ultimately means Fascist Party control of the same because Fascism denies the legitimacy of any other party to ever govern the state. Capitalism calls for few to no state controls over economic activity so as to allow all businesses to operate with minimal interference.
Germany followed Italy's lead in state direction of the economy and notoriously seized the assets of Jews and sent them to "work" camps in the name of increasing the productivity of their labour. Franco banned international trade and watched his economy crash for a decade.
[deleted]
Never, for long periods of time.
Modern societies have never really lived without a large state. So almost every new society (or post-revolution) in history adopted that same practice. But usually with new limitations.
The problem is that once the state is instantiated and given broad power, their power continues to grow and expand out of self-interest and desire for control.
Regardless of capitalism or socialism.
As Rothbard said: "the true utopian is the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself.'".
Modern societies have never really lived without a large state. So almost every new society (or post-revolution) in history adopted that same practice. But usually with new limitations.
The problem is that once the state is instantiated and given broad power, their power continues to grow and expand out of self-interest and desire for control.
Regardless of capitalism or socialism.
As Rothbard said: "the true utopian is the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself.'".
What do you mean by a "large state"? Measured in government expenditure as part of GDP there are big variations between countries. (Incidentally, Singapore has one of the smallest states around.)
Measuring state power purely based on yearly expenditure is a very limited perspective.
At the same time I don't know enough about Singapore's current economic/social situation to comment. I was only stating an observation on the nature of states ability to expand in scope and power regardless of limitations enacted at initiation.
At the same time I don't know enough about Singapore's current economic/social situation to comment. I was only stating an observation on the nature of states ability to expand in scope and power regardless of limitations enacted at initiation.
Yes, it is a very limited perspective. On the other hand, it is one for which data is widely available.
> I was only stating an observation on the nature of states ability to expand in scope and power regardless of limitations enacted at initiation.
Yes, as e.g. the USA nicely demonstrates.
> I was only stating an observation on the nature of states ability to expand in scope and power regardless of limitations enacted at initiation.
Yes, as e.g. the USA nicely demonstrates.
This is very optimistic view of the situation :(
The problem in Turkey is more depressing than "Singaporification": Turkey economy is growing but political, administrative, and legal system is not keeping with it. For instance, corruption is still rampant.
The problem in Turkey is more depressing than "Singaporification": Turkey economy is growing but political, administrative, and legal system is not keeping with it. For instance, corruption is still rampant.
What a load of rubbish. What does this have anything to do with Singapore?!
Maybe you should read his post again if you don't understand why he's talking about Singapore. You're probably one of the people he's talking about, who think that Singapore is a model to emulate all around the world.
> You're probably one of the people he's talking about, who think that Singapore is a model to emulate all around the world.
Assuming a lot eh?
Assuming a lot eh?
I did say probably, which is my "legal out"
But yes, at some point, we have to make assumptions based on the information we have available.
But yes, at some point, we have to make assumptions based on the information we have available.
I hate to reply to a comment like this, but for anyone new to HN, these folks come out whenever Singapore is mentioned in a negative light. For a previous rendition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2621371
In case you think "these people" have an (unstated?) agenda to push, perhaps I can share my point of view... You'll note that I'm not Singaporean nor have I ever posted anything relating to Singapore on HN.
I have visited Singapore several times. My anglo-saxon, western uncle lived and worked in Singapore as a teacher for a number of years. I even had brief involvement in a start-up business in Singapore.
I cannot identify in any way with the portrayal of Singapore as some dystopian nightmare. If anything I would describe it as a safe, pleasant, interesting and diverse city-state. In my experience, police are courteous, bureaucracy is minimal and people do a remarkably good job of living good lives in spite of the dense population in many areas. I would concede that in the time I've been there I've witnessed immigrant workers from neighbouring countries essentially imported to work in menial labour and the entertainment/sex trade. However looking at the conditions they're coming from, I'm sure to many it is the best opportunity to improve their lives they are likely to get.
And in the end, the human outcome for real people is the most important aspect of a society. For all the self-righteous feel-goodery about "free" political expression, nobody really cares about the important political messages you're posting on your blog. What's the value of your free voice when at the end of the day you can vote in the "conservative" guys who don't give a shit, or the "progressive" guys who don't give a shit? I'd rather have slightly better governance without the illusion of choice, thanks very much.
I have visited Singapore several times. My anglo-saxon, western uncle lived and worked in Singapore as a teacher for a number of years. I even had brief involvement in a start-up business in Singapore.
I cannot identify in any way with the portrayal of Singapore as some dystopian nightmare. If anything I would describe it as a safe, pleasant, interesting and diverse city-state. In my experience, police are courteous, bureaucracy is minimal and people do a remarkably good job of living good lives in spite of the dense population in many areas. I would concede that in the time I've been there I've witnessed immigrant workers from neighbouring countries essentially imported to work in menial labour and the entertainment/sex trade. However looking at the conditions they're coming from, I'm sure to many it is the best opportunity to improve their lives they are likely to get.
And in the end, the human outcome for real people is the most important aspect of a society. For all the self-righteous feel-goodery about "free" political expression, nobody really cares about the important political messages you're posting on your blog. What's the value of your free voice when at the end of the day you can vote in the "conservative" guys who don't give a shit, or the "progressive" guys who don't give a shit? I'd rather have slightly better governance without the illusion of choice, thanks very much.
I hate to say this but I really think ignorant statements about Singapore need to be nipped in the bud.
Thus revealing your affinity for how governmental politics should work, which makes it not so surprising you are pro-Singapore.
I think people should be able to say whatever ignorant things they want to say, and their ignorance should be displayed by stating facts countering their arguments, rather than censoring them or simply shouting them down with substance-free statements.
I think people should be able to say whatever ignorant things they want to say, and their ignorance should be displayed by stating facts countering their arguments, rather than censoring them or simply shouting them down with substance-free statements.
You entirely miss the point. He's holding up Singapore as a shining example of the end-state of affairs that the government of Turkey is trying to emulate. Since we don't have a word for it yet, or we haven't learned it, we're saying "Singaporification" as a placeholder. People might have said "Nazification" before the word "fascism" was well defined.
Sure, but he's also making spurious generalizations which appear to owe more to a 1993 William Gibson article than any understanding of the motivations or actions behind Singaporean paternalism or Turkish modern Islamism, which are not at all alike. Throwing in Franco's Spain - certainly the Western European country whose economic policy priorities least resembled Singapore's - doesn't help matters.
Other than a not-uncommon desire to stay in power and grow the economy, Erdogan really doesn't seem to share the same endgame as Singapore's de facto founder. One is a traditional Muslim accused by his critics of undermining the secularist underpinnings of the modern Turkish state; the other an ardent multiculturalist who ended up apologising for a comment suggesting Muslims ought to be less strict in their observances. Erdogan recommends Turkish women need to rear at least three children to "keep the population young" and helped provoke the riots by trying to tighten regulation on abortion. Lee Kuan Yew introduced the "Stop at Two" family planning advocacy campaign and legalised abortion.
Ironically it's values that Singapore's uber-strict legal system has rigidly defended - anti-corruption, state secularism and individual religious freedom - that the Turkish rioters claim motivate their opposition to the Erdogan's government. They've managed to leave more trees intact than central Istanbul too. :)
Other than a not-uncommon desire to stay in power and grow the economy, Erdogan really doesn't seem to share the same endgame as Singapore's de facto founder. One is a traditional Muslim accused by his critics of undermining the secularist underpinnings of the modern Turkish state; the other an ardent multiculturalist who ended up apologising for a comment suggesting Muslims ought to be less strict in their observances. Erdogan recommends Turkish women need to rear at least three children to "keep the population young" and helped provoke the riots by trying to tighten regulation on abortion. Lee Kuan Yew introduced the "Stop at Two" family planning advocacy campaign and legalised abortion.
Ironically it's values that Singapore's uber-strict legal system has rigidly defended - anti-corruption, state secularism and individual religious freedom - that the Turkish rioters claim motivate their opposition to the Erdogan's government. They've managed to leave more trees intact than central Istanbul too. :)
> They've managed to leave more trees intact than central Istanbul too. :)
Last time I was in Turkey, they had a huge greenery programme going on in Anatolia (i.e. I saw it in Ankara and surroundings). Interesting, that Istanbul had its tree cover reduced.
Last time I was in Turkey, they had a huge greenery programme going on in Anatolia (i.e. I saw it in Ankara and surroundings). Interesting, that Istanbul had its tree cover reduced.
> He's holding up Singapore as a shining example of the end-state of affairs that the government of Turkey is trying to emulate.
> I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today.
What?
Anyway, Singapore is the greenest city on earth. It'll be more likely to see people here protesting the demolition of a shopping mall to build a park than vice versa. It's ridiculous to compare this to what is happening in Turkey now.
> I find Singapore to be the scariest dystopia in the world today.
What?
Anyway, Singapore is the greenest city on earth. It'll be more likely to see people here protesting the demolition of a shopping mall to build a park than vice versa. It's ridiculous to compare this to what is happening in Turkey now.
You really have no clue what's going on, do you? I'm honestly not trying to be rude. It's just that you come across as entirely missing the guy in the gorilla suit in the middle of the basketball game.
The quintissential idea of a dystopia is that it's a safe place to live, the streets are clean, you have jobs and food and security. As long as you stay in the lines put in place by the State you're fine.
But women can only wear skirts 2 inches below the knee. Lipstick must be color 22 or 46. Men cannot have beards. Or you must have a beard. You must wear a tie to work, even if you collect garbage. The news going to report what it's told to report, not necessarily whats happening in front of everyone. Photos can and will be edited to reflect the proper history that should exist. God help you if your faith is the minority and says you must not cut your hair. When you leave your shiny office with your coworkers for lunch, remember not to leave in groups larger than 4 because its against the law.
So I am not saying my specific examples happen in Singapore. But you don't seem to get that we aren't really talking about Singapore.
We're talking about dystopian ways of living that exist on earth, right now. We're talking about people with lots of money actively trying to make stuff like what I just said part of your life, right now. It never happens over night. It's one day at a time. One accident, one criminal act. One new camera on a street, one new law passed.
So slowly, so you feel safer, until one day you see something happening around you that you don't like and decide to speak up. No one sees you at work tomorrow or the next day. You and your wife and kids just disappeared one night. No one saw anything, even if they did. In a week, a new family moves into your nice modern apartment. Someone else gets your cushy job. No one talks about you. They feel safe, too.
The quintissential idea of a dystopia is that it's a safe place to live, the streets are clean, you have jobs and food and security. As long as you stay in the lines put in place by the State you're fine.
But women can only wear skirts 2 inches below the knee. Lipstick must be color 22 or 46. Men cannot have beards. Or you must have a beard. You must wear a tie to work, even if you collect garbage. The news going to report what it's told to report, not necessarily whats happening in front of everyone. Photos can and will be edited to reflect the proper history that should exist. God help you if your faith is the minority and says you must not cut your hair. When you leave your shiny office with your coworkers for lunch, remember not to leave in groups larger than 4 because its against the law.
So I am not saying my specific examples happen in Singapore. But you don't seem to get that we aren't really talking about Singapore.
We're talking about dystopian ways of living that exist on earth, right now. We're talking about people with lots of money actively trying to make stuff like what I just said part of your life, right now. It never happens over night. It's one day at a time. One accident, one criminal act. One new camera on a street, one new law passed.
So slowly, so you feel safer, until one day you see something happening around you that you don't like and decide to speak up. No one sees you at work tomorrow or the next day. You and your wife and kids just disappeared one night. No one saw anything, even if they did. In a week, a new family moves into your nice modern apartment. Someone else gets your cushy job. No one talks about you. They feel safe, too.
>>You really have no clue what's going on, do you?
Actually, it is you who has no clue.
Please read my response to the parent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5809506
Actually, it is you who has no clue.
Please read my response to the parent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5809506
> But you don't seem to get that we aren't really talking about Singapore.
You are right, I have no idea what this has to do with Singapore at all!
And if we aren't talking about Singapore why do we keep saying Singapore?!
You are right, I have no idea what this has to do with Singapore at all!
And if we aren't talking about Singapore why do we keep saying Singapore?!
> I have no idea what this has to do with Singapore at all!
So clearly the best option is to simply claim it as "rubbish" instead of discussing and trying to understand the other persons viewpoint.
So clearly the best option is to simply claim it as "rubbish" instead of discussing and trying to understand the other persons viewpoint.
the US is more dystopian than singapore, if you ask me.
have you ever been to singapore?
have you ever been to singapore?
Have you read his comment? Read it again. You can certainly disagree with his point but when you ask "what does it have to do with Singapore?" you are showing that you either haven't read it or English is not your first language (it isn't for me) and you just couldn't understand it (not worries then, I know how that feels some times).
Reading it 10 more times won't change anything. Yes English is my first language (so what?). I understand perfectly the words but the attempts to draw parallels with Singapore makes absolutely no sense.
> I understand perfectly the words but the attempts to draw parallels with Singapore makes absolutely no sense.
That may be the case but the fact that he was making an analogy between the way governments and private industry are setup, the mix of conservative ideology and lack of some of the freedoms was obvious. Again, whether you agree with that, is another issue, but your phrased you answer as if you didn't understand that he was making a comparison.
Basically it seemed you were skimming through comments about Turkey saw a comment on Singapore and just replied "what is this doing here, we are talking about Turkey".
It is also interesting that the gp post indicated clearly what he thought it has to do with Singapore if you want to continue the argument you can perhaps provide counter-arguments to their point, instead of insinuating that they got lost and thought we were discussing an article about libertarian city states or something.
That may be the case but the fact that he was making an analogy between the way governments and private industry are setup, the mix of conservative ideology and lack of some of the freedoms was obvious. Again, whether you agree with that, is another issue, but your phrased you answer as if you didn't understand that he was making a comparison.
Basically it seemed you were skimming through comments about Turkey saw a comment on Singapore and just replied "what is this doing here, we are talking about Turkey".
It is also interesting that the gp post indicated clearly what he thought it has to do with Singapore if you want to continue the argument you can perhaps provide counter-arguments to their point, instead of insinuating that they got lost and thought we were discussing an article about libertarian city states or something.
Go to Singapore. Litter. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CRiqfOMVC74/T69l6BH1vVI/AAAAAAAAL8...
What bubble are you living in because it desperately needs to be popped.
What bubble are you living in because it desperately needs to be popped.
Are you seriously trying to say you can get caned for littering in Singapore? It is exactly this kind of ignorant statement spoken as if it were fact that irks me.
Are you saying that singapore doesn't cane people, or that it doesn't cane people for littering? Maybe you are right about the latter (I can only find evidence that you will be arrested, perhaps not caned, for littering) but caning is most certainly a thing in Singapore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore#Legal_basis
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1017.html
If caning its own citizens is not evidence of a nanny state that treats people like children, I don't know what is.
If caning its own citizens is not evidence of a nanny state that treats people like children, I don't know what is.
> If caning its own citizens is not evidence of a nanny state that treats people like children, I don't know what is.
Not that I want to sound like a supporter Singapore's judicial system but I didn't expect to hear this from a citizen of a country that is allowed to kill as a form of punishment.
(Making the assumption that you are from the US, apologies if I got that wrong).
Not that I want to sound like a supporter Singapore's judicial system but I didn't expect to hear this from a citizen of a country that is allowed to kill as a form of punishment.
(Making the assumption that you are from the US, apologies if I got that wrong).
No, you got it right (I'm not american, but I live here). And I absolutely agree with you - like caning, capital punishment has no place in an enlightened country, and I sure hope it is eradicated from the US, and throughout the world, soon.
I was merely disagreeing with the parent's assertion that Singapore has some form of enlightened government that doesn't trample on personal freedoms, and treats its citizens with respect.
I was merely disagreeing with the parent's assertion that Singapore has some form of enlightened government that doesn't trample on personal freedoms, and treats its citizens with respect.
Caning doesn't seem worse than prison. Especially not American prisons.
Fair enough.
> I was merely disagreeing with the parent's assertion that Singapore has some form of enlightened government that doesn't trample on personal freedoms, and treats its citizens with respect.
I made no such assertion. But perhaps you should enlighten yourself on exactly what personal freedoms are being trampled upon here, and how exactly Singapore's citizens are being disrespected. You just made a bullshit statement that you can get caned for littering in Singapore. What else of your opinion of Singapore is based on similar ignorance?
Next you are going to tell me chewing gum is banned in Singapore (gasp!). And I'm going to quote you something random from http://itthing.com/100-weird-laws-from-around-the-world (let's go with "In Indiana, it’s against the law to dress ‘Barbie’ in ‘Ken’s’ clothes" this time)
I made no such assertion. But perhaps you should enlighten yourself on exactly what personal freedoms are being trampled upon here, and how exactly Singapore's citizens are being disrespected. You just made a bullshit statement that you can get caned for littering in Singapore. What else of your opinion of Singapore is based on similar ignorance?
Next you are going to tell me chewing gum is banned in Singapore (gasp!). And I'm going to quote you something random from http://itthing.com/100-weird-laws-from-around-the-world (let's go with "In Indiana, it’s against the law to dress ‘Barbie’ in ‘Ken’s’ clothes" this time)
>If caning its own citizens is not evidence of a nanny state that treats people like children, I don't know what is. //
Surely the issue - assuming active littering is punished by caning and in this narrow area - is that any adult in such a place would never come up against the consequences of the law.
It's not treating mature people like children it's treating antisocial adults as immoral.
Surely the issue - assuming active littering is punished by caning and in this narrow area - is that any adult in such a place would never come up against the consequences of the law.
It's not treating mature people like children it's treating antisocial adults as immoral.
http://www.businessinsider.com/absurd-laws-of-singapore-2012...
>Singapore also differs from the United States where penalties are determined by a judge;breaking certain laws in Singapore can come with mandatory decisions that still include cane beatings.
At least attempt some research
>Singapore also differs from the United States where penalties are determined by a judge;breaking certain laws in Singapore can come with mandatory decisions that still include cane beatings.
At least attempt some research
Breaking some laws in America can result in the death penalty - does that mean we kill people who litter?
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
> At least attempt some research
And did your research tell you that you can get caned in Singapore for littering?
And did your research tell you that you can get caned in Singapore for littering?
You don't get caned for littering in Singapore.
[deleted](1)
"The scariest dystopias are not hideous hellscapes where nobody would want to live, as those tend to self-destruct or at best persist in tiny enclaves and never catch on."
This seems to be the sort of opinion only a person who does not live in said hideous hellscape could support. While I (Singaporean) do not agree with everything the government does, I would definitely much rather live here than in North Korea.
This seems to be the sort of opinion only a person who does not live in said hideous hellscape could support. While I (Singaporean) do not agree with everything the government does, I would definitely much rather live here than in North Korea.
I think he's saying "scariest in the long run," because the worst sort are (of course) much worse in the short run, but are less likely to last very long.
I sincerely doubt the sum total of human misery caused by the government in Singapore will ever exceed that caused by that of the North Korean government.
The point he's making is that a dystopia that achieves buy-in from a large portion of the population because it delivers wealth, cleanliness, and low crime, is much more likely to persist for a LONG time than a dystopia like North Korea.
You could have an authoritarian government that routinely tortures and executes political opposition and severely punishes minor crimes that ends up with the support of the majority of the populace because they like clean streets and a strong economy. That sort of government would be extremely difficult to uproot.
You could have an authoritarian government that routinely tortures and executes political opposition and severely punishes minor crimes that ends up with the support of the majority of the populace because they like clean streets and a strong economy. That sort of government would be extremely difficult to uproot.
