for "foreign interventions" I would do something like, "10 million killed since 1947" vs "ended Apartheid" instead of what you got there.
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
5162 readers
16 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
yeah would've been better, I'm just resharing it
Yes, there is a long history but fortunately we live in the present.
Restricting peoples opinions is a very horrible thing to do. It doesn't matter if it's to "preventing a capitalist counterrevolution" which is you a bunch of bullshit made up because they want to repres people.
free speech absolutism is an infantile ideology
Can you explain why people shouldn't be able to express their opinions?
Pretty much everyone and every human right group thinks so, except people on Lemmy.ml, lemmygrad and hexbear. For some they like censorship but only for their advantage which is ludicrous.
I am not for absolutism because in some cases it can be disallowed. But only for very specific reasons and that the government is afraid of different ideologies isn't a valid reason.
here, educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I am not for absolutism because in some cases it can be disallowed. But only for very specific reasons and that the government is afraid of different ideologies isn’t a valid reason.
It sure is when the government represents the interests of the working majority. And the government is the only body that can decide what speech is or isn't allowed, so your whole statement is self contradictory. If you accept that some speech is harmful and needs to be suppressed, then it becomes a question of degrees. And westerners thinking that they got the level of censorship fundamentally right while everyone else has it wrong is just plain old chauvinism. Western societies are currently the most polarized societies with some of the lowest levels of social cohesion. Anybody looking at the west and thinking that this is a good model should get their head checked.
I understand the link you posted and I knew you'd post it. Generally the western societies you hate is very for free speech and tolerance. The world you want is generally very against that. Socialism doesn''t have to be, but for some reason you guys want that. Which is frankly insane.
If we go by the paradox shouldn't western societies ban socialism speech?
If your opponent respects your opinion and doesn't censor you, you should do the same.
A great government shouldn't have to censor the opinions of its citizens if they are truly so great.
And no a government doesn't have to be great just because it doesn't censor, but a government can't be great if it censors.
If you disagree that's currently fine.
And westerners thinking that they got the level of censorship fundamentally right while everyone else has it wrong is just plain old chauvinism.
You want more censorship that's oppressing your opponents from expressing their opinion because you think you are objectively right and everyone else is wrong. I think it's enough to ban hate speech. There is a huge difference there.
I can't believe I'm here arguing with you guys again. It's useless because you guys are so far up your own asses that you can't hear a ship horn. I'm not against socialism per se but you certainly don't make a good case for anyone reasonable to support it.
Again, there is nothing to support the assertion that the level of speech tolerance in western societies is desirable or a net positive on society as a whole. You are a product of a particular society which plays an anchoring effect in what you consider to be the right level of free speech. This alone is not a rational basis for deciding that this is fundamentally the right amount of free speech we should strive for.
I can't believe that this such is a difficult concept for free speech zealots to wrap their head around.
What about freedom of press and expression?
just ask Assange, Manning, or Snowden
Whataboutism, a tankie's favourite tool
double standards, dronie's favorite tool
Literally proving my point lmao
the point being that you apply one standard to US and another to Cuba, and bleat about whataboutism when people point out
I don't think they did a bad thing but of course the government doesn't like that they leak classified information.
Either way, it's irrelevant when it is so much worse in Cuba.
And you can ask pretty