Here is the truth of this situation in one sentence: A bunch of dogmatic Kemalist opportunists and militant anti-gevernment groups are yelling with all they got; while we (greetings from Turkey!) play the silent majority :)
have you been to singapore?
(I am re-posting my comment on about this article on this thread to make it shown since the comments got much larger for the top entry too long. Apologies if I am breaking any rule.)
This article is grossly misleading. Papers and televisions are showing what is going on, one can read from internet [11, 12, 13], and express his opinion. I live in States and even I can access all these information from here. Turkey is a democracy with multi party system similar to France since 1946. Unfortunately the minority group who held the power in Turkey for decades lost their control of most of the government and state after years of corruption with 2002 elections. In 2001 Turkish economy experienced a similar economic meltdown after a "soft" coup of the people who support and make the current demonstrations. The economic repercussions was so deep it effected almost everyone similar to what has been going on in Greece and Spain. Since then the new government handled economy and democratic process so well, even in the current terrible economic situation of the world Turkey managed to become the fastest growing economy in Europe. Turkey has made the last debt payment to IMF couple of weeks ago. For the first time her existence Turkish economy's credit rating became investment grade by Moody's on May 17th this year[1]. Most importantly the clash with the Kurdish minority ended with a new peace process. This is by far the most important achievement of the current government given the 30 years of history of violence in South Easy of Turkey. Over 40K people have died since it started in 1980.
The person who wrote this article and those demonstrators are hoping to show their anger towards the government akin to Egypt's Tahrir Square demonstrations. However this is all reading it backwards. Current government is popularly supported by the people and the support has increased with each consecutive poll since 2002, leading to 50% [3] of the popular vote the last time. This government is leading a commission and effort to write a new constituition to raise the standards of human rights in Turkey. This is one of the biggest selling point to end the Kurdish violence since they now feel their rights will be protected better in the future. Current constitution is put together in 1980 by the people who engineered the last "hard" coup in Turkey [5], a coup literally executed with brute force, guns and tanks. With this government the efforts to get into EU increased tremendously [6] and actually it has been their strategy to balance the power in Turkey against Military's long standing anti-democratic ambitions and practices.
Recent demonstrations at a park in Istanbul got bigger by exploiting the grossly wrong police brutality. Unfortunately where there is demonstration be it in US [7], Spain [8] or Greece [9], in any country the police is very heavy handed. Otherwise the park that is in middle of the city is part of project [10] that will transform the area and close all the motor vehicle traffic and allow only pedestrians. This is going to be done by diverting traffic to underground roads that will be build as part of the project. Decision for the project taken by the people who was elected including members both from ruling and opposition party, and was voted unanimously.
Author of this article and those demonstrators are supporting the old regime. A regime that dictates certain ideology build around a cult leader like the ones in former Soviet Union, China and North Korea. Ours is Ataturk. You have to think like them, act like them, speak like them, live like them. During my mandatory military service I was forced to memorize who is Ataturk which was a list of 10 items that goes like this: 1) Ataturk was the best person in the world 2) Ataturk was best statesman in the world 3) Ataturk is the best military leader in the world. And thise list goes on and on...
Let me give you an example of what this people againts. Can you buy liquor after certain hours in States? Can you walk with an open beer can, alcohol bottle? No, because in States, varying by state, shops can not sell alcohol after 10pm or 2am. For example in England even places where liquor served as part of the service has to close by 1am. When this government made a similar, banning sale of alchol from 10pm to 6am, these people made a big noise. This is one of the arguments they have been telling during these demonstrations.
edit-1: I added some more references.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-16/turkey-raised-to-in... [2] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/25/turkey-justice-central-ku... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13740147 [4] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/turkey-s-kurtulmus-... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%C3%A9tat [6] http://www.cfr.org/turkey/turkeys-eu-bid/p8939 [7] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/UC-Davis-pepper-spraye... [8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/29/spain-riot-polic... [9] http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-police-brutality-2011-6 [10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opean5HeR-8 [11] http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/basbakanlik-a-yurumek-isteyen/... [12] http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/23426620.asp [13] http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/gosterilerde_ilk_can_kaybi...
This article is grossly misleading. Papers and televisions are showing what is going on, one can read from internet [11, 12, 13], and express his opinion. I live in States and even I can access all these information from here. Turkey is a democracy with multi party system similar to France since 1946. Unfortunately the minority group who held the power in Turkey for decades lost their control of most of the government and state after years of corruption with 2002 elections. In 2001 Turkish economy experienced a similar economic meltdown after a "soft" coup of the people who support and make the current demonstrations. The economic repercussions was so deep it effected almost everyone similar to what has been going on in Greece and Spain. Since then the new government handled economy and democratic process so well, even in the current terrible economic situation of the world Turkey managed to become the fastest growing economy in Europe. Turkey has made the last debt payment to IMF couple of weeks ago. For the first time her existence Turkish economy's credit rating became investment grade by Moody's on May 17th this year[1]. Most importantly the clash with the Kurdish minority ended with a new peace process. This is by far the most important achievement of the current government given the 30 years of history of violence in South Easy of Turkey. Over 40K people have died since it started in 1980.
The person who wrote this article and those demonstrators are hoping to show their anger towards the government akin to Egypt's Tahrir Square demonstrations. However this is all reading it backwards. Current government is popularly supported by the people and the support has increased with each consecutive poll since 2002, leading to 50% [3] of the popular vote the last time. This government is leading a commission and effort to write a new constituition to raise the standards of human rights in Turkey. This is one of the biggest selling point to end the Kurdish violence since they now feel their rights will be protected better in the future. Current constitution is put together in 1980 by the people who engineered the last "hard" coup in Turkey [5], a coup literally executed with brute force, guns and tanks. With this government the efforts to get into EU increased tremendously [6] and actually it has been their strategy to balance the power in Turkey against Military's long standing anti-democratic ambitions and practices.
Recent demonstrations at a park in Istanbul got bigger by exploiting the grossly wrong police brutality. Unfortunately where there is demonstration be it in US [7], Spain [8] or Greece [9], in any country the police is very heavy handed. Otherwise the park that is in middle of the city is part of project [10] that will transform the area and close all the motor vehicle traffic and allow only pedestrians. This is going to be done by diverting traffic to underground roads that will be build as part of the project. Decision for the project taken by the people who was elected including members both from ruling and opposition party, and was voted unanimously.
Author of this article and those demonstrators are supporting the old regime. A regime that dictates certain ideology build around a cult leader like the ones in former Soviet Union, China and North Korea. Ours is Ataturk. You have to think like them, act like them, speak like them, live like them. During my mandatory military service I was forced to memorize who is Ataturk which was a list of 10 items that goes like this: 1) Ataturk was the best person in the world 2) Ataturk was best statesman in the world 3) Ataturk is the best military leader in the world. And thise list goes on and on...
Let me give you an example of what this people againts. Can you buy liquor after certain hours in States? Can you walk with an open beer can, alcohol bottle? No, because in States, varying by state, shops can not sell alcohol after 10pm or 2am. For example in England even places where liquor served as part of the service has to close by 1am. When this government made a similar, banning sale of alchol from 10pm to 6am, these people made a big noise. This is one of the arguments they have been telling during these demonstrations.
edit-1: I added some more references.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-16/turkey-raised-to-in... [2] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/25/turkey-justice-central-ku... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13740147 [4] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/turkey-s-kurtulmus-... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%C3%A9tat [6] http://www.cfr.org/turkey/turkeys-eu-bid/p8939 [7] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/UC-Davis-pepper-spraye... [8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/29/spain-riot-polic... [9] http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-police-brutality-2011-6 [10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opean5HeR-8 [11] http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/basbakanlik-a-yurumek-isteyen/... [12] http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/23426620.asp [13] http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/gosterilerde_ilk_can_kaybi...
(And I'm reposting my reply to the original.)
This wraps up the 'real' situation perfectly. Well put, sir. As a Turkish citizen, thank you for speaking the truth!
This wraps up the 'real' situation perfectly. Well put, sir. As a Turkish citizen, thank you for speaking the truth!
I have sympathy for the protesters but I do wish they had protested just as vehemently when the government began to silence the Press. A Free Press does not guarantee democracy but it does bark loudly and fiercely when it senses danger to the democracy.
unfortunately you are right; that's why the government slowly captured the media; the 2nd largest group was employing prime minister erdogan's groom for a long time (probably still is).
today the minister called, 'there is this damned twitter, ruining our society...'
so turks use now, twitter, facebook, foursquare, ustream tv, tumblr as 'the media'..
today the minister called, 'there is this damned twitter, ruining our society...'
so turks use now, twitter, facebook, foursquare, ustream tv, tumblr as 'the media'..
I wish they had protested when the government started imprisoning generals, although admittedly it is harder to get worked up about the army than it is about the press.
Similar thing happened in Yerevan, Armenia last year, but in a smaller scale. Group of people protected a park from construction of boutiques. It took around 2 months and the government finally gave up. There is a wikipedia article covering the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashtots_Park_Movement
What is currently going on in Turkey is the Islamist ruling party pushing hard to make the country much more conservative instead of secular, all the while pushing their way back into the Arab world to regain their clout and power.
The youths are protesting because what was once a fairly liberal set of standards is rapidly being removed.
Ironically, it was the military that protected this set of freedoms.
The youths are protesting because what was once a fairly liberal set of standards is rapidly being removed.
Ironically, it was the military that protected this set of freedoms.
There's nothing ironic about that. The military in Turkey have styled themselves the defenders of Ataturk's constitution, which enshrined certain "Kemalist" values like secularism, republicanism, and populism. They've engaged in military coups several times in the history of Turkey in order to (ostensibly) protect the constitution. In the past they've removed any leader that was deemed too politically religious.
Erdogan's big accomplishment was to be moderate enough in his political Islamism that he didn't trigger a military coup. Further, the European Union disapproved of Turkey's history of military coups, making it clear that they weren't going to admit a country that relied on military coups to defend its constitution from democracy. So the military did not remove Erdogan, despite the AKP's moderate Islamic agenda.
The military is a conservative force in Turkish society insofar as it defends an interpretation of the constitution and politics rooted in Ataturk's ideology from the 1920s. But it is not a conservative force in the socially conservative political Islam sense. You should not be surprised that secular urban youth and the Turkish military end up on the same side.
Erdogan's big accomplishment was to be moderate enough in his political Islamism that he didn't trigger a military coup. Further, the European Union disapproved of Turkey's history of military coups, making it clear that they weren't going to admit a country that relied on military coups to defend its constitution from democracy. So the military did not remove Erdogan, despite the AKP's moderate Islamic agenda.
The military is a conservative force in Turkish society insofar as it defends an interpretation of the constitution and politics rooted in Ataturk's ideology from the 1920s. But it is not a conservative force in the socially conservative political Islam sense. You should not be surprised that secular urban youth and the Turkish military end up on the same side.
Good stuff. Though, it is better to say military used to be like that, as currently, all the generals including the leading general 3 years ago have been jailed, so indeed military is very powerless now. It is not only that AKP did not trigger the coup, it is that they learned from the mistakes of their political ancestors, and this time, crushed the military before moving on to their real Islamist plans.
Live cam from Taksim, Istanbul
http://rt.com/on-air/turkey-protest-istanbul-park/
Error 404 now.
Wow thank you for that!
This is disgusting, the "right" to profit/property is the least important thing, it should never trump people's well-being or the environment.
Yet a democratically-elected government made a decision in the name of the people to replace this park with a shopping mall. People protesting against that by blocking the construction process (i.e. stand in front of bulldozers etc.) are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
This is a general problem I have with such active counter-protests, be they to stop a station from being built (Stuttgart 21, [0]) or to block a legitimate demonstration of right-wing idiots. The rights to free speech, to assemble and to demonstrate are important, but in my opinion the right to demonstrate/protest in a specific location does not trump the right of the majority to implement a democratically made decision or the right of a minority to voice their opinion.
That said, there are obviously cases were a small minority has the right to (even violently) protest a decision made by the majority[1], but building a shopping mall in a park is not one of them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution , e.g. Art. 20.4 of the German Basic Law – does the Turkish constitution have a similar provision?
This is a general problem I have with such active counter-protests, be they to stop a station from being built (Stuttgart 21, [0]) or to block a legitimate demonstration of right-wing idiots. The rights to free speech, to assemble and to demonstrate are important, but in my opinion the right to demonstrate/protest in a specific location does not trump the right of the majority to implement a democratically made decision or the right of a minority to voice their opinion.
That said, there are obviously cases were a small minority has the right to (even violently) protest a decision made by the majority[1], but building a shopping mall in a park is not one of them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution , e.g. Art. 20.4 of the German Basic Law – does the Turkish constitution have a similar provision?
> People protesting against that by blocking the construction process (i.e. stand in front of bulldozers etc.) are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
I think this is getting at the heart of civil disobedience: the violation of laws or decrees considered unjust.
I know nothing about the Turkish protests, but another example of civil disobedience is Martin Luther King, Jr. He committed crimes, technically, as he protested. But I don't think that it makes sense to say that MLK's protesting == overturning democracy in America. By analogy, it's hard to imagine civil disobedience in Turkey to be overthrowing democracy there.
I think this is getting at the heart of civil disobedience: the violation of laws or decrees considered unjust.
I know nothing about the Turkish protests, but another example of civil disobedience is Martin Luther King, Jr. He committed crimes, technically, as he protested. But I don't think that it makes sense to say that MLK's protesting == overturning democracy in America. By analogy, it's hard to imagine civil disobedience in Turkey to be overthrowing democracy there.
First let me clarify that instead of ‘overturn’, ‘ignore’, ‘overrule’ or ‘disregard’ might have been better, as I wanted to say that such protests overrule one particular democratic decision and not necessarily the whole form of government.
Then, as I said, the matter is difficult – essentially you have to weigh the predictable functioning of the democratic process against the damage that can be done to people if this process ‘goes wrong’. Unfortunately, this has a whole bunch of problems:
- we do not have a universal definition of when a democratic decision is so wrong it is acceptable for someone to stand up against it
- that someone has to judge objectively whether his rights were violated in such a way that he is justified to stand up against the democratic will
- in many cases, we do not know what the majority ‘really’ wants
- even if a given system/constitution has securities that allow people to stand up against democratically made decisions, these might be seen as either too lax or too restrictive.
For example, the German constitution would allow the people to overthrow a democratic government that wants to cut back on social security in such a way as to violate article 20 of the Basic Law[0] – in the US, on the other hand, people apparently sometimes feel obliged to oppose a government that wants to introduce such social security. If even two relatively similar western societies cannot agree on when it is acceptable to overrule a democratic decision, how can we expect to find universal rules for that on a global scale?
In essence, it is a philosophical discussion on how much you respect democratic decisions as compared to the rights of individuals, and whether or not you only accept positive law or also include some ‘natural’ law in your decision-making.
I tend to like both democracy and positive law, but YMMV, of course. :)
[0] It defines Germany as a ‘social federal state’, does not allow to change that definition, and allows everyone to take up arms against those trying to change it, provided that all other means have been exhausted.
Then, as I said, the matter is difficult – essentially you have to weigh the predictable functioning of the democratic process against the damage that can be done to people if this process ‘goes wrong’. Unfortunately, this has a whole bunch of problems:
- we do not have a universal definition of when a democratic decision is so wrong it is acceptable for someone to stand up against it
- that someone has to judge objectively whether his rights were violated in such a way that he is justified to stand up against the democratic will
- in many cases, we do not know what the majority ‘really’ wants
- even if a given system/constitution has securities that allow people to stand up against democratically made decisions, these might be seen as either too lax or too restrictive.
For example, the German constitution would allow the people to overthrow a democratic government that wants to cut back on social security in such a way as to violate article 20 of the Basic Law[0] – in the US, on the other hand, people apparently sometimes feel obliged to oppose a government that wants to introduce such social security. If even two relatively similar western societies cannot agree on when it is acceptable to overrule a democratic decision, how can we expect to find universal rules for that on a global scale?
In essence, it is a philosophical discussion on how much you respect democratic decisions as compared to the rights of individuals, and whether or not you only accept positive law or also include some ‘natural’ law in your decision-making.
I tend to like both democracy and positive law, but YMMV, of course. :)
[0] It defines Germany as a ‘social federal state’, does not allow to change that definition, and allows everyone to take up arms against those trying to change it, provided that all other means have been exhausted.
I don't really see cause for surprise that the US and Germany are politically different. Without commenting on the merits of either, you described Germany as a social federal state, while the US is not that (and is known for staunch proponents of individuality). In that framework I don't find it surprising that people protest on opposite sides of an issue in the two countries. (This is meant to be something of a logical statement, not a political one.)
I don't think that the nature of civil disobedience is disregarding laws. To the contrary, I think it can be found in regarding laws very carefully and choosing when and how to break such laws for maximum impact; then, by freely suffering the consequences for even greater impact. (This is a general point; I do not mean to imply that the Turkish protests are civil disobedience; I don't know enough yet to judge.)
I don't think that the nature of civil disobedience is disregarding laws. To the contrary, I think it can be found in regarding laws very carefully and choosing when and how to break such laws for maximum impact; then, by freely suffering the consequences for even greater impact. (This is a general point; I do not mean to imply that the Turkish protests are civil disobedience; I don't know enough yet to judge.)
> Yet a democratically-elected government made a decision in the name of the people to replace this park with a shopping mall.
No, it appears rampant corruption in the construction industry (with the perception it is privately benefiting the Turkish PM and his political party) led to a decision not 'in the name of the people'. [1]
> People protesting against that by blocking the construction process (i.e. stand in front of bulldozers etc.) are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
If we assume the reporting so far is reasonably accurate, they are protesting against the erosion of democracy by an increasingly authoritarian PM and corrupted political party which he leads.
It is darkly ironic that you'd attempt to portray their efforts as anti-democratic.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/01/erdogan-grip-tur...
No, it appears rampant corruption in the construction industry (with the perception it is privately benefiting the Turkish PM and his political party) led to a decision not 'in the name of the people'. [1]
> People protesting against that by blocking the construction process (i.e. stand in front of bulldozers etc.) are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
If we assume the reporting so far is reasonably accurate, they are protesting against the erosion of democracy by an increasingly authoritarian PM and corrupted political party which he leads.
It is darkly ironic that you'd attempt to portray their efforts as anti-democratic.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/01/erdogan-grip-tur...
> People protesting against that by blocking the construction process (i.e. stand in front of bulldozers etc.) are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
how so? democracy is not limited to counting votes and stfu until the next election. it's not like authorities haven't been removed from office before and decisions haven't been changed due to public disapproval. getting into office is not a free pass for half a decade. acta protests were anti-democratic too?
how so? democracy is not limited to counting votes and stfu until the next election. it's not like authorities haven't been removed from office before and decisions haven't been changed due to public disapproval. getting into office is not a free pass for half a decade. acta protests were anti-democratic too?
I have absolutely no problems with people protesting, I have a problem with ‘protesters’ forcing their opinion on the rest by use of passive (standing in front of a bulldozer) or active (undermining a railroad track carrying nuclear waste containers) violence.
And yes, if ACTA protests had cut other people’s telecom lines to the US or some such thing, I would have called them anti-democratic, too.
To me, a decent society is based on (among others) the state’s monopoly on the use of force, with the legally acceptable force limited to implement decisions made by the legislative (and judiciary). Random guy simply has no right to ‘protest’ against something by force.
(Also your shift key is a little broken, it appears, making it somewhat difficult to read your post.)
And yes, if ACTA protests had cut other people’s telecom lines to the US or some such thing, I would have called them anti-democratic, too.
To me, a decent society is based on (among others) the state’s monopoly on the use of force, with the legally acceptable force limited to implement decisions made by the legislative (and judiciary). Random guy simply has no right to ‘protest’ against something by force.
(Also your shift key is a little broken, it appears, making it somewhat difficult to read your post.)
No problem with people protesting so long as they do so where you never have to bother with them, eh?
You seem to labor under the false belief that simply because something is voted upon, it is infallibly a correct decision.
Not every law, resolution and ordinance passed is actually good for all the persons it effects. Laws can be extremely adverse for sections of the public, but pass anyways due to disregard or active dislike by larger groups. Expecting people to knuckle under without further resistance simply because they've been outvoted is ridiculous.
Protesting via passive resistance is an excellent way to peacefully make known that something is extremely adverse to your section of the public, without damage to property or persons.
Your "decent society" is a society of insects, bowing to authority unconditionally rather than with individual consideration, without the will to resist evils where they encounter them.
Your equation of the "passive violence" of standing in front of a bulldozer with the active violence of spreading nuclear waste in an area seems purposely made to incite an outraged response. The lack of consideration for the difference in proportion between delaying construction and permanently poisoning an area with nuclear waste shows a damning extremism of thought. It is such equivocations that allows the justification of atrocity when other methods would better do.
Your choice to end your comment with a snide remark on zalew's lack of capitalization makes me wonder whether you believe a word of it, or are simply crafting your response to be purposefully invective for your amusement.
You seem to labor under the false belief that simply because something is voted upon, it is infallibly a correct decision.
Not every law, resolution and ordinance passed is actually good for all the persons it effects. Laws can be extremely adverse for sections of the public, but pass anyways due to disregard or active dislike by larger groups. Expecting people to knuckle under without further resistance simply because they've been outvoted is ridiculous.
Protesting via passive resistance is an excellent way to peacefully make known that something is extremely adverse to your section of the public, without damage to property or persons.
Your "decent society" is a society of insects, bowing to authority unconditionally rather than with individual consideration, without the will to resist evils where they encounter them.
Your equation of the "passive violence" of standing in front of a bulldozer with the active violence of spreading nuclear waste in an area seems purposely made to incite an outraged response. The lack of consideration for the difference in proportion between delaying construction and permanently poisoning an area with nuclear waste shows a damning extremism of thought. It is such equivocations that allows the justification of atrocity when other methods would better do.
Your choice to end your comment with a snide remark on zalew's lack of capitalization makes me wonder whether you believe a word of it, or are simply crafting your response to be purposefully invective for your amusement.
> You seem to labor under the false belief that simply because something is voted upon, it is infallibly a correct decision.
And you seem to labor under the false belief that simply because someone protested something, it is infallibly a correct decision.
And you seem to labor under the false belief that simply because someone protested something, it is infallibly a correct decision.
Spoken like a true majority.
my bet of the little i worked on politics is that someone have campaign money, got the park land in return. I highly doubt there was much calls for discussion on the mater.
This happened in Germany some time ago. The plebiscity for demolishing the park was voted against twice, then they came up with a third voting in the middle of a holiday, with 8h of warning or something similar. When the bulldozers came to the park people were still believing they were there illegally because the permit was not voted for.
my bet of the little i worked on politics is that someone have campaign money, got the park land in return. I highly doubt there was much calls for discussion on the mater.
This happened in Germany some time ago. The plebiscity for demolishing the park was voted against twice, then they came up with a third voting in the middle of a holiday, with 8h of warning or something similar. When the bulldozers came to the park people were still believing they were there illegally because the permit was not voted for.
> This happened in Germany some time ago.
I don’t know to which event exactly you’re referring, but I can assure you that
> 8h of warning or something similar.
this is most certainly false. Could you elaborate a bit?
I don’t know to which event exactly you’re referring, but I can assure you that
> 8h of warning or something similar.
this is most certainly false. Could you elaborate a bit?
Could someone explain why my comment about the likely falsehood of the claim that a third plebiscite was introduced less than 8 hours ahead on a holiday in Germany gets downvoted? o.O
(Also note that practically all votes/plebiscites take place on Sundays in Germany so that as many people as possible can vote.)
(Also note that practically all votes/plebiscites take place on Sundays in Germany so that as many people as possible can vote.)
Of course I took that out of my #$% :-)
But there is a documentary about it... fairly recent one, I just can't find it knowing only that it was a park in Germany.
But there is a documentary about it... fairly recent one, I just can't find it knowing only that it was a park in Germany.
Plebiscites in Germany are rather rare, and the only recent one I can think of is Stuttgart 21, where a train station was/is to be re-built. There was also only one plebiscite specifically about it, it was announced well in advance and it was won by those wanting to build the new station (which didn’t make the Green party that originally pressed for it particularly happy).
you are correct. again, i said "moved the date or something" i don't quite remember the details, but remember that the oposition was complaining about something sneak that the majority party did. it may be that they used the fact that the oposition was wasting all their money with a "say no to stuttgart 21" and on the day of the referendum they worded it as "cancel the ongoing effort?"... i'd have to watch the documentary again to remember details :)
but the idea is the same. even if you vote for your representatives for one reason or another, in the end, the party that ensure majority, gets to decide on the details.
but the idea is the same. even if you vote for your representatives for one reason or another, in the end, the party that ensure majority, gets to decide on the details.
they talk a bit about Stuttgart-21 in Urbanized
While I understand your point, and can agree in part I don't think it applies here. Reading what I've read today its not about single incidents, its about continuous incidents by a government that doesn't resonate with the people. And infact what is considered a growing fascist dictatorship in guise of a government that is routinely commented on for its human rights abuses.
I'd bet that the reason this has grown so quickly doesn't have much to do with individual gripes but that lack of trust and a feeling of disenfranchisement from that government. Compounded with rumours that government they don't have faith in could very well be going to war against a country with stock piles of nerve gas capable of hitting major settlements. Offering the crowds some security within themselves that the government is no longer emanating.
Ask yourself in that scenario, with the risk of sarin gas hitting your home, families home, government cold and distant,would you also go protest? I know I would.
I'd bet that the reason this has grown so quickly doesn't have much to do with individual gripes but that lack of trust and a feeling of disenfranchisement from that government. Compounded with rumours that government they don't have faith in could very well be going to war against a country with stock piles of nerve gas capable of hitting major settlements. Offering the crowds some security within themselves that the government is no longer emanating.
Ask yourself in that scenario, with the risk of sarin gas hitting your home, families home, government cold and distant,would you also go protest? I know I would.
I personally find thousands of people trying to defend a public park much more democratic than business lobby groups with unlimited resources influencing the policy makers.
> People protesting against that by blocking the construction process
I think this is serious misunderstanding of what is now going on in Turkey. The 'mall in park' thing was just a trigger. I understand that you are somehow comparing this to Stuttgart protests but from what I read about it I think this is totally different situation.
Example: I was born in a country occupied by Russians. And there were some protests (even violent) triggered by things like our hockey team beating Russian team at the Olympics. Of course that this had nothing to do with ice hockey and everything to do with the tension and unhappiness that builds up for years.
I think this is serious misunderstanding of what is now going on in Turkey. The 'mall in park' thing was just a trigger. I understand that you are somehow comparing this to Stuttgart protests but from what I read about it I think this is totally different situation.
Example: I was born in a country occupied by Russians. And there were some protests (even violent) triggered by things like our hockey team beating Russian team at the Olympics. Of course that this had nothing to do with ice hockey and everything to do with the tension and unhappiness that builds up for years.
I agree that there is more[0] to it now than a few people wanting to keep a park, yet the comment I originally replied to was:
> This is disgusting, the "right" to profit/property is the least important thing, it should never trump people's well-being or the environment.
which I interpreted as just that.
[0] Whether that ‘more’ is better is, given the levels of violence, rather subjective.
> This is disgusting, the "right" to profit/property is the least important thing, it should never trump people's well-being or the environment.
which I interpreted as just that.
[0] Whether that ‘more’ is better is, given the levels of violence, rather subjective.
It's hard to call this a democratic government given that they control the press and the corruption. Do you really think the people wanted the park to be turned into a shopping mall, or is perhaps a better explanation that a handful of rich people with political connections wanted that?
> Do you really think the people wanted the park to be turned into a shopping mall, or is perhaps a better explanation that a handful of rich people with political connections wanted that?
I really don’t know. One of the confusing (to me) things here is that Erdogan, i.e. the prime minister of the whole of Turkey, appears to control both whether the mall is being built and the local police force, or, in other words, apparently the whole country (as opposed to a local district) can decide on whether to build a mall in some place or not.
And then I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of the rural and likely conservative population of Turkey actually wants to move into what they think is the 21st century.
I really don’t know. One of the confusing (to me) things here is that Erdogan, i.e. the prime minister of the whole of Turkey, appears to control both whether the mall is being built and the local police force, or, in other words, apparently the whole country (as opposed to a local district) can decide on whether to build a mall in some place or not.
And then I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of the rural and likely conservative population of Turkey actually wants to move into what they think is the 21st century.
He doesn't officially control that, but through party connections he controls a lot of things, and that's not how it should be, but it is. The more important issue is that he controls the press, which generally isn't great feature to have as part of a democracy. No doubt he really is popular, and not just with the rural population, but that doesn't mean that he or others in the AKP makes decisions such as whether or not to build a shopping center for the benefit of the people. It's a favor to the contractor who is going to build the shopping mall, or the guy who is going to own it, or something like that. That's just how it works: favors in return for favors, i.e. corruption. He was democratically elected (at least as far as that's possible while you control the press and corruption runs through the party structure), but that doesn't mean that these kind of decisions are made in the name of the general population.
The protest to protect the park is nothing more than a trigger. In fact there are even reports that suggest that there is some misinformation and there is no currently approved project to build a shopping center. Still not clear what the facts are since media is not doing its job.
Initial protest was quite small and not many people paid attention to it until the police used ridiculous level of force to disperse the protesters. That's the action that triggered mass protests all over the country.
Initial protest was quite small and not many people paid attention to it until the police used ridiculous level of force to disperse the protesters. That's the action that triggered mass protests all over the country.
Except democracy is often false, and essentially a duopoly. Take here in the UK for example - there are two main parties, Labour and Conservative, which are varying degrees of right wing neoliberal. I don't doubt either of them would have supported this project because councils are full of careerists who owe favours. We can try to elect a "better" party (we tried with Lib Dems) but that goes tits-up, and we could start a much better left wing party (Green Party), but it's insanely hard to get any real power due to a variety of factors such as the media, ingrained ideas, gerrymandering, etc.
So true democracy is a bunch of people who stand up for their community, or at least that is far less flawed or corrupt than the system as it stands.
As for the right wing idiot thing - I disagree. I love the place I live in, if some arseholes come along and threaten, intimidate people here, then of course I think it just to counter-protest, vastly outnumber them, and make it clear that they are not welcome.
So true democracy is a bunch of people who stand up for their community, or at least that is far less flawed or corrupt than the system as it stands.
As for the right wing idiot thing - I disagree. I love the place I live in, if some arseholes come along and threaten, intimidate people here, then of course I think it just to counter-protest, vastly outnumber them, and make it clear that they are not welcome.
I feel I'm missing something from your comment. Are you suggesting anybody democratically elected get their personal views ("in the name of the people") backed by that democracy? I don't think getting elected means that the people deem you infallible for your term in your typical democracy?
> Yet a democratically-elected government made a decision in the name of the people to replace this park with a shopping mall.
So what? If yours "democratically-elected government" orders you("in the name of the people", of course) to kill jews, will you comply?
> are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
So what? When majority votes, does it protect personal interests of someone else?
> e.g. Art. 20.4 of the German Basic Law – does the Turkish constitution have a similar provision?
You have so much subordination to government-made law, so even if you would really want to overthrow tyrannic government, you would stop because there is no law allowing you to revolt?
So what? If yours "democratically-elected government" orders you("in the name of the people", of course) to kill jews, will you comply?
> are effectively overturning democracy in order to protect their personal interests.
So what? When majority votes, does it protect personal interests of someone else?
> e.g. Art. 20.4 of the German Basic Law – does the Turkish constitution have a similar provision?
You have so much subordination to government-made law, so even if you would really want to overthrow tyrannic government, you would stop because there is no law allowing you to revolt?
[deleted]
One of the more hackernews relevant aspects of this event is the role of the media. Turkey has a very robust media, with dozens of TV stations and newspapers, yet there are no laws preventing the media from participating other commercial activities, or owning both newspapers and TV stations, etc. In fact, most of the media is owned by large corporations. Add to this the large role the government plays in the economy, it's almost inevitable that media is corrupt and avoids going against the government.
Even with that background, the reporting by the mainstream media about the events of the last couple of days has been a disgrace, and social media is filling the void.
The following is the most insightful analysis I've seen on this topic "Is there a Social-Media Fueled Protest Style? An Analysis From #jan25 to #geziparki "http://technosociology.org/?p=1255
Even with that background, the reporting by the mainstream media about the events of the last couple of days has been a disgrace, and social media is filling the void.
The following is the most insightful analysis I've seen on this topic "Is there a Social-Media Fueled Protest Style? An Analysis From #jan25 to #geziparki "http://technosociology.org/?p=1255
Turkey does not (currently) have a robust media. It has a very high rate of incarceration of journalists.
Not really what I refer to by robust media. I'd say 200+ private TV stations, hundreds of radio stations, 40+ national daily papers qualify to call it "robust". IMO high number of incarcerated journalists is more reflection on the government that ,though democratically elected, does not seem to understand you can't really have democracy without respecting individual rights and freedoms.
A million raising their fist recording with a mobile device.
"There is now a menace which is called Twitter," Erdogan
said. "The best examples of lies can be found there. To me,
social media is the worst menace to society."
People (and countries) can change, especially when people who are interested in changing a country gravitate to power. The only guarantee of our freedoms in a modern civil society is our continued vigilance and active participation in it.
When he was doing his first campaign, Erdogan portrayed himself a liberal. Even after he became president he distanced himself from his old fundamentalist islam friends and followed relatively liberal politics.
Oh, also he had portrayed himself as a victim. This is the achilles heel of Turkish people. They love you unconditionally if they think you are victim. (I am Turkish)
AFAIK, general population is no more or no less liberal compared to 10 years ago. Honestly they weren't/aren't quite liberal.
Oh, also he had portrayed himself as a victim. This is the achilles heel of Turkish people. They love you unconditionally if they think you are victim. (I am Turkish)
AFAIK, general population is no more or no less liberal compared to 10 years ago. Honestly they weren't/aren't quite liberal.
[deleted]
Hürriyet, a left-leaning English-language daily, is covering the protests (and Erdoğan's response, the resulting politicking, and so on):
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/
I should note that Hürriyet is historically quite unfriendly to Erdoğan; in particular (IIRC) it raised quite a bit of noise when Doğan Holdings, which owns Hürriyet, underwent tax fraud investigations that may have been politically motivated.
I should note that Hürriyet is historically quite unfriendly to Erdoğan; in particular (IIRC) it raised quite a bit of noise when Doğan Holdings, which owns Hürriyet, underwent tax fraud investigations that may have been politically motivated.
Can someone perhaps comment on the alleged use of agent orange? [1] From my limited knowledge of chemical weapons ( in lack of a better word), it is an deforestation chemical, and has no direct use for riot control. So currently my take is, that this is a rumor, since its use would better fit into the narrative than into a plausible police strategy.
[1] for example: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1fi07t/im_so_conf...
(from saurik's comment)
[1] for example: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1fi07t/im_so_conf...
(from saurik's comment)
I don't think it is aimed at at the protestors, but it is a chemical usable to attack trees and they are in a park.
It might very well be sort of 'we are going to kill this park one way or the other' type of situation. Once all the trees are dead, they could properly develop the park with relatively few protests.
It is insane, of course, but it seems that some governments are prepared to do absolutely anything to their citizens so long as they think they can get away with it and while they usually can get away with it they also have no understanding that getting away with these kinds of things are like a cliff-drop: you can go closer and closer to the edge and then you go one step too far and the entire thing unravels.
Usually at this point the governments try to oppress them a little more, rather than back away, and that is when the real explosion happens.
It might very well be sort of 'we are going to kill this park one way or the other' type of situation. Once all the trees are dead, they could properly develop the park with relatively few protests.
It is insane, of course, but it seems that some governments are prepared to do absolutely anything to their citizens so long as they think they can get away with it and while they usually can get away with it they also have no understanding that getting away with these kinds of things are like a cliff-drop: you can go closer and closer to the edge and then you go one step too far and the entire thing unravels.
Usually at this point the governments try to oppress them a little more, rather than back away, and that is when the real explosion happens.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but what you're saying here is obviously grossly out of whack with reality. The police violence is crazy but Turkey is not that crazy. You may as well have claimed that Erdogan is planning to nuke the protesters.
Now _that_ is hyperbole, congrats!
Pepper spray is orange, so more than likely it was that and people just don't know what to call it.
I was also confused by the alleged use of agent orange. It seemed to make so sense to me.
A chemical weapons expert interviewed by a Swedish newspaper said that it is unlikely that Turkey actually used agent orange. They do refer to it Orange Gas but I don't know if that is actually different from Agent Orange?
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/polisen-anvander-kemiska-st... Unfortunately only available in Swedish, but Google translate should make it at least somewhat readable.
A chemical weapons expert interviewed by a Swedish newspaper said that it is unlikely that Turkey actually used agent orange. They do refer to it Orange Gas but I don't know if that is actually different from Agent Orange?
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/polisen-anvander-kemiska-st... Unfortunately only available in Swedish, but Google translate should make it at least somewhat readable.
I'd find Agent Orange hard to believe, given that it did a bit more than deforestation in Vietnam. The Redditor describes it as "a derivative of the Vietnam era deforestation chemical Agent Orange. It is incredibly toxic and forbidden by the UN after the horrific effects it had on both the Vietnamese and Americans exposed to it.", but derived from could mean anything really.
I'd find it hard to believe that anything closely resembling it is used by any sane police force, that seems like it would be classified as chemical warfare?
I'd find it hard to believe that anything closely resembling it is used by any sane police force, that seems like it would be classified as chemical warfare?
my memory is a bit hazy but wasn't the most dangerous part of agent orange the fact that it was contaminated with very toxic dioxins rather than the toxic properties of 'clean' agent orange?
Why would Turkey resort to chemical warfare when they don't have to, why risk the wrath of the international community when you can 'just' use tear gas and such?
Why would Turkey resort to chemical warfare when they don't have to, why risk the wrath of the international community when you can 'just' use tear gas and such?
Yes, you are correct. The active ingredient in Agent Orange is routinely in use for weed control.
> > It is incredibly toxic and forbidden by the UN after the horrific effects it had on both the Vietnamese and Americans exposed to it.
It's not forbidden by the UN, the active ingredient is 2,4-D and is the 3rd most used herbicide in america.
The other ingredient 2,4,5-T is non toxic, but making it commonly contaminates it with the very toxic 2,3,7,8.
> > It is incredibly toxic and forbidden by the UN after the horrific effects it had on both the Vietnamese and Americans exposed to it.
It's not forbidden by the UN, the active ingredient is 2,4-D and is the 3rd most used herbicide in america.
The other ingredient 2,4,5-T is non toxic, but making it commonly contaminates it with the very toxic 2,3,7,8.
Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of that. When they say it's a derivative, they probably mean closer to that herbicide then?
I still haven't heard anything about it actually being used there, but would that seem at all reasonable to you? A police force that uses tear gas and don't want to kill people, would they plausibly use such a derivative for the same purpose?
I still haven't heard anything about it actually being used there, but would that seem at all reasonable to you? A police force that uses tear gas and don't want to kill people, would they plausibly use such a derivative for the same purpose?
"When they say it's a derivative, they probably mean closer to that herbicide then?"
When they say it's a derivative, they most probably mean that they saw something orange, and that is why they call it Agent Orange. Unfortunately, the average person seeing teargas is fairly ignorant about chemistry and biology. It makes no sense to spread a herbicide in a demonstration. It is harmful in the long term but has no impact on people in the short term, thus is just no use in that situation.
Agent Orange was called AO because the containers it came in had an orange strip. The substance itself is colourless, just like the same herbicides today. And is not particularly toxic to humans, the problem in Vietnam was trace amounts of dioxin in manufacturing the 2,4,5-T component.
When they say it's a derivative, they most probably mean that they saw something orange, and that is why they call it Agent Orange. Unfortunately, the average person seeing teargas is fairly ignorant about chemistry and biology. It makes no sense to spread a herbicide in a demonstration. It is harmful in the long term but has no impact on people in the short term, thus is just no use in that situation.
Agent Orange was called AO because the containers it came in had an orange strip. The substance itself is colourless, just like the same herbicides today. And is not particularly toxic to humans, the problem in Vietnam was trace amounts of dioxin in manufacturing the 2,4,5-T component.
It would do absolutely nothing to a person. Some other people on the thread theorized that since pepper spray is orange people confused it with that.
[deleted]
It's not agent orange. It's tear gas mixed with orange paint to tag the protesters for later identification. Agent orange isn't even orange. --http://occupygezipics.tumblr.com/post/51960983385/important-...
Tear gas and Water cannons are the best non-lethal methods for crowd control available... honestly I think the turkish police are doing a good a job at controlling this as possible.
All the media and reddit pictures are from the side of the protesters, a few pictures of people who get knocked in the head with a tear gas container != cops beating and shooting innocent people as they would have you believe.
Also from empirical evidence as an American who spent two weeks in Istanbul last year I've found the city and police to be totally welcoming and open ... to include bar crawls around taksim, walking 20 miles on foot through every nieghborhood in the city, to visiting some of the holiest artifacts in Islam at topkapi palace.
I'd like to see the other side of this... I understand the government has been culling the ranks of the top military to weaken their influence and push the Islamist agenda.. I do, but that said, turkey is not syria or iraq, it is a large cosmopolitan and wonderful country I would hate to see it destroyed.
Edit: I'll add for reference if it matters I'm a large, shaved headed and tattooed, obviously american man, who was a solo traveler.
All the media and reddit pictures are from the side of the protesters, a few pictures of people who get knocked in the head with a tear gas container != cops beating and shooting innocent people as they would have you believe.
Also from empirical evidence as an American who spent two weeks in Istanbul last year I've found the city and police to be totally welcoming and open ... to include bar crawls around taksim, walking 20 miles on foot through every nieghborhood in the city, to visiting some of the holiest artifacts in Islam at topkapi palace.
I'd like to see the other side of this... I understand the government has been culling the ranks of the top military to weaken their influence and push the Islamist agenda.. I do, but that said, turkey is not syria or iraq, it is a large cosmopolitan and wonderful country I would hate to see it destroyed.
Edit: I'll add for reference if it matters I'm a large, shaved headed and tattooed, obviously american man, who was a solo traveler.
Tear gas canisters are "non-lethal", perhaps, but that's not the bar I think should be set. An example of the kind of thing that can happen:
http://gothamist.com/2010/06/01/cooper_union_student_loses_e...
http://gothamist.com/2010/06/01/cooper_union_student_loses_e...
A good job of controlling something they incited? They didn't need to use violence on non-violent protestors.
At this point they're lawless thugs with guns.
At this point they're lawless thugs with guns.
The folk need your support right now, may be tomorrow will be late. 30 minutes ago the president Erdogan gave a spech in television. He calling twitter "a piece of shit", because the folk organizing, talking about him and reality in twitter (for sure there is fake news also but if he did not bought the turkish media than we won't need twitter, twitter is only option for now), even his voters commenting on twitter, the politics people are unbelievable.
How to help: Even sending a picture, with your city name and a support message (even only a support message) may be will change his mind. Please send your tweet with support message and #direngeziparki #direnturkiye or #direnankara hash tags. (which means in order "resist gezi park", "resist turkey", "resist ankara". gezi park is the start point of the protest, Ankara is (the captial) city where cops hitting people right now)
Even writing in your language will help us to reach more people. You could write whatever you think about "fascism". For sure he got 50% vote, but it does not mean he will not listen the other 50%.
How to help: Even sending a picture, with your city name and a support message (even only a support message) may be will change his mind. Please send your tweet with support message and #direngeziparki #direnturkiye or #direnankara hash tags. (which means in order "resist gezi park", "resist turkey", "resist ankara". gezi park is the start point of the protest, Ankara is (the captial) city where cops hitting people right now)
Even writing in your language will help us to reach more people. You could write whatever you think about "fascism". For sure he got 50% vote, but it does not mean he will not listen the other 50%.
Darth Vader entering the war zone: https://twitter.com/yigitkilinc7/status/341139175782891520/p...
The New York Times reporting on Istanbul http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/world/europe/despite-prote...
I've been following the events since the beginning (in fact I was there at the solitary meeting in Chicago yesterday: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-local-...), so let me summarize what's been going on. However, if you have time to read just a single post, read this (http://technosociology.org/?p=1255) spot on analysis instead of my comment.
First, it's not an Istanbul thing anymore, many Turkish cities, especially Izmir and Ankara witnessed large protests and clashes with the police in the past couple of days.
On paper, this started with a small group of protesters sitting in the park to stop its demolition and cutting down the trees on Monday. That evening and at 5am on Tuesday morning they were violently attacked by the police. The attacks continued on Wednesday. The appalling police brutality unfortunately is nothing new in Turkey but this time it triggered an unexpected reaction from a wide swath of people.
People's discontent with AKP has been rising for some time, although they have provided a stable economy for the past 10 years. Some of the recent events have really notched it up, though, e.g.:
* The fact that government made no official plans to celebrate the May 19th holiday, which is an important day in the creation of the Turkish Republic (mirroring their approach to the October 29th holiday, which is like July 4th for Turkey)
* Lack of adequate response from PM Erdogan to the bombing in Reyhanli. Rather than cancel his visit to the US to visit the town, he went with his original plan. A lot of people thought that he brought such terrorist activities on Turkey due to his agressive rhetoric on Essad and his strong support of the dissidents there.
* The recent ban on the sale of alcohol between 10pm and 6am (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/31/turkey-alcohol-l...). This was an unheard-of move that angered a lot of people, not because Turkey consumes a lot of alcohol but it was interpreted as a step to the Islamic Law.
What really surprised me (and I witnessed many a protest and a few military coups there) was the exponential growth of the protest and its apolitical nature. Before, people used to write the usual leftist slogans on the walls, this time there were a lot of funny graffiti about Erdogan, the police and the pepper gas (examples at https://eksisozluk.com/gezi-parki-isgali-duvar-yazilari--385..., for Turkish readers).
Due to the wide use of social media there were some disinfomation as expected, spread around by excited people, e.g. that the police was using Agent Orange. This was due to the China-like complacency of the Turkish media. In fact, when CNN International was transmitting live from the riots in Istanbul CNN Turk was running a documentary about penguins! The reason for this is two-fold: the intimidation of reporters in the past 2-3 years (e.g. see the OdaTV case, where the owner of a TV station and reporters were swiftly jailed with scant evidence when they criticized the government: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/world/europe/soner-yalcin-...). The other reason is the financial blackmail that the government exercises over large media conglomerates, e.g. when the Dogan group got a colossal $2.3B tax fine in 2009.
First, it's not an Istanbul thing anymore, many Turkish cities, especially Izmir and Ankara witnessed large protests and clashes with the police in the past couple of days.
On paper, this started with a small group of protesters sitting in the park to stop its demolition and cutting down the trees on Monday. That evening and at 5am on Tuesday morning they were violently attacked by the police. The attacks continued on Wednesday. The appalling police brutality unfortunately is nothing new in Turkey but this time it triggered an unexpected reaction from a wide swath of people.
People's discontent with AKP has been rising for some time, although they have provided a stable economy for the past 10 years. Some of the recent events have really notched it up, though, e.g.:
* The fact that government made no official plans to celebrate the May 19th holiday, which is an important day in the creation of the Turkish Republic (mirroring their approach to the October 29th holiday, which is like July 4th for Turkey)
* Lack of adequate response from PM Erdogan to the bombing in Reyhanli. Rather than cancel his visit to the US to visit the town, he went with his original plan. A lot of people thought that he brought such terrorist activities on Turkey due to his agressive rhetoric on Essad and his strong support of the dissidents there.
* The recent ban on the sale of alcohol between 10pm and 6am (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/31/turkey-alcohol-l...). This was an unheard-of move that angered a lot of people, not because Turkey consumes a lot of alcohol but it was interpreted as a step to the Islamic Law.
What really surprised me (and I witnessed many a protest and a few military coups there) was the exponential growth of the protest and its apolitical nature. Before, people used to write the usual leftist slogans on the walls, this time there were a lot of funny graffiti about Erdogan, the police and the pepper gas (examples at https://eksisozluk.com/gezi-parki-isgali-duvar-yazilari--385..., for Turkish readers).
Due to the wide use of social media there were some disinfomation as expected, spread around by excited people, e.g. that the police was using Agent Orange. This was due to the China-like complacency of the Turkish media. In fact, when CNN International was transmitting live from the riots in Istanbul CNN Turk was running a documentary about penguins! The reason for this is two-fold: the intimidation of reporters in the past 2-3 years (e.g. see the OdaTV case, where the owner of a TV station and reporters were swiftly jailed with scant evidence when they criticized the government: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/world/europe/soner-yalcin-...). The other reason is the financial blackmail that the government exercises over large media conglomerates, e.g. when the Dogan group got a colossal $2.3B tax fine in 2009.
I read, listened hundreds of things about events, but honestly, all I see is vague hand wavy things about the real cause. "Lack of adequate response.. No official plans to celebrate May 19.. No alcohol sale after 10pm.." Seriously? I maen really?, To me this this whole mess seems to be reduced to "Hey police pepper sprayed my friend yesterday, and btw I also hate this government and PM. I am going in." reaction.
Let me give you a quick chronology of what happened. It was a peaceful sit in in May 27th to 30th. On the 30th at 5am, police walked in and tear gassed protestors and burned their tents. Strike #1.
People gathered back at 1pm, and did yet another peaceful sit in. Protestors red eachother and the police books, sang songs. Police attacked them yet again with tear gas and pressurized water. Strike #2.
They kept doing do over and over again for the next few days even though the protestors STILL were not causing damage. Strike #3.
They, "unknown" civilian groups were photographed, carrying sticks and beating people while the police is holding them. Police beating people. Police aiming with tear gas guns at people and hitting them with it at close range (can cause severe trauma by the sheer speed of the canister), and then dancing afterwards in joy. Strike #4.
Also, you seem to be a Turkish speaker, so you know the significance of all those things that you're saying "Seriously?" to. Trivializing it won't help.
People gathered back at 1pm, and did yet another peaceful sit in. Protestors red eachother and the police books, sang songs. Police attacked them yet again with tear gas and pressurized water. Strike #2.
They kept doing do over and over again for the next few days even though the protestors STILL were not causing damage. Strike #3.
They, "unknown" civilian groups were photographed, carrying sticks and beating people while the police is holding them. Police beating people. Police aiming with tear gas guns at people and hitting them with it at close range (can cause severe trauma by the sheer speed of the canister), and then dancing afterwards in joy. Strike #4.
Also, you seem to be a Turkish speaker, so you know the significance of all those things that you're saying "Seriously?" to. Trivializing it won't help.
I am not trivializing, I am away from the country for long time, I am really trying to understand.
So from what you wrote I think that you agree with me, they are mainly rioting because police is using excessive force to rioters?
Many Turkish people interpret these as important signs, there are many more, which, when listed in isolation sound small (e.g. ban on red lipstick for Turkish Airlines female flight attendants), but when taken together and in the context of Erdogan's no-reconciliation-no-matter-what tone are quite alarming.
As for the "police sprayed my friend yesterday", it wasn't just that, the level of brutality was amazing.
As for the "police sprayed my friend yesterday", it wasn't just that, the level of brutality was amazing.
So pink lipstick is allowed? Please. Those things are better explained with Hanlon's Razor rather than a sinister grand scheme set by evil government.
After the initial protests, indeed it really boils down to an unrest against police brutality in first days. I cannot see any compelling reason other than that. And now they are just protesting for sake of protesting (sadly with vandalism and aggression).
After the initial protests, indeed it really boils down to an unrest against police brutality in first days. I cannot see any compelling reason other than that. And now they are just protesting for sake of protesting (sadly with vandalism and aggression).
[deleted]
One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it
For example, while there are no doubt many shopping malls in Istanbul, I doubt there is "at least one in every neighborhood!" (unless that word is better translated as something more like a suburb)
This makes it harder to trust all of the details of the more serious accounts of police aggression, or the simplifed context of things like "The whole country is being sold to corporations by the government". As another commenter has pointed out, even photos can end up being from unrelated events.
This is not to say that this person's perspective is not extremely important, or that the Turkish state is not committing indefensible acts of aggression. It's just harder for outsiders to piece together a full and accurate picture of what is happening. Fortunately, multiple individual perspectives can help corroborate and enhance the picture to quite a degree.
Edit: Certainly media has biases too, although there are at least in theory standards for verifying reported facts, and the bias is (often) more about what they choose not report or what context is not given.
Edit: good points by buro as well. This account and others may well be very reliable, I'm more speaking from experience with past events that were reported in similar ways where key important facts turned out to be wrong or missing. (I know, that happens sometimes in traditional media too)
For example, while there are no doubt many shopping malls in Istanbul, I doubt there is "at least one in every neighborhood!" (unless that word is better translated as something more like a suburb)
This makes it harder to trust all of the details of the more serious accounts of police aggression, or the simplifed context of things like "The whole country is being sold to corporations by the government". As another commenter has pointed out, even photos can end up being from unrelated events.
This is not to say that this person's perspective is not extremely important, or that the Turkish state is not committing indefensible acts of aggression. It's just harder for outsiders to piece together a full and accurate picture of what is happening. Fortunately, multiple individual perspectives can help corroborate and enhance the picture to quite a degree.
Edit: Certainly media has biases too, although there are at least in theory standards for verifying reported facts, and the bias is (often) more about what they choose not report or what context is not given.
Edit: good points by buro as well. This account and others may well be very reliable, I'm more speaking from experience with past events that were reported in similar ways where key important facts turned out to be wrong or missing. (I know, that happens sometimes in traditional media too)
> One of the most challenging aspects of learning about important, under-reported events is correcting for the biases of individuals who are reporting on it.
This is true for well-reported or over-reported events too. It's always an individual who reporting things, and thus the process of reporting itself involuntarily bakes in the opinion or ideology of the agent reporting the issue. It's up to us to take whatever we'd want to as credible.
Also in the context of Internet it is more likely to be the absolute truth, after Streisand effect and everything else is done with.
My assumptions in situations like this: No smoke without fire.
Just did a small search on Youtube and found out that reports of civilians been crushed under Panzers is TRUE [1]. And now the discussion on testing credibility and stripping out emotions from reporting standards sounds bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H...
[Edits: Added a link to a video of individual being crushed under a anti-riot Panzer vehicle. Not very graphic, but serious.]
This is true for well-reported or over-reported events too. It's always an individual who reporting things, and thus the process of reporting itself involuntarily bakes in the opinion or ideology of the agent reporting the issue. It's up to us to take whatever we'd want to as credible.
Also in the context of Internet it is more likely to be the absolute truth, after Streisand effect and everything else is done with.
My assumptions in situations like this: No smoke without fire.
Just did a small search on Youtube and found out that reports of civilians been crushed under Panzers is TRUE [1]. And now the discussion on testing credibility and stripping out emotions from reporting standards sounds bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H...
[Edits: Added a link to a video of individual being crushed under a anti-riot Panzer vehicle. Not very graphic, but serious.]
Not crushed, he limps off to the right side. Not to say that this isn't serious, but he looked OK.
It's hyperbole. I think most people can see through "at least one in every neighborhood" as an emotional response to what is happening.
Sure but some things are quite easily researchable online. You doubt that there is a mall in every neighbourhood, but a quick look on Google Maps: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=shopping+mall&hl=en&...
And yup, there are a phenomenal number of shopping malls, some only a couple of hundred meters from another.
I did spot check quite a few, looked at a few of the websites, and they are all multi-level, large shopping malls.
In fact this one is a mere 300m from Gezi Park: http://www.demirorenistiklal.com/
The great thing about the internet is that it is possible to get a sense of whether a claim is true or not very swiftly.
On the one fact you doubt and then use as an example to undermine the rest of the argument, a quick search verifies that claim. (Should you revisit the doubt you extended to the rest of the argument in light of some evidence to the claims that you used to undermine it?)
Of course there is emotion in there too (the government selling the nation to corporations), but we're mostly rational and will spot that surely.
The fundamental question is whether or not the reports in general speak of a true event, and overwhelmingly they do appear so. The level of consistency in the very many reports and sources is too much to be attributable and dismissed as any individual being emotional... of course they are emotional; some of their friends, family and fellow citizens are dead, others are in hospital or jail.
And yup, there are a phenomenal number of shopping malls, some only a couple of hundred meters from another.
I did spot check quite a few, looked at a few of the websites, and they are all multi-level, large shopping malls.
In fact this one is a mere 300m from Gezi Park: http://www.demirorenistiklal.com/
The great thing about the internet is that it is possible to get a sense of whether a claim is true or not very swiftly.
On the one fact you doubt and then use as an example to undermine the rest of the argument, a quick search verifies that claim. (Should you revisit the doubt you extended to the rest of the argument in light of some evidence to the claims that you used to undermine it?)
Of course there is emotion in there too (the government selling the nation to corporations), but we're mostly rational and will spot that surely.
The fundamental question is whether or not the reports in general speak of a true event, and overwhelmingly they do appear so. The level of consistency in the very many reports and sources is too much to be attributable and dismissed as any individual being emotional... of course they are emotional; some of their friends, family and fellow citizens are dead, others are in hospital or jail.
Just because you can type them into google doesn't mean they're 'easily researchable'. How many shopping malls in NYC?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=shopping+mall&hl=en&l...
These results seem pretty lousy and not particularly different from those from Istanbul.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=shopping+mall&hl=en&l...
These results seem pretty lousy and not particularly different from those from Istanbul.
Well, I've been to both cities for two weeks and I didn't find any mall in NYC (I'm sure there must be some, I just didn't find them) while in Istanbul they are really everywhere, you cannot ignore them if not only because they are usually guarded by security people with riffles. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_Istan...
They are usually huge. I was very surprise because in my home country, Portugal, we used to believe we had a lot of malls (we do) but Istanbul is just unbelievable.
Back to Istanbul, in Levent (near the financial district) you can have three right next to each other. On one of my stays there my hotel was actually around the corner from one of this malls.
They are usually huge. I was very surprise because in my home country, Portugal, we used to believe we had a lot of malls (we do) but Istanbul is just unbelievable.
Back to Istanbul, in Levent (near the financial district) you can have three right next to each other. On one of my stays there my hotel was actually around the corner from one of this malls.
I don't have any trouble believing there are many malls in Istanbul. I do have some trouble believing you can reasonably answer whether they are too many by just checking on the internet. In fact, as you point out, it's possible to visit NYC and not notice how many there are.
I also have some difficulty with the idea that people are heading out to the streets, risking life and limb, in multiple cities across Turkey just because of a mall in Istanbul.
The notion that we can figure this out just by hitting google maps seems obviously wrong.
I also have some difficulty with the idea that people are heading out to the streets, risking life and limb, in multiple cities across Turkey just because of a mall in Istanbul.
The notion that we can figure this out just by hitting google maps seems obviously wrong.
You talk as if you care about uncovering the truth, then in the face of:
* The original claim on the blog
* Some research a poster here helpfully did using Google maps and web searches to verify
* Stories from multiple people who have visited Istanbul in person and can compare to other european cities
... you are still banging the drum of "You can't answer a question just by checking the internet!"
I wonder: what kind of evidence would get you to the point where you might believe such a claim?
* The original claim on the blog
* Some research a poster here helpfully did using Google maps and web searches to verify
* Stories from multiple people who have visited Istanbul in person and can compare to other european cities
... you are still banging the drum of "You can't answer a question just by checking the internet!"
I wonder: what kind of evidence would get you to the point where you might believe such a claim?
Well, this exact crisis has been on Reddit for a couple of days and I even saw it on BBC News's online front page last night. I can't tell you exactly why people are doing it but it certainly sounds like a demonstration against a shopping mall was the spark.
Oh that part seems plausible. The bit that seems like over-reaching is that we can easily and quickly gain some insight into the situation by hitting google maps. Mohamed Bouazizi's suicide sparked popular protests in Tunisia and subsequently, across the middle east. Is there a lot we can learn about the Arab Spring by googling 'street vendors, Ben Arous'? Probably not.
That is why I checked them before posting, viewed web sites and confirmed that the majority of results are actually shopping malls.
That's a really bad set of results for NYC though.
That's a really bad set of results for NYC though.
I recently returned from Istanbul. While there isn't a shopping mall on every corner, it sure seems like. I'm sure every city has a "x on every corner" that isn't literally true, but x is more numerous that one might imagine. I was amazed not at the number of malls in Istanbul, but the sheer size of them. Each one seemed bigger than the last, and the first seemed like the largest mall I've ever seen. Now Istanbul is a large metropolis, home to almost 20 million people. And there was way more shopping that I would have expected. Is this person exaggerating? Of course, but not as much as you might think.
It's heartbreaking when I see a comment like this voted up to the top. Are you saying anything new here? Is there anything in your remarks that is insightful? No.
This kind of comment appears in practically Every. Single. news discussion. Can't we just make a blanket statement like this as a sticky, and put it at the top of each story? A kind of brief disclaimer or IANAL?
This kind of comment appears in practically Every. Single. news discussion. Can't we just make a blanket statement like this as a sticky, and put it at the top of each story? A kind of brief disclaimer or IANAL?
Relevant :
http://www.xkcd.com/1215/
http://www.xkcd.com/1215/
Your doubt is noted. It might be that your definition of either neighborhood or shopping mall differs somewhat from the local one, but since you don't actually explain why you doubt it I can't know.
"Shopping centers can be considered as a very young concept in Turkey, since the history goes back only to the late 80s. However, once the malls appeared on the shopping scene, the Turks embraced them. Almost every neighborhood has at least one." http://www.wittistanbul.com/magazine/top-9-shopping-centers-...
That said, it's not a literal statement. It's about rapid gentrification. It's happening all over Europe if not the world. It can get especially nasty when mixed with corruption, since there is great incentive to support large businesses over local ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/world/middleeast/05iht-m05... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ad.1011/abstract
"Shopping centers can be considered as a very young concept in Turkey, since the history goes back only to the late 80s. However, once the malls appeared on the shopping scene, the Turks embraced them. Almost every neighborhood has at least one." http://www.wittistanbul.com/magazine/top-9-shopping-centers-...
That said, it's not a literal statement. It's about rapid gentrification. It's happening all over Europe if not the world. It can get especially nasty when mixed with corruption, since there is great incentive to support large businesses over local ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/world/middleeast/05iht-m05... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ad.1011/abstract
The funniest thing is that US is worried about protest. Ahem, someone should remind Administration about Occupy Wall Street and violent moves by Obama Administration.
I don't there's anything funny. You may think that the Turkish government is your enemy, but your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Take the Arab Spring: is there more liberty, better law, better civil rights in the countries where the dictators were overthrown? I'm unclear on that, and certainly some places have moved from secular, predictable dictatorship to a very unpredictable, unstable situation.
Take the Arab Spring: is there more liberty, better law, better civil rights in the countries where the dictators were overthrown? I'm unclear on that, and certainly some places have moved from secular, predictable dictatorship to a very unpredictable, unstable situation.
Let's shift the conversation _away from_ Singapore and towards what's happening in Turkey (not just Istanbul anymore, in fact, there have been many protests abroad in support).
The original protest was about the ruling party abusing their majority at the polls in such a way that they didn't feel bothered to listen to any opposing view or legitimate concern.
After the unjust and extremely heavy-handed police response, the original protest turned into something much larger, with new support from concerned regular citizens. In fact, since the police response has not become any better, some of the people that voted for the ruling party seem to have changed their positions in support of the protesters.
As a result, I think the Turkish PM lost whatever credibility he had abroad, along with his perceived role as a mediator for the Syrian conflict. I hope these demonstrations conclude in a peaceful way and cause Erdogan to rethink his (obviously limited) understanding of how democracy should work. If not, I'm afraid the country may not be able to hold off the fraction of the Turkish military that would want to step in and take over once again.
The original protest was about the ruling party abusing their majority at the polls in such a way that they didn't feel bothered to listen to any opposing view or legitimate concern.
After the unjust and extremely heavy-handed police response, the original protest turned into something much larger, with new support from concerned regular citizens. In fact, since the police response has not become any better, some of the people that voted for the ruling party seem to have changed their positions in support of the protesters.
As a result, I think the Turkish PM lost whatever credibility he had abroad, along with his perceived role as a mediator for the Syrian conflict. I hope these demonstrations conclude in a peaceful way and cause Erdogan to rethink his (obviously limited) understanding of how democracy should work. If not, I'm afraid the country may not be able to hold off the fraction of the Turkish military that would want to step in and take over once again.
Coincidentally, I've noticed the same thing happening in Szczecin, Poland as per the shopping mall phenomenon. I lived there from 2005-2008, and there were a few shopping malls, nothing crazy. Every 1-2 years I've gone back, there has been at least one or two new major shopping malls put up, and that's just in the few places I frequent around the city center.
Besides the philosophical question of whether it's a good thing for a city, I just don't understand the economics of it. How do all these places coexist? Where does the demand and up-front money come from? Is there actually real demand at all, or is it just completely manufactured/delusional (build it and they will come!)? When I lived there, people's shopping needs seemed fulfilled, and the population has flatlined since then [1]. I heard tell of some EU grants involved. Overall, it just doesn't seem sustainable from an economic perspective, even in the short-term.
[1] http://www.citypopulation.de/php/poland-zachodniopomorskie.p...
Besides the philosophical question of whether it's a good thing for a city, I just don't understand the economics of it. How do all these places coexist? Where does the demand and up-front money come from? Is there actually real demand at all, or is it just completely manufactured/delusional (build it and they will come!)? When I lived there, people's shopping needs seemed fulfilled, and the population has flatlined since then [1]. I heard tell of some EU grants involved. Overall, it just doesn't seem sustainable from an economic perspective, even in the short-term.
[1] http://www.citypopulation.de/php/poland-zachodniopomorskie.p...
main cause: block the destruction of a historical park
Thousands of people of all ages gathered without any formal notice, just by friend to friend, neighbour to neighbour; didn't allow provocation; resisted days of assault; assured the security of the park; almost all of the other big cities supported by protesting; protesters cleaned up their own mass, junks collected;
I guess this is a simple description without political adds.
Thousands of people of all ages gathered without any formal notice, just by friend to friend, neighbour to neighbour; didn't allow provocation; resisted days of assault; assured the security of the park; almost all of the other big cities supported by protesting; protesters cleaned up their own mass, junks collected;
I guess this is a simple description without political adds.
There are a number of defended buildings & complexes near Taksim. Consulates galore; a military hospital on Inonu Caddessi that has a bunch of sandbagged positions on it, along w/ more conventional guardposts; etc. And there's a military museum on the edge of the park, right next to where dozens of cats happily live.
Any of those places reporting troubles? Or is it all in the streets and park itself?
Any of those places reporting troubles? Or is it all in the streets and park itself?
Not really, there was a video of police showing up at a military guarded position that tried to order them around and force them to let them have access. They told the guards that they will be forced to shoot tear gas at them if they don't comply and the military told them we have things we can shoot at you too and then the police left. The military is not really taking any action and the protests are not upset with the military as the military has been the secular force in Turkey for a long time and has staged coups before to keep it so.
Sounds consistent with other reports I've seen -- the protests haven't morphed into a general riot. cf. the photos of protesters cleaning up Istiklal Street when they finish. (Istiklal is the premier historical consulate/shopping street of central Istanbul, ending in Taksim Square. A bit disappointing to tourist on, actually, but a big deal even so.)
Here are some links that may help you see what is happening in Istanbul... Turkey is turning into a viloent police state... Thats whats happening!
* Evidence collection site for police violence: http://delilimvar.tumblr.com/
* Police and pro-government militia attacking innocent people: http://pic.twitter.com/QTunT6irOF
http://f.cl.ly/items/263f2A3T0b093I2D0r2G/alsancak%2002.06.2...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/339ecfc6a17e0d372896dcf1065672b6/...
* Streets and residential areas indiscriminately turned into gas chambers: http://youtu.be/WaDT1KPEuB8
http://pic.twitter.com/0RogcpOIUV
* Evidence collection site for police violence: http://delilimvar.tumblr.com/
* Police and pro-government militia attacking innocent people: http://pic.twitter.com/QTunT6irOF
http://f.cl.ly/items/263f2A3T0b093I2D0r2G/alsancak%2002.06.2...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/339ecfc6a17e0d372896dcf1065672b6/...
* Streets and residential areas indiscriminately turned into gas chambers: http://youtu.be/WaDT1KPEuB8
http://pic.twitter.com/0RogcpOIUV
* Photos: http://occupygezipics.tumblr.com/
* More photos: http://geziyardim.com/
* [Turkish] Live feeds: http://www.geziparkicanli.com/
* More photos: http://geziyardim.com/
* [Turkish] Live feeds: http://www.geziparkicanli.com/
A friend of mine who's currently honeymooning in Istanbul says the riots are mostly regarding the laws against the sale and use of alcohol........
Him and his wife were caught in the midst of a riot and teargassed. They saw tons of public urination and most of the protestors are 25 or younger and drunk + smashing beer glasses all over...
Him and his wife were caught in the midst of a riot and teargassed. They saw tons of public urination and most of the protestors are 25 or younger and drunk + smashing beer glasses all over...
Here is video of very well-behaved protesters from a Turkish inland city, Eskişehir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enHoMtf_2g8
There is a lot of misguided information floating around. I think this is the most objective article I've read so far.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/istanbul-p...
> The government is looking for (and creating when necessary) any excuse to attack Syria against its people’s will.
Wait, I thought Syria/Assad is the bad guy. The Turkish people support Assad but the Turkish government doesn't? Now I'm confused.
Wait, I thought Syria/Assad is the bad guy. The Turkish people support Assad but the Turkish government doesn't? Now I'm confused.
Syria/Assad is one of the biggest fascist/dictator. He can't give democracy lecture to Turkey. He does not have a right even comment about Turkey democracy.
Turkey people haven't support Assad or the groups against to him. Turkey folks always supported helping to syrian refugee, thats all. As folk wanted, Turkey government helping the syrian refugee while supported the groups againist to Assad. The supporting groups goverment's initiative.
The problem of the Turkey is between folk and government. Its not unfixable, we'd like to government's support even small groups like gay's, homeless people, women rights. We don't want despot behaviours form cops to folk. Basicly the protests are about small problems, to be have better democracy, as well as better even some part of europe/usa.
edit: typo
Turkey people haven't support Assad or the groups against to him. Turkey folks always supported helping to syrian refugee, thats all. As folk wanted, Turkey government helping the syrian refugee while supported the groups againist to Assad. The supporting groups goverment's initiative.
The problem of the Turkey is between folk and government. Its not unfixable, we'd like to government's support even small groups like gay's, homeless people, women rights. We don't want despot behaviours form cops to folk. Basicly the protests are about small problems, to be have better democracy, as well as better even some part of europe/usa.
edit: typo
The internal factions and politics in that part of the world a not easy to understand from little snippets you read on the internet.
And the "people" don't always support things that a western person would agree with. People always assume that if there is a popular revolt it would always be in the direction of democracy and secularism - it's not so at all.
Don't support a popular revolt just because it's by the populace. Support it if you think it's right. And if you don't understand the situation then reserve judgment.
And the "people" don't always support things that a western person would agree with. People always assume that if there is a popular revolt it would always be in the direction of democracy and secularism - it's not so at all.
Don't support a popular revolt just because it's by the populace. Support it if you think it's right. And if you don't understand the situation then reserve judgment.
It is not that the protesters support Assad it is that they don't think they should be getting involved in the conflict. They view Erdogan as wanting to create a modern Caliphate and with the power they already have, that getting involved in the Syrian conflict is the next step at expanding its influence.
Ok. So how's about this. Istanbul is, and always has been, the most secular city in Turkey. Not Erdogan's base of power at all. Erdogan proposes to tear down a park near a location the inhabitants of Istanbul consider to be central to their identity as secular westerners (Taksim square). Revolt ensues, police reaction is excessive. Awful, of course, but hardly an event that will change the course of Turkish history.
Isn't this what is going on? Terrible if you're a native of Istanbul, but hardly something to worry about if you're one of the 50 million Turks that doesn't live in Istanbul and doesn't share that city's liberal standards?
Isn't this what is going on? Terrible if you're a native of Istanbul, but hardly something to worry about if you're one of the 50 million Turks that doesn't live in Istanbul and doesn't share that city's liberal standards?
So many questions...
How does a NIMBY protest turn into Tiananmen Square? Does someone in government actually say, "They don't want malls? THEN GIVE THEM TANKS!!!"
Why would a government that has "sold out to corporations" restrict the sale of lipstick and alcohol?
How does a NIMBY protest turn into Tiananmen Square? Does someone in government actually say, "They don't want malls? THEN GIVE THEM TANKS!!!"
Why would a government that has "sold out to corporations" restrict the sale of lipstick and alcohol?
> Why would a government that has "sold out to corporations" restrict the sale of lipstick and alcohol?
Governments are groups of people that are at least partially restrained by the wills and opinions of other, much larger groups of people. People are very complex. If you are expecting the government to have rules that it follows 100% of the time, you will be disappointed.
A rule such as restricting lipstick sales is something that is mostly inconsequential that the government can still point to and say "See, we don't just blindly do what megacorps tell us to!"
Governments are groups of people that are at least partially restrained by the wills and opinions of other, much larger groups of people. People are very complex. If you are expecting the government to have rules that it follows 100% of the time, you will be disappointed.
A rule such as restricting lipstick sales is something that is mostly inconsequential that the government can still point to and say "See, we don't just blindly do what megacorps tell us to!"
>A rule such as restricting lipstick sales is something that is mostly inconsequential that the government can still point to and say "See, we don't just blindly do what megacorps tell us to!"
What it really does is to keep the government in power by pandering to extremists. Rational and well-informed people don't respond well to the imposition of corporate oligarchy. If that's what you intend to do, you've lost the support of those people. Now you need the support of someone else. Religious extremists fit the bill nicely, because although hardly anyone will actually prefer corporate oligarchy, there are people who place more value on "conservative values" than they do on economics, so you ban some lipstick and you restrict abortions and those people support you no matter what else you do.
You see the same thing with the Republican party in the US.
What it really does is to keep the government in power by pandering to extremists. Rational and well-informed people don't respond well to the imposition of corporate oligarchy. If that's what you intend to do, you've lost the support of those people. Now you need the support of someone else. Religious extremists fit the bill nicely, because although hardly anyone will actually prefer corporate oligarchy, there are people who place more value on "conservative values" than they do on economics, so you ban some lipstick and you restrict abortions and those people support you no matter what else you do.
You see the same thing with the Republican party in the US.
One from new yorker :
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/occupy-...
I was curious to learn the current status, so I looked through Turkish news sites. According to Hurriyet Daily News, the project to demolish the park has been suspended:
"Court suspends planned Artillery Barracks project to replace Gezi Park. An administrative court has suspended the conversion project in the lung of Istanbul."
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/court-suspends-planned-arti...
"Court suspends planned Artillery Barracks project to replace Gezi Park. An administrative court has suspended the conversion project in the lung of Istanbul."
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/court-suspends-planned-arti...
Too late, the protest is no longer about the park.
Many local shops are looted by the protestors. Cars turned, stones thrown etc...
So much for peaceful a protest.
Mayoral election is less than a year away. Protest with your votes, not your fists.
It didn't start that way. It started peacefully. The government escalated the situation when they tear-gassed peaceful protestors.
Once the government starts attacking its people, all bets are off... emotion will trump reason and bad shit happens, often to innocent bystanders or property in the vicinity.
Once the government starts attacking its people, all bets are off... emotion will trump reason and bad shit happens, often to innocent bystanders or property in the vicinity.
No, this is a coward's excuse.
The police "attacking" is NOT a free pass to turn cars, throw stones or loot shops. You are always ultimately responsible for you own actions, and you're also responsible for being associated with bad actions if you stand by quietly when they are going on.
The police "attacking" is NOT a free pass to turn cars, throw stones or loot shops. You are always ultimately responsible for you own actions, and you're also responsible for being associated with bad actions if you stand by quietly when they are going on.
> No..
What are you disagreeing with? I didn't state a position on the matter, or at least didn't intend to.
> The police "attacking" is NOT a free pass to turn cars, throw stones or loot shops.
Yes of course; I never stated that it was.
That behavior however, is a predictable occurrence when there is enough anger in a mob and herd mentality kicks in.
What are you disagreeing with? I didn't state a position on the matter, or at least didn't intend to.
> The police "attacking" is NOT a free pass to turn cars, throw stones or loot shops.
Yes of course; I never stated that it was.
That behavior however, is a predictable occurrence when there is enough anger in a mob and herd mentality kicks in.
> It didn't start that way. It started peacefully.
OK. But as it did not end peacefully, not really relevant.
> The government escalated the situation when they tear-gassed peaceful protestors.
How is this relevant except to excuse the behaviour? The protesters didn't respond to the escalation by consolidating their resolve and standing their ground, they started destroying random people's property.
> Once the government starts attacking its people, all bets are off... emotion will trump reason and bad shit happens, often to innocent bystanders or property in the vicinity.
You indicate that the government bear the responsibility for this "bad shit" happening. They might trigger it, in the same way a big row triggers that someone hits someone else.
Edit: I'm pretty sure that what's going on isn't that random peaceful protesters turned violent, but rather that this protest, like most other protests bound to clash with the police, is "anarchist" catnip. These troublemakers will turn up under the guise of being part of a legitimate, peaceful protest, and at the first sliver of police yielding power, they'll let go and start their regular regiment of vandalism and violence. I'm no sure what the best response is for the legitimate peaceful protesters in this case, though.
OK. But as it did not end peacefully, not really relevant.
> The government escalated the situation when they tear-gassed peaceful protestors.
How is this relevant except to excuse the behaviour? The protesters didn't respond to the escalation by consolidating their resolve and standing their ground, they started destroying random people's property.
> Once the government starts attacking its people, all bets are off... emotion will trump reason and bad shit happens, often to innocent bystanders or property in the vicinity.
You indicate that the government bear the responsibility for this "bad shit" happening. They might trigger it, in the same way a big row triggers that someone hits someone else.
Edit: I'm pretty sure that what's going on isn't that random peaceful protesters turned violent, but rather that this protest, like most other protests bound to clash with the police, is "anarchist" catnip. These troublemakers will turn up under the guise of being part of a legitimate, peaceful protest, and at the first sliver of police yielding power, they'll let go and start their regular regiment of vandalism and violence. I'm no sure what the best response is for the legitimate peaceful protesters in this case, though.
Or the government sneaked in their people to delegitimize the protesters. This is a well known way police or covert agencies work.
Usually if protesters are well versed in such tactics the ring of strongest forms the ring around rest of the mass to protect them from interlopers that would give police a provocation they needed to attack the protesters or to delegimitize them.
Usually if protesters are well versed in such tactics the ring of strongest forms the ring around rest of the mass to protect them from interlopers that would give police a provocation they needed to attack the protesters or to delegimitize them.
How very convenient. Hand-wave it away: Maybe the police did it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I know it second hand from an acquaintance that studied Philosophy in Belgrade, Serbia. According to him it was spoken by Dragoljub Micunovic during the student protest in Belgrade during the 90-ties. This is something Milosevic was fond of doing to discredit the student protest.
I know this acquaintance had no reason to lie to me, it came up in regular conversation. I don't have any archive material to corroborate but I could try to find something.
I know this acquaintance had no reason to lie to me, it came up in regular conversation. I don't have any archive material to corroborate but I could try to find something.
Oh, I'm sure it's happened in many places. But that doesn't make it an any less extraordinary claim that that explains what happened in Gezi, given the spontaneous nature of the protests. Also, by all accounts, police moved in on peaceful (if illegally congregated) protesters. The point of instigating is that you can paint the protest as violent before you move in.
[deleted]
I still don't know what to make out of this but there are pictures of what you talk about, just in case people don't believe it: http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/galeridetay.aspx?cid=69652...
I am a strong proponent of gun control, but I often hear opponents say that the lawful possession of guns to a certain extent ensures freedom of government oppression. Probably it would be a lot messier if citizens in a situation like this would draw guns against their government, but at moments like these I do see the value of such a argument.
Yeah, let's bring flowers to a tank fight.
[deleted]
Even in Canadian protests the police have been caught sneaking in trouble-makers with rocks and black ski-masks. If they didn't create the panic they wouldn't get paid for solving it.
Considering that the Turkish government is trying to make the protestors look bad so they have justification for going overboard in their earlier treatment of them, it's more likely that plain-clothes police officers looted those stores and overturned the cars.
When something violent and destructive happens, look at who did the last such thing.
Considering that the Turkish government is trying to make the protestors look bad so they have justification for going overboard in their earlier treatment of them, it's more likely that plain-clothes police officers looted those stores and overturned the cars.
When something violent and destructive happens, look at who did the last such thing.
I also jotted down a couple words on the background to these protests if anyone is interested.
http://duruk.net/turkish-protests-of-2013/
http://duruk.net/turkish-protests-of-2013/
The situation is really unfortunate because its such a beautiful country and the young generation is pretty incredible. People are usually blown away by how beautiful Istanbul is, along with many other parts of the country.
What's worst is that Erdogan is a strong-arm leader who most likely won't be going away anytime soon. The best hope for these protesters is that the opposition party gets their act together, which I see no evidence of; they've had the same idiot running against Erdogan for as long as I can remember.
What's worst is that Erdogan is a strong-arm leader who most likely won't be going away anytime soon. The best hope for these protesters is that the opposition party gets their act together, which I see no evidence of; they've had the same idiot running against Erdogan for as long as I can remember.
"Twitter is the biggest headache of societies" ~Recep Tayyip Erdogan
I am impressed by the arrogance of some of the commenters here, who seem to believe that they understand the totality and diversity of human nature and cultures.
Stop lie about Turkey
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLwbtR7CUAASWSe.jpg:large
This is ridiculous. These synthetic news making to top of HN.
Let me wrap up the situation very shortly:
You know Ingress? That alternate reality game, yes. Scribbles like this are alternate reality too, so they have tie-ins with reality. But unlike Ingress, they are so far off from reality and so illogical; they are neither compelling nor fun!
BTW, I'm writing this from the peaceful Turkey :)
Watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqIiWHMnM94
Very less covered in India too - I see only firstpost having a story on this.
Even the largest paper - TOI has not even mentioned turky on their homepage.
http://www.firstpost.com/world/protesters-defiant-as-turkey-...
http://www.firstpost.com/world/protesters-defiant-as-turkey-...
In comparison, Die Zeit[0] (liberal) has a number of articles currently in slot three of the homepage (slot one is describing floods), Die Süddeutsche[1] (liberal/left) in slot four (they’re based in Munich, so the most important bit is apparently football) and FAZ[2] (conservative) around slot three, too, where slot one is about education. No idea what their printed edition looked like (SZ and FAZ are daily newspapers, Die Zeit is a weekly one). The German word for Turkey is Türkei.
[0] http://www.zeit.de/index
[1] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/
[2] http://www.faz.net/
[0] http://www.zeit.de/index
[1] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/
[2] http://www.faz.net/
Two of the Facebook pages with continuous updates:
https://www.facebook.com/geziparkidirenisi (330,000 Likes in less than 72 hours)
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyGezi
https://www.facebook.com/geziparkidirenisi (330,000 Likes in less than 72 hours)
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyGezi
I just hope Turkey doesn't end like another country where the people die in the hand of the government while the international community watch with their hands folded because it's on their best interest to destroy another muslin country - like Syria.
[deleted]
Who specifically is responsible for the government's actions? What can we do to assist?
Aljezera has had this story in their line-up for a couple f days now, not sure what they said about it because I wasn't overly concerned. Nothing on BBC though. So atleast one international news organisation is getting the word out.
Nothing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22744728 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22744895 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22740506 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20028295 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22740038
Why would you say something so absolute with out even checking? Are you one of those weirdo instant BBC haters?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22744728 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22744895 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22740506 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20028295 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22740038
Why would you say something so absolute with out even checking? Are you one of those weirdo instant BBC haters?
It wasn't in the news, atleast that I saw. It wasn't a headlining on TV
To follow along, there's also Flickr and a search for "Istanbul" and "Gezi" : https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=istanbul+gezi&s=rec
Thanks for filling me in. I was walking down Market Street yesterday and about 100 people were protesting with signs. I couldn't understand what they were saying nor could I read their signs as most weren't in English.
It's civil unrest, with an upgrade to civil war, revolution possible.
By the way, can anyone tell me how a Revolution or occupation anywhere in the world has any link with Hacking that the news featured on HN?
What? I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Might want to edit it to make it clearer.
Anyway, I think you are wondering why this news is on Hackernews. I'd say it's because there are a lot of politically conscience people here, who care about what's going on in the world.
One point I think people miss is that the content of this site does not necessarily have to be related to tech (though usually is). I personally come here for the discussion that results from the submissions, and world news like this is important to me. And I'd like to be able to discuss the news/situation with other people of similar educations, vocations and mindsets.
Anyway, I think you are wondering why this news is on Hackernews. I'd say it's because there are a lot of politically conscience people here, who care about what's going on in the world.
One point I think people miss is that the content of this site does not necessarily have to be related to tech (though usually is). I personally come here for the discussion that results from the submissions, and world news like this is important to me. And I'd like to be able to discuss the news/situation with other people of similar educations, vocations and mindsets.
Hackers are Humans as I know so they have interest in other stuff as well, does this mean we will be expecting posts about Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga in near future?
If they have the certain je ne sais quoi to attract enough views and upvotes, sure. For what it's worth, not every non-tech related political, financial, or social news article hits the front page. Certainly at most times there may be one to three non-tech focused news story on the front page, but that's usually the limit. And this particular story is at least tangentially related to tech, what with the prominent role social media is playing in the ongoing events.
http://showdiscontent.com --- here is some pictures about what happening..
Why don't people identify the policemen and make their social life (outside of their police duty) a living hell. Bully their kids in school, boycott their spouses, refuse to do any kind of business with them (no groceries, no milk, etc.)
At some point people have to be held personally responsible for their wrong doings. They shouldn't be absolved of personal responsibility just because they're in the police force, which is being commanded by some nutcrack dictator.
At some point people have to be held personally responsible for their wrong doings. They shouldn't be absolved of personal responsibility just because they're in the police force, which is being commanded by some nutcrack dictator.
Did their children do any wrong?
Since when did you start to punish other people instead?
You'll also want to "mark their houses" at some point...
Please think before you write such things. That's not outright hate speech but it sure leads to hateful actions.
Please think before you write such things. That's not outright hate speech but it sure leads to hateful actions.
The idea was not to advocate hate crime, but social boycott. The idea is to make people personally responsible for the organizations that they work for. Is there any other solution for this mess?
In the end it's people from within the society that join governmental organizations and inflict torture / injustice on rest of the society.
In the end it's people from within the society that join governmental organizations and inflict torture / injustice on rest of the society.
Turkeys prime minister may be increasingly authoritarian but he was democratically elected. He is not a dictator.
Democracy does not guarantee automatic legitimacy - specially where there's no minimum number of votes.
This article is grossly misleading. Papers and televisions are showing what is going on, one can read from internet, and express his opinion. Turkey is a democracy with multi party system similar to France since 1946. Unfortunately the minority group who held the power in Turkey for decades lost their control of most of the government and state after years of corruption with 2002 elections. In 2001 Turkish economy experienced a similar economic meltdown after a "soft" coup of the people who support and make the current demonstrations. The economic repercussions was so deep it effected almost everyone similar to what has been going on in Greece and Spain. Since then the new government handled economy and democratic process so well, even in the current terrible economic situation of the world Turkey managed to become the fastest growing economy in Europe. Turkey has made the last debt payment to IMF couple of weeks ago. For the first time her existence Turkish economy's credit rating became investment grade by Moody's on May 17th this year[1]. Most importantly the clash with the Kurdish minority ended with a new peace process. This is by far the most important achievement of the current government given the 30 years of history of violence in South Easy of Turkey. Over 40K people have died since it started in 1980.
The person who wrote this article and those demonstrators are hoping to show their anger towards the government akin to Egypt's Tahrir Square demonstrations. However this is all reading it backwards. Current government is popularly supported by the people and the support has increased with each consecutive poll since 2002, leading to 50% [3] of the popular vote the last time. This government is leading a commission and effort to write a new constituition to raise the standards of human rights in Turkey. This is one of the biggest selling point to end the Kurdish violence since they now feel their rights will be protected better in the future. Current constitution is put together in 1980 by the people who engineered the last "hard" coup in Turkey [5], a coup literally executed with brute force, guns and tanks. With this government the efforts to get into EU increased tremendously [6] and actually it has been their strategy to balance the power in Turkey against Military's long standing anti-democratic ambitions and practices.
Recent demonstrations at a park in Istanbul got bigger by exploiting the grossly wrong police brutality. Unfortunately where there is demonstration be it in US [7], Spain [8] or Greece [9], in any country the police is very heavy handed. Otherwise the park that is in middle of the city is part of project [10] that will transform the area and close all the motor vehicle traffic and allow only pedestrians. This is going to be done by diverting traffic to underground roads that will be build as part of the project. Decision for the project taken by the people who was elected including members both from ruling and opposition party, and was voted unanimously.
Author of this article and those demonstrators are supporting the old regime. A regime that dictates certain ideology build around a cult leader like the ones in former Soviet Union, China and North Korea. Ours is Ataturk. You have to think like them, act like them, speak like them, live like them. During my mandatory military service I was forced to memorize who is Ataturk which was a list of 10 items that goes like this: 1) Ataturk was the best person in the world 2) Ataturk was best statesman in the world 3) Ataturk is the best military leader in the world. And thise list goes on and on...
Let me give you an example of what this people againts. Can you buy liquor after certain hours in States? Can you walk with an open beer can, alcohol bottle? No, because in States, varying by state, shops can not sell alcohol after 10pm or 2am. For example in England even places where liquor served as part of the service has to close by 1am. When this government made a similar, banning sale of alchol from 10pm to 6am, these people made a big noise. This is one of the arguments they have been telling during these demonstrations.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-16/turkey-raised-to-in... [2] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/25/turkey-justice-central-ku... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13740147 [4] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/turkey-s-kurtulmus-... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%C3%A9tat [6] http://www.cfr.org/turkey/turkeys-eu-bid/p8939 [7] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/UC-Davis-pepper-spraye... [8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/29/spain-riot-polic... [9] http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-police-brutality-2011-6 [10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opean5HeR-8
The person who wrote this article and those demonstrators are hoping to show their anger towards the government akin to Egypt's Tahrir Square demonstrations. However this is all reading it backwards. Current government is popularly supported by the people and the support has increased with each consecutive poll since 2002, leading to 50% [3] of the popular vote the last time. This government is leading a commission and effort to write a new constituition to raise the standards of human rights in Turkey. This is one of the biggest selling point to end the Kurdish violence since they now feel their rights will be protected better in the future. Current constitution is put together in 1980 by the people who engineered the last "hard" coup in Turkey [5], a coup literally executed with brute force, guns and tanks. With this government the efforts to get into EU increased tremendously [6] and actually it has been their strategy to balance the power in Turkey against Military's long standing anti-democratic ambitions and practices.
Recent demonstrations at a park in Istanbul got bigger by exploiting the grossly wrong police brutality. Unfortunately where there is demonstration be it in US [7], Spain [8] or Greece [9], in any country the police is very heavy handed. Otherwise the park that is in middle of the city is part of project [10] that will transform the area and close all the motor vehicle traffic and allow only pedestrians. This is going to be done by diverting traffic to underground roads that will be build as part of the project. Decision for the project taken by the people who was elected including members both from ruling and opposition party, and was voted unanimously.
Author of this article and those demonstrators are supporting the old regime. A regime that dictates certain ideology build around a cult leader like the ones in former Soviet Union, China and North Korea. Ours is Ataturk. You have to think like them, act like them, speak like them, live like them. During my mandatory military service I was forced to memorize who is Ataturk which was a list of 10 items that goes like this: 1) Ataturk was the best person in the world 2) Ataturk was best statesman in the world 3) Ataturk is the best military leader in the world. And thise list goes on and on...
Let me give you an example of what this people againts. Can you buy liquor after certain hours in States? Can you walk with an open beer can, alcohol bottle? No, because in States, varying by state, shops can not sell alcohol after 10pm or 2am. For example in England even places where liquor served as part of the service has to close by 1am. When this government made a similar, banning sale of alchol from 10pm to 6am, these people made a big noise. This is one of the arguments they have been telling during these demonstrations.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-16/turkey-raised-to-in... [2] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/25/turkey-justice-central-ku... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13740147 [4] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/turkey-s-kurtulmus-... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Turkish_coup_d%C3%A9tat [6] http://www.cfr.org/turkey/turkeys-eu-bid/p8939 [7] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/UC-Davis-pepper-spraye... [8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/29/spain-riot-polic... [9] http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-police-brutality-2011-6 [10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opean5HeR-8
This wraps up the 'real' situation perfectly. Well put, sir.
As a Turkish citizen, thank you for speaking the truth!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Turkey doesn't fluoridate their water. Just sayin'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country
Neither does Portland: http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/22/4355312/portland-residents...
Who says city planning isn't a big deal?
> Control over the decisions I make concerning my on my body
It's nice to see that the fight against heroin prohibition is being fought in Turkey too!
It's nice to see that the fight against heroin prohibition is being fought in Turkey too!
[deleted]
nice
[deleted]
> Two young people were run over by the tanks and were killed.
That is extremely serious. My condolences with those who lost their lives, and best wishes for your friend to recover from her injury.
While we all discuss and throw ourselves around when a dying industry (read Hollywood) misbehaves and tries to screw with our Internet freedoms, free speech etc. I wonder what would when happen when the same fate, and it is coming, falls on the Governments of the world.
A dying model of Governance could take things to a rather unprecedented level of nastiness and cruelty.
That is extremely serious. My condolences with those who lost their lives, and best wishes for your friend to recover from her injury.
While we all discuss and throw ourselves around when a dying industry (read Hollywood) misbehaves and tries to screw with our Internet freedoms, free speech etc. I wonder what would when happen when the same fate, and it is coming, falls on the Governments of the world.
A dying model of Governance could take things to a rather unprecedented level of nastiness and cruelty.
true, but the mainstream press (guardian, nytimes etc) has not confirmed the fatalities, and it's been a while. they might just be rumors that get distorted, that kind of thing is pretty easy to happen. i too rereported them, but now i am beginning to wonder if it has really happened.
[deleted](1)
"We" don't really do anything consistently. When it's Hollywood or SOPA or NSLs or wiretaps "we" are passionately anti-government, when it's AirBnB or Uber flaunting local restrictions, "we" are very skeptical and when it's Google not paying enough tax, "we" are government cheerleaders.
That said:
> A dying model of Governance could take things to a rather unprecedented level of nastiness and cruelty.
You haven't paid much attention these last 250 years?
That said:
> A dying model of Governance could take things to a rather unprecedented level of nastiness and cruelty.
You haven't paid much attention these last 250 years?
Doesn't that just sound like "we're" pro citizen?
Any half-competent political hack can spin anything so it's "pro citizen". A staggering proportion of citizens are in favour for the privacy/security trade off, it's just that We Know Better(tm). Of course Google and Apple should pay their fair share, I just can't get excited about it, I don't see how adding more money to the same semi-corrupt deeply immoral special interests buffet that brought you SOPA, and simultaneously distracting from the ongoing scandals of the political system, benefits anyone but the politicians.
you don't think government spending benefits anyone but politicians? So for instance, medicare only benefits politicians?
Well, Medicare is underfunded to the tune of $38T. If all of Google and Apple was liquified at current market cap and put towards funding that liability, it would be underfunded by at little more than $37T. Retroactively cancelling the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would give you cash to knock the number down to $36T.
Of course people benefiting from Medicare benefits from Medicare, but "championing" Medicare benefits only politicians, because they know better than anyone else that it's going to go away, soon, but they'll happily lie about it in order to get reelected while they wait for it to happen.
Of course people benefiting from Medicare benefits from Medicare, but "championing" Medicare benefits only politicians, because they know better than anyone else that it's going to go away, soon, but they'll happily lie about it in order to get reelected while they wait for it to happen.
By the same token wouldn't farming be worthless because we know the sun will explode in the future?
The tearing down of trees for commercial and residential areas is happening here too. It's called urban sprawl. Land developers wipe out natural habitats like forests and leave sterile, artificial suburbs and plazas in its stead.
Most citizens never hear about it until it's too late because it's not easy to find out about the latest zonings. Trying to have a say in the process? Well, that's a whole new level of obfuscation.
The process is confusing for a reason: to keep concerned citizens like you and me out.
What is happening in Istanbul is happening here too.
Most citizens never hear about it until it's too late because it's not easy to find out about the latest zonings. Trying to have a say in the process? Well, that's a whole new level of obfuscation.
The process is confusing for a reason: to keep concerned citizens like you and me out.
What is happening in Istanbul is happening here too.
This isn't urban sprawl, this isn't the tearing down of forests. This is removing a park in the middle of the city. Imaging if they came in and bulldozed Central Park.
You actually raise an interesting parallel: poor communities and planning organizations had railed against the bulldozers of Robert Moses for decades, but in the media he could do no wrong. That was before he tried to build in Central Park. When his policies finally threatened a beloved playground to build private parking, a group well-to-do mothers on the Upper West Side stood up and it triggered the beginning of his downfall.
while trying to build a parking lot in central park is part of moses' downfall, the picture painted here is not really accurate to my knowledge. for one, a lot of stuff was built in central park during moses' reign as parks commissioner, particularly early on: something like 20 playgrounds, including the demolition of the casino restaurant for rumsey playground; a ton of ball fields; tavern on the green; major changes to the central park zoo. more to the point, characterizing residents of the UWS in the 60s as well-to-do is particularly odd. Like the residents of greenwich village more commonly associated with Moses' downfall, I would think that middle class is the far more accurate description.
Yes, Moses built many things in the park. But more to the point, the many famous and well-heeled mothers and residents of west 67th street involved in the protest listed at the beginning of chapter 42 of "The Power Broker" makes your comment particularly odd.
Except it is more of a small, desolate city square, which was central to drug and sex traffic for years. The protests are most certainly not about saving the square.
You mean they're tearing down trees for new homes and jobs?
The horror!
The horror!
You know how long the typical suburb takes to build? About three weeks. Three weeks of seasonal employment. You know how long that natural habitat is gone for? Forever.
Educate yourself on urban sprawl and "smart growth": http://www.smartgrowth.org
Educate yourself on urban sprawl and "smart growth": http://www.smartgrowth.org
Forests are not gone "forever". They reclaim land as soon as foot traffic dies. I am from Mogadisho, Somalia, and none of my old neighborhood is recognizable today: it's all jungles. Trees swallowed a quarter of the old city, and another quarter is lost to encroaching desert sand. In our case, "forever" was exactly 10 years.
Out of all the ways to fight sterile sprawl, why choose a method that promotes sterile density? Smart Growth suffers from a very severe and unfortunate unintended consequence: Drastically increased barriers to entry.
It is sad to see how many higher density proposals are squelched because they don't fit the vision of Smart Growth planners, or because the developers don't have multiple years worth of cash flow behind them to support the permitting process, public approval process, and zoning approvals process. Oh, and if you happen to want to have small scale low impact manufacturing (such as clothes manufacturing) instead of Mid-Scale retail or B-Class Office space...good luck waiting another few years for the Smart Growth planners to determine if your appeal is "smart" enough for them. These barriers to entry are how Smart Growth developers (like Paul Allen's Vulcan Real Estate) end up owning entire neighborhoods (like Seattle's South Lake Union).
Manhattan was almost completely built out, with an extremely diverse and interesting landscape, long before the planners took over. There is no need for them and their vision.
It is sad to see how many higher density proposals are squelched because they don't fit the vision of Smart Growth planners, or because the developers don't have multiple years worth of cash flow behind them to support the permitting process, public approval process, and zoning approvals process. Oh, and if you happen to want to have small scale low impact manufacturing (such as clothes manufacturing) instead of Mid-Scale retail or B-Class Office space...good luck waiting another few years for the Smart Growth planners to determine if your appeal is "smart" enough for them. These barriers to entry are how Smart Growth developers (like Paul Allen's Vulcan Real Estate) end up owning entire neighborhoods (like Seattle's South Lake Union).
Manhattan was almost completely built out, with an extremely diverse and interesting landscape, long before the planners took over. There is no need for them and their vision.
Im confused by the use of the occupy lingo. Is occupy just a meme now for any protest?
What's confusing about it? They were calling for protestors to "occupy" the park to prevent it being bulldozed.
Or at least that's how it started.
Or at least that's how it started.
What's confusing is: in the USA, the term "occupy" has been taken as a practical trademark for a series of organized political protests. Look up "Occupy Wall Street" as the first and primary instance.
Hard to ignore the stereotype of the American who knows little of what happens beyond their borders :(
The Occupy Movement was a global one, with protests in over 80 countries. It started there, but it wasn't just a Wall St. thing.
The Occupy Movement was a global one, with protests in over 80 countries. It started there, but it wasn't just a Wall St. thing.
'scuze me for not keeping up on the happenings in each of ~200 countries, and assuming not everyone everywhere is keeping up on the latest in my sphere of awareness.
Yes, Occupy was global. I don't know who from where knows how much about it. I was answering a question about why someone might be confused by usage of the term "occupy" when it was unclear whether it was an "Occupy"-brand event vs "hey let's go occupy this space to save it". I referenced the Wall St. thing precisely because that's where Occupy started.
Besides, http://xkcd.com/1053/
Yes, Occupy was global. I don't know who from where knows how much about it. I was answering a question about why someone might be confused by usage of the term "occupy" when it was unclear whether it was an "Occupy"-brand event vs "hey let's go occupy this space to save it". I referenced the Wall St. thing precisely because that's where Occupy started.
Besides, http://xkcd.com/1053/
The name's very important as a link to the fight against neo-liberal capitalism, these protests are not just about state power.
Still, AFAIR it started as an Internet thing, not entirely unrelated to 4chan. It was a meme at its birth, it has spreaded this way through the US, and now - like all internet memes - it is evolving.
[deleted]
> Is occupy just a meme now for any protest?
Well, it never has been anything else.
Well, it never has been anything else.
Actually, I was surprised that some movements decided to use that word to describe themselves. I believe that 'occupy' is very unfortunate word, especially in Europe. For example I live in a country that was occupied by the Nazis in 1939 and by Russians in 1968 (that occupation lasted 20 years). The meaning of the word occupier basically equals to 'the one who takes freedom of others by force' here. If you use that word to describe yourself or your movement you can be sure that most people will automatically be against you from the beginning. Not the best PR move.
Technically, physical presence is what matters. That's why you don't only send bombing planes but also land forces to take over the control.
It's not a meme. As long as the people are protesting there, the idiots in the government can't claim they have no problem.
It's not a meme. As long as the people are protesting there, the idiots in the government can't claim they have no problem.
This was a posted by a friend on Facebook:
Since I see that some friends have got excited about the recent events in Turkey I decided to write something about it and provide some context. I think it is good to know a bit of history of Turkey before AKP to understand what is going on there. It has been more than 10 years that AKP is in power so people might not know or may have forgotten the situation before AKP.
Turkey was ruled by ultra-nationalist ultra-secular militarist groups for decades. The military overthrow several elected governments and jailed politicians. Torture, extra-judicial killings, suppression, and corruption were widespread. The laws that people often object to are from that area and the constitution written by Turkish military, including insulting Turkishness being a crime. These groups who are sometimes referred to as Kemalists had the control of military, judicatory, academia, media, etc. Yet, they couldn't tolerate even the government being in the hands of people they didn't like. The large majority of Turks who are practicing Muslims were excluded. It was illegal to wear a head-scarf in universities and government departments in a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf. Essentially these women were banned from attending university. Public officials and even university professors would be thrown out and even jailed if they showed any sign of nonsecular tendency. Writers and intellects were jailed for expressing opinions against Kemalist ideology. Erdogan, the current prime minister was jailed and banned from politics for 10 years for reading an old poem while he was the mayor of Istanbul. The existence of Kurds who are around 20 percent of Turkey's population were completely denied (not a joke)! Speaking or reading in Kurdish was banned and the popular Turkish singer Ahmad Kaya was forced to exile for saying that he will record an album in Kurdish. Popular political parties were closed regularly even when they won elections decisively. The news of corruption in police and politics was a regular daily routine as was the news of human rights violations.
In the years before AKP there were several short-lived governments by parties both on the left and on the right. Inflation was very high (hyperinflation), unemployment was high, governments were unstable. The value of Turkish lira dropped to a third in one night. Nightly interest rates tripled to completely ridiculous amount of 139%. You can look at Greece these days to have an idea of Turkey of that time. Turkish foreign policy was essentially dictated by the US government. There was a very harsh IMF imposed economic program so Turkey could pay its debts and a technocrat from world bank was imposed as the economy minister on the Turkish government to make sure they will implement what IMF wanted. The government and the country were in such a bad shape that it is almost unimaginable today after 12 years of AKP.
AKP was formed at that time. Erdogan was still under the ban from politics as well as many prominent politicians from his previous party. But some other politicians from the party were not under the ban. They created a new party: AKP (Justice and Development Party). Its members were moderate and pragmatist politicians from the banned party plus several other pragmatist and moderates from other right of the center parties. The current Turkish President Gul became the head of the party though Erdogan was significantly involved behind the senses. The party won a landslide election and has been continuously doing so for over a decade, increasing its share of votes in every election. You have to know that the length of Turkish governments before AKP to get a feeling of its significance: a few months!
Over a decade AKP has modernized Turkey, removed many of the laws that EU objected to, fought corruption in police and politics, improved the economy to its current amazing state, forced military out of politics, ... Until Syrian crises it had perfect relations with its neighbors. It followed what I would consider an awesome independent foreign policy. It is trying to find a political solution to the Kurdish "problem" and the right of Kurds have improved significantly under AKP. The list of AKP's achievements can go on.
So what is the problem? The problem is that the support base of AKP is not the western oriented seculars, it is the conservative majority who didn't have a voice in politics for decades (the silent majority) as the Kemalist and what Turks call "Deep Government" didn't allow the political parties supported by them. In all elections AKP has lost in the touristic Mediterranean coastal cities and European parts. You can find the map of the last general election results here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_2011
Yellow is AKP, red is CHP, and light green is MHP. The south eastern parts are Kurdish areas where independent Kurdish politicians won.
The protests that you see these days are by this secular minority who has been voting for CHP (around 25%, significant, but still a minority).
Now, what are these alternative parties?
MHP is an ultra-nationalist racist conservative far-right party. Look up Wikipedia if you want to know more about them.
CHP is the party of the founder of the Turkey, ruled Turkey for decades in a one-party system, is a Kemalist party. It had strong relations with Turkish military, right now it is essentially the party supported by the elite who ruled Turkey before AKP and their supporters. The elite tried to topple AKP government undemocratically. Try to see if they objected to continuous serious violations of human rights before AKP.
Obviously I don't agree with everything that AKP and Erdogan do. However, AKP (and Erdogan) is definitely the best thing that has happened to Turkey over many decades, and Turks know it. That is the reason AKP keeps increasing its share of vote in elections. They are creating a strong developed democratic lawful independent Turkey. When you hear about protests in Turkey against AKP and Erdogan being authoritarian it is good to remember this context.
One final thing: AKP is often criticized for ignoring secular Turkish citizens who have not voted for AKP. Watch Erdogan's victory speech after winning the last election in which AKP further increased its share of votes. His attitude was completely humble and reconciliatory.
The problem, in my humble opinion, is not Erdogan and AKP being arrogant and authoritarian, but rather the secular minority demanding more than their fair share. I mean they objected to the removal of the ban on head-scarves for students attending university and consider it Islamization of Turkey (a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf).
Since I see that some friends have got excited about the recent events in Turkey I decided to write something about it and provide some context. I think it is good to know a bit of history of Turkey before AKP to understand what is going on there. It has been more than 10 years that AKP is in power so people might not know or may have forgotten the situation before AKP.
Turkey was ruled by ultra-nationalist ultra-secular militarist groups for decades. The military overthrow several elected governments and jailed politicians. Torture, extra-judicial killings, suppression, and corruption were widespread. The laws that people often object to are from that area and the constitution written by Turkish military, including insulting Turkishness being a crime. These groups who are sometimes referred to as Kemalists had the control of military, judicatory, academia, media, etc. Yet, they couldn't tolerate even the government being in the hands of people they didn't like. The large majority of Turks who are practicing Muslims were excluded. It was illegal to wear a head-scarf in universities and government departments in a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf. Essentially these women were banned from attending university. Public officials and even university professors would be thrown out and even jailed if they showed any sign of nonsecular tendency. Writers and intellects were jailed for expressing opinions against Kemalist ideology. Erdogan, the current prime minister was jailed and banned from politics for 10 years for reading an old poem while he was the mayor of Istanbul. The existence of Kurds who are around 20 percent of Turkey's population were completely denied (not a joke)! Speaking or reading in Kurdish was banned and the popular Turkish singer Ahmad Kaya was forced to exile for saying that he will record an album in Kurdish. Popular political parties were closed regularly even when they won elections decisively. The news of corruption in police and politics was a regular daily routine as was the news of human rights violations.
In the years before AKP there were several short-lived governments by parties both on the left and on the right. Inflation was very high (hyperinflation), unemployment was high, governments were unstable. The value of Turkish lira dropped to a third in one night. Nightly interest rates tripled to completely ridiculous amount of 139%. You can look at Greece these days to have an idea of Turkey of that time. Turkish foreign policy was essentially dictated by the US government. There was a very harsh IMF imposed economic program so Turkey could pay its debts and a technocrat from world bank was imposed as the economy minister on the Turkish government to make sure they will implement what IMF wanted. The government and the country were in such a bad shape that it is almost unimaginable today after 12 years of AKP.
AKP was formed at that time. Erdogan was still under the ban from politics as well as many prominent politicians from his previous party. But some other politicians from the party were not under the ban. They created a new party: AKP (Justice and Development Party). Its members were moderate and pragmatist politicians from the banned party plus several other pragmatist and moderates from other right of the center parties. The current Turkish President Gul became the head of the party though Erdogan was significantly involved behind the senses. The party won a landslide election and has been continuously doing so for over a decade, increasing its share of votes in every election. You have to know that the length of Turkish governments before AKP to get a feeling of its significance: a few months!
Over a decade AKP has modernized Turkey, removed many of the laws that EU objected to, fought corruption in police and politics, improved the economy to its current amazing state, forced military out of politics, ... Until Syrian crises it had perfect relations with its neighbors. It followed what I would consider an awesome independent foreign policy. It is trying to find a political solution to the Kurdish "problem" and the right of Kurds have improved significantly under AKP. The list of AKP's achievements can go on.
So what is the problem? The problem is that the support base of AKP is not the western oriented seculars, it is the conservative majority who didn't have a voice in politics for decades (the silent majority) as the Kemalist and what Turks call "Deep Government" didn't allow the political parties supported by them. In all elections AKP has lost in the touristic Mediterranean coastal cities and European parts. You can find the map of the last general election results here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_2011
Yellow is AKP, red is CHP, and light green is MHP. The south eastern parts are Kurdish areas where independent Kurdish politicians won.
The protests that you see these days are by this secular minority who has been voting for CHP (around 25%, significant, but still a minority).
Now, what are these alternative parties?
MHP is an ultra-nationalist racist conservative far-right party. Look up Wikipedia if you want to know more about them.
CHP is the party of the founder of the Turkey, ruled Turkey for decades in a one-party system, is a Kemalist party. It had strong relations with Turkish military, right now it is essentially the party supported by the elite who ruled Turkey before AKP and their supporters. The elite tried to topple AKP government undemocratically. Try to see if they objected to continuous serious violations of human rights before AKP.
Obviously I don't agree with everything that AKP and Erdogan do. However, AKP (and Erdogan) is definitely the best thing that has happened to Turkey over many decades, and Turks know it. That is the reason AKP keeps increasing its share of vote in elections. They are creating a strong developed democratic lawful independent Turkey. When you hear about protests in Turkey against AKP and Erdogan being authoritarian it is good to remember this context.
One final thing: AKP is often criticized for ignoring secular Turkish citizens who have not voted for AKP. Watch Erdogan's victory speech after winning the last election in which AKP further increased its share of votes. His attitude was completely humble and reconciliatory.
The problem, in my humble opinion, is not Erdogan and AKP being arrogant and authoritarian, but rather the secular minority demanding more than their fair share. I mean they objected to the removal of the ban on head-scarves for students attending university and consider it Islamization of Turkey (a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf).
You are insulting the intelligence of the HN crowd. Your user account created 5 hours ago. Are we supposed to believe that this post was written by "a friend on Facebook?"
>>However, AKP (and Erdogan) is definitely the best thing that has happened to Turkey over many decades, and Turks know it.
Wrong. Although Erdogan and his goons in the Turkish media do their best to give this impression. Turkey was not a perfect country before. But it was actually secular. And that makes it objectively better than what it is today. Forget about the surface-level improvements Erdogan made. He may be wearing sheep's clothes, but deep down inside he's a wolf who wants Turkey to become another Iran.
>>However, AKP (and Erdogan) is definitely the best thing that has happened to Turkey over many decades, and Turks know it.
Wrong. Although Erdogan and his goons in the Turkish media do their best to give this impression. Turkey was not a perfect country before. But it was actually secular. And that makes it objectively better than what it is today. Forget about the surface-level improvements Erdogan made. He may be wearing sheep's clothes, but deep down inside he's a wolf who wants Turkey to become another Iran.
Excuse my ignorance in the following, I am trying to understand the situation based on very little prior knowledge:
What you say makes a lot of sense, but can you comment on how this generally "good" government seems to be using excessive force, and the claimed media blackout on the protests?
I understand that the government may be more respectful of democracy than their opponents, but is it possible that the protesters still want more freedom and democracy, rather than supporting the Kemalist ideology?
What you say makes a lot of sense, but can you comment on how this generally "good" government seems to be using excessive force, and the claimed media blackout on the protests?
I understand that the government may be more respectful of democracy than their opponents, but is it possible that the protesters still want more freedom and democracy, rather than supporting the Kemalist ideology?
Don't believe him. It is basically full of lies, albeit written with a very good English.
AKP basically used EU as a cover to weaken other significant forces like legal bodies, media, military. Now, they are in phase 2, using their power to crush all others who do not live like them. For example, until late yesterday, there were no major TV channels airing the news. We communicated via Twitter, and the only live broadcasting TV was from Norway!
With the weaking of all opposing forces, there is no significant power left against them, or at least, that was what they thought.
The recent ban on alcoholic drugs, Erdogan's constant mention of the Ottomans as his ancestors, his constant stress during his speeches that he dreams of a religious and obedient youth is what we are opposing.
The notion of democracy Erdogan has is very primitive. In his speeches, basically he sees the voting which takes place every 4 years as the only democratic right a person can have.
It is true that in the past, the Turkish state oppressed some religious groups or major minorities like the Kurdish; but the attitude this government and its proponents have is basically contained with revenge. Just to give a final example, the Major of Ankara, a significant figure from AKP, just yesterday tweeted the following:
"You should thank God that we believe in democracy, otherwise we would drown you in a spoonful of water."
The propaganda this government makes is, quite literally reminiscent of 1984. How they re-define words, how they contradict with themselves at each sentence is stunning. They usually say they are the forerunners of "advanced democracy", when they cannot envision a life form other than their own. Of course, every such speech of them ends with the following lie: we respect everyone's lives, everyone can live as they please. It is like the old Ford saying, everyone can lead the life they like in Turkey, as long as it is approved by AKP.
AKP basically used EU as a cover to weaken other significant forces like legal bodies, media, military. Now, they are in phase 2, using their power to crush all others who do not live like them. For example, until late yesterday, there were no major TV channels airing the news. We communicated via Twitter, and the only live broadcasting TV was from Norway!
With the weaking of all opposing forces, there is no significant power left against them, or at least, that was what they thought.
The recent ban on alcoholic drugs, Erdogan's constant mention of the Ottomans as his ancestors, his constant stress during his speeches that he dreams of a religious and obedient youth is what we are opposing.
The notion of democracy Erdogan has is very primitive. In his speeches, basically he sees the voting which takes place every 4 years as the only democratic right a person can have.
It is true that in the past, the Turkish state oppressed some religious groups or major minorities like the Kurdish; but the attitude this government and its proponents have is basically contained with revenge. Just to give a final example, the Major of Ankara, a significant figure from AKP, just yesterday tweeted the following:
"You should thank God that we believe in democracy, otherwise we would drown you in a spoonful of water."
The propaganda this government makes is, quite literally reminiscent of 1984. How they re-define words, how they contradict with themselves at each sentence is stunning. They usually say they are the forerunners of "advanced democracy", when they cannot envision a life form other than their own. Of course, every such speech of them ends with the following lie: we respect everyone's lives, everyone can live as they please. It is like the old Ford saying, everyone can lead the life they like in Turkey, as long as it is approved by AKP.
It seems that some of what you are saying is not that different to the claims I was replying to, but with a different interpretation.
E.g. you consider weakening the power of legal bodies, the media and the military to be bad, but from their point of view, these bodies were supporting an undemocratic power structure that favored the pro-secular minority.
On alcohol, there is not a blanket ban, but fairly strict restrictions (in particular limiting sales of alcohol from 6am to 10pm). And lifting the ban on head-scarfs seems like the lifting of excessive restrictions, not the imposition of Islamic ideas.
As to Erdogan's general ideas on the nature of democracy, can you be more specific?
E.g. you consider weakening the power of legal bodies, the media and the military to be bad, but from their point of view, these bodies were supporting an undemocratic power structure that favored the pro-secular minority.
On alcohol, there is not a blanket ban, but fairly strict restrictions (in particular limiting sales of alcohol from 6am to 10pm). And lifting the ban on head-scarfs seems like the lifting of excessive restrictions, not the imposition of Islamic ideas.
As to Erdogan's general ideas on the nature of democracy, can you be more specific?
We are not against lifting of the head-scarfs. His proponents try to paint us, the protestors, as traces of that tradition so that they can still play the part of the wounded. As to his Islamist plans, he is quite open about them. He basically emphasizes in his every speech that their aim is to bring the pious youth of the Ottoman empire.
The legal bodies and free media are fundamental for any democracy. As I said before, AKP gov't used EU-restrictions to crush legal bodies and military, but then after they reached their goals turned their back on the EU since the main goal was different. As to the freedom of media, I think we can agree that it is vital for any democracy and just the fact that these events are not being televised are proof how powerless they are. There are journalists working in the media, who have to share international links since their own TVs cannot show the events.
About his antidemocratic ideals, just from his talks today:
- (when talking about his decision to build a mosque in Taksim) We will build it, whether you like it or not. Decision is made. I will not ask these looters (referring to the hundreds of thousands of protestors) whether to build it or not. - Twitter is a menace. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article37807... - You gathered 20,000 people. It is not an issue for me to gather 200,000 people. If you gather 100,000 people, it will not be an issue for me to gather 1,000,000 people. - (Referring to advertisers who have decided to cut their ads from TVs who are not showing the events) I have started an investigation about which companies these are.
His thought on democracy can be summed up as thus: The elections take place. The party who wins the majority can do whatever it pleases until the next elections, since that vote has given them that right. There is no need to reach consensus on any affair. The parliament in Turkey is basically powerless, since they hold the majority and can pass any law they want. He sees democracy as a winner takes all game, that only takes place every 4 years, not as a daily part of life.
Democracy is not a system where the majority can do whatever it wants. It is only a democracy if it can protect and respect the rights of every voter.
The legal bodies and free media are fundamental for any democracy. As I said before, AKP gov't used EU-restrictions to crush legal bodies and military, but then after they reached their goals turned their back on the EU since the main goal was different. As to the freedom of media, I think we can agree that it is vital for any democracy and just the fact that these events are not being televised are proof how powerless they are. There are journalists working in the media, who have to share international links since their own TVs cannot show the events.
About his antidemocratic ideals, just from his talks today:
- (when talking about his decision to build a mosque in Taksim) We will build it, whether you like it or not. Decision is made. I will not ask these looters (referring to the hundreds of thousands of protestors) whether to build it or not. - Twitter is a menace. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article37807... - You gathered 20,000 people. It is not an issue for me to gather 200,000 people. If you gather 100,000 people, it will not be an issue for me to gather 1,000,000 people. - (Referring to advertisers who have decided to cut their ads from TVs who are not showing the events) I have started an investigation about which companies these are.
His thought on democracy can be summed up as thus: The elections take place. The party who wins the majority can do whatever it pleases until the next elections, since that vote has given them that right. There is no need to reach consensus on any affair. The parliament in Turkey is basically powerless, since they hold the majority and can pass any law they want. He sees democracy as a winner takes all game, that only takes place every 4 years, not as a daily part of life.
Democracy is not a system where the majority can do whatever it wants. It is only a democracy if it can protect and respect the rights of every voter.
Which part is false? What fact are you objecting in his post? I think what he has written is easily verifiable so there is no need to trust him or me. As far as I have checked they are accurate.
As I understand, you have been protesting freely with the support from military, judiciary (it looks that recently Kemalist supreme court tried to close AKP while it had a majority in Turkish parliament and had just won another democratic election), and media for years and you still haven't been able to even stop the increase of AKP's popularity. Is that true? Is his claim that you are minority false?
As I understand, you have been protesting freely with the support from military, judiciary (it looks that recently Kemalist supreme court tried to close AKP while it had a majority in Turkish parliament and had just won another democratic election), and media for years and you still haven't been able to even stop the increase of AKP's popularity. Is that true? Is his claim that you are minority false?
We are not minority! (It does not matter that we are the minority or not though, a true democracy has to respect the life of all minorities.) In the last election, his party gained 50% of the votes, not 80% or 90%. Unfortunately, our election system is flawed so that they can get the majority in the parliament to pass any vote they want. As an example of the flaw in the system, votes of parties who get votes below 10% do not get counted (which effected Kurdish minority).
Now, let me refute part by part:
> Turkey was ruled by ultra-nationalist ultra-secular militarist groups for decades.
> You have to know that the length of Turkish governments before AKP to get a feeling of its significance: a few months!
These are patently false. Yes, there were coups but after each coup, right wing ancestors of AKP were in power "majority" of time. If you look at elections, in Turkey, in almost elections, right wing got around 60-70% of votes. The only left wing politician who was in power was Inonu and Ecevit, the former being a figure from the Independence War, the latter a politician who was embraced by people left and right for his honest, non-corrupt personality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Turk...
1950-60 Adnan Menderes, The Democratic Party: Pro-American, Islam-leaning right wing party. 1965-71 Suleyman Demirel: Justice Party. Right wing party who declared itself as the successor of The Democratic Party. 1975-77: Suleyman Demirel: One more time. 1979-80: Suleyman Demirel: One more time! 1983-89: Turgut Ozal: ANAP. Right wing, pro-capitalist party. 1989-91: Mesut Ozal: Took place of Turgut Ozal, who became the President. 1991-93: Suleyman Demirel. One more time 1993-96: Tansu Ciller: Took place of Suleyman Demirel, who became the President. 1996: Mesut Yilmaz 1996-1997: Necmettin Erbakan. Pro-Islamist, anti-capitalist, right wing party. Current PM Erdogan was the mayor of Istanbul from his party. 2002-2003: Abdullah Gul. Current President, who was then head of AKP since Erdogan was in jail.
> Watch Erdogan's victory speech after winning the last election in which AKP further increased its share of votes. His attitude was completely humble and reconciliatory.
That speech never materialized, as can be exemplified by the use of tear gas against protestors today.
> The problem is that the support base of AKP is not the western oriented seculars, it is the conservative majority who didn't have a voice in politics for decades
Not true, as you can see, what Erdogan calls as his ancestors, Menderes, Ozal and Erbakan were in power. What happened is middle-right wing evaporated, and AKP got their votes since they were proposing a capitalist agenda as well. In other words, right wing was majority in Turkey all the time, but the votes were distributed among several parties. When the economic situation became so bad in 2002, the public protested these parties, and voted for the only prominent new right-wing party at the time. The economic success came due to two reasons: 1- The "technocrat", Kemal Dervis who was brought in the late times of the former gov't made sound economic policies, which the new gov't applied. 2-They sold most of the state owned assets and gained money. See for example Turkish Telekom, the only PSTN providers, who also operated majority of the internet in Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Telekom
AKP then used its position as the leading party to strengthen its position in the next elections.
> Rather the secular minority demanding more than their fair share.
Fair share? As in, right to live according to their wishes, and not that of AKP?
> I mean they objected to the removal of the ban on head-scarves for students attending university and consider it Islamization of Turkey (a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf).
Not true. This is lumping all secular people into one big pot. Yes, there were people who objected this, but the fundamental promise of secularity is to form rules so that each person can live his religion freely, that no religion is higher against the rule.
Now, let me refute part by part:
> Turkey was ruled by ultra-nationalist ultra-secular militarist groups for decades.
> You have to know that the length of Turkish governments before AKP to get a feeling of its significance: a few months!
These are patently false. Yes, there were coups but after each coup, right wing ancestors of AKP were in power "majority" of time. If you look at elections, in Turkey, in almost elections, right wing got around 60-70% of votes. The only left wing politician who was in power was Inonu and Ecevit, the former being a figure from the Independence War, the latter a politician who was embraced by people left and right for his honest, non-corrupt personality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Turk...
1950-60 Adnan Menderes, The Democratic Party: Pro-American, Islam-leaning right wing party. 1965-71 Suleyman Demirel: Justice Party. Right wing party who declared itself as the successor of The Democratic Party. 1975-77: Suleyman Demirel: One more time. 1979-80: Suleyman Demirel: One more time! 1983-89: Turgut Ozal: ANAP. Right wing, pro-capitalist party. 1989-91: Mesut Ozal: Took place of Turgut Ozal, who became the President. 1991-93: Suleyman Demirel. One more time 1993-96: Tansu Ciller: Took place of Suleyman Demirel, who became the President. 1996: Mesut Yilmaz 1996-1997: Necmettin Erbakan. Pro-Islamist, anti-capitalist, right wing party. Current PM Erdogan was the mayor of Istanbul from his party. 2002-2003: Abdullah Gul. Current President, who was then head of AKP since Erdogan was in jail.
> Watch Erdogan's victory speech after winning the last election in which AKP further increased its share of votes. His attitude was completely humble and reconciliatory.
That speech never materialized, as can be exemplified by the use of tear gas against protestors today.
> The problem is that the support base of AKP is not the western oriented seculars, it is the conservative majority who didn't have a voice in politics for decades
Not true, as you can see, what Erdogan calls as his ancestors, Menderes, Ozal and Erbakan were in power. What happened is middle-right wing evaporated, and AKP got their votes since they were proposing a capitalist agenda as well. In other words, right wing was majority in Turkey all the time, but the votes were distributed among several parties. When the economic situation became so bad in 2002, the public protested these parties, and voted for the only prominent new right-wing party at the time. The economic success came due to two reasons: 1- The "technocrat", Kemal Dervis who was brought in the late times of the former gov't made sound economic policies, which the new gov't applied. 2-They sold most of the state owned assets and gained money. See for example Turkish Telekom, the only PSTN providers, who also operated majority of the internet in Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Telekom
AKP then used its position as the leading party to strengthen its position in the next elections.
> Rather the secular minority demanding more than their fair share.
Fair share? As in, right to live according to their wishes, and not that of AKP?
> I mean they objected to the removal of the ban on head-scarves for students attending university and consider it Islamization of Turkey (a country where over 70% of women wears head-scarf).
Not true. This is lumping all secular people into one big pot. Yes, there were people who objected this, but the fundamental promise of secularity is to form rules so that each person can live his religion freely, that no religion is higher against the rule.
[deleted]
Well, I won't try to give every anti-democratical actions of Erdogan : HN comment post limit may be exceeded.
Maybe those two links might help to understand the vision of "democracy" of Erdogan :
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4387396,00.html
http://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/How-can-the-Turkish-publ...
Maybe those two links might help to understand the vision of "democracy" of Erdogan :
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4387396,00.html
http://www.quora.com/Turkey-country/How-can-the-Turkish-publ...
You don't need to list them all, but giving one or two examples of Erdogan's anti-democratic behavior would be nice. Right now it seems as you are calling for a popular democratically elected government to resign because you simply don't like its policies and you haven't been able to stop AKP from winning democratic elections for over a decade. You seem to be trying to do exactly what the Kemalist military was doing before it was forced out of politics.
As far as I have checked major Turkish media outlets, they are reporting the situation and there is no media black out as claimed in the post you have linked to. I find such claims quite dishonest. You should know that making such easily refutable claims will cast doubt on your whole position, you should be more careful about your claims.
As far as I have checked major Turkish media outlets, they are reporting the situation and there is no media black out as claimed in the post you have linked to. I find such claims quite dishonest. You should know that making such easily refutable claims will cast doubt on your whole position, you should be more careful about your claims.
Where does the 70% came from? Do you have a source for this?
It would be better to check how many "scarf-wearers" are going to universities, this percentage would be meaningful.
My opinion is that universities should be religion-free as science doesn't play well with religion.
I think that the problem might be that the (nonsecular) east wants to rule the (secular) west and viceversa.
I think that the problem might be that the (nonsecular) east wants to rule the (secular) west and viceversa.
"religion-free" is a highly ambiguous term. Can you clarify?
I think that a person has a right to wear whatever clothing they feel appropriate, assuming they aren't committing indecent exposure and they don't have giant spikes protruding from their clothing that could endanger others.
Can you clarify what individual rights you think exist on university campuses, and how these interact with your goal of keeping universities "religion-free"?
I think that a person has a right to wear whatever clothing they feel appropriate, assuming they aren't committing indecent exposure and they don't have giant spikes protruding from their clothing that could endanger others.
Can you clarify what individual rights you think exist on university campuses, and how these interact with your goal of keeping universities "religion-free"?
Does percentages matter? Lets assume it is 7%.. You can't imagine how many young girls burned by this...
I agree universities should be "Religion free" there are two ways of achieving that, you don't care about religion, you allow all people form all religions fair and square, or second option, you ban people with "certain" religious beliefs from schools. Guess which one got applied in Turkey.
I agree universities should be "Religion free" there are two ways of achieving that, you don't care about religion, you allow all people form all religions fair and square, or second option, you ban people with "certain" religious beliefs from schools. Guess which one got applied in Turkey.
Universities should be "religion-free" and students should have the freedom to express themselves. We talk about freedom but have double standards
Entering universities while wearing head-scarves was forbidden. You couldn't physically enter them wearing a head-scarf until very recently.
Is it the eastern part trying to impose its will on the western part or is it the eastern part trying to remove what western part imposed on them over decades?
Here are what I see people are claiming to be signs of AKP Islamizing Turkey: allowing women with headscarves attend universities, forbidding shops sell alcohol in late night hours (after 10PM).
In Ontario only government owned LCBO can sell liquor and its shops close at 6PM. The consumption of liquor in public places is forbidden completely in Canada. Surely Canada is not an Islamic state. Are we sure Turkey is a Muslim majority country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_in_public#Canada
He says he doesn't remember a source but he has heard it several times that over 70% wears headscarf. I found this article by Google:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&...
Is it the eastern part trying to impose its will on the western part or is it the eastern part trying to remove what western part imposed on them over decades?
Here are what I see people are claiming to be signs of AKP Islamizing Turkey: allowing women with headscarves attend universities, forbidding shops sell alcohol in late night hours (after 10PM).
In Ontario only government owned LCBO can sell liquor and its shops close at 6PM. The consumption of liquor in public places is forbidden completely in Canada. Surely Canada is not an Islamic state. Are we sure Turkey is a Muslim majority country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_in_public#Canada
He says he doesn't remember a source but he has heard it several times that over 70% wears headscarf. I found this article by Google:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&...
Another sponsored revolution.
That comment merits an explanation.
Some people find it deeply unsettling that someone could hold different political views sincerely. They cope with it by assuming the others are compensated in some form for their abnormal behavior.
When I protested in my homeland I heard accusations of being paid to do this, even the price was specified ($20). Twenty bucks to go into a harsh cold night to be assaulted by police and possibly imprisoned on terrorism charges, what a deal :)
When I protested in my homeland I heard accusations of being paid to do this, even the price was specified ($20). Twenty bucks to go into a harsh cold night to be assaulted by police and possibly imprisoned on terrorism charges, what a deal :)
Strange kneejerk reaction since the commenter is from Pakistan. If he has some actual reason to believe this I'd like to hear it for discussion's sake.
Not knee jerk reaction, my mistake I did not expain at first place as I wrongly assumed readers would like to make attempts to learn facts.
Clearly from my comments you would see that I am interested in learning facts so don't act so wounded. However, so far all you have presented is the idea that if the US sponsors some protests against an Islamic government, all protests against Islamic governments are created by US sponsorship. It's not very convincing without evidence.
Evidence. So far many things world believed didn't have any evidence, for instance WMD.
Coming to your main Question, If you look how Egypt Spring started, it was all to getrid of Mobarak, US, the former ally of Mobarak left em all alone as did it in past.
I could share articles like this(http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/50553/wikileaks-u-s-governme...) one but I left you upto you to figure out.
Point is, every _revolution_ got started turned against US; be it Tunisia, Egypt and now Turkey.
Those who are protesting will be crying out loud if some stern Islamic leader comes all of sudden and rule upon them.
Coming to your main Question, If you look how Egypt Spring started, it was all to getrid of Mobarak, US, the former ally of Mobarak left em all alone as did it in past.
I could share articles like this(http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/50553/wikileaks-u-s-governme...) one but I left you upto you to figure out.
Point is, every _revolution_ got started turned against US; be it Tunisia, Egypt and now Turkey.
Those who are protesting will be crying out loud if some stern Islamic leader comes all of sudden and rule upon them.
I understand you're from a part of the world where a lot of people are not fond of America (for both valid and invalid reasons, in my opinion). The same thing these people in Turkey are fighting against is going on all over the world, INCLUDING the US.
I hope you understand that like pretty much everywhere, there are "good and decent" people and some "bad" people. Unfortunately, the "bad" people always seem to be the sorts who want to force other people to live their way, while the "good" people mostly want to live their lives the way they want and not force other people. It's as true of America as it is of Pakistan.
I hope you understand that like pretty much everywhere, there are "good and decent" people and some "bad" people. Unfortunately, the "bad" people always seem to be the sorts who want to force other people to live their way, while the "good" people mostly want to live their lives the way they want and not force other people. It's as true of America as it is of Pakistan.
[deleted]
It's a protest against a govt that is seen to be strongly pro-islam and authoritarian.
The automatic reaction from some muslims will be that it is US-sponsored. Given the US's long track record of sponsoring coups and pro-western/secular movements, you can't really blame them.
The automatic reaction from some muslims will be that it is US-sponsored. Given the US's long track record of sponsoring coups and pro-western/secular movements, you can't really blame them.
Hm, I see. Sort of an ironic assumption given the protest started with the planned replacement of a park with a shopping mall.
I'm not sure if I can understand the reasoning behind this comment, but if I were to follow up, there have been (not sure how factual), in the case of the so-called Arab Spring (or Arab Winter, as I call it, given what happened afterwards), accusations that some of these revolutions had a "push" from outside.
downvoting shows the ability to reject someone w/o knowing the reason but it does not make any difference.
The so called Egypt Revolution was also backed by US initially to kick Mobarak out. Later things got out of control when Ikhwan got dominated.
The so called protest is nothing but an attempt to sabotage Erdogan govt after his recent Islamic moves. Nobody is seeing the fact Erdogan helped Turkey to getrid of IMF and put turkey on right direction.
Thousands of people are protesting in Bangladesh against cruel government who has killed thousands of Muslims so far. Since the govt is secular hence their evil doings are not being promoted anywhere including so called unbaised social media.
The so called Egypt Revolution was also backed by US initially to kick Mobarak out. Later things got out of control when Ikhwan got dominated.
The so called protest is nothing but an attempt to sabotage Erdogan govt after his recent Islamic moves. Nobody is seeing the fact Erdogan helped Turkey to getrid of IMF and put turkey on right direction.
Thousands of people are protesting in Bangladesh against cruel government who has killed thousands of Muslims so far. Since the govt is secular hence their evil doings are not being promoted anywhere including so called unbaised social media.
It's now a full blown anti-government riot. The park issue was just the last straw that set it off.
The original poster was telling the truth now stop arguing about shopping malls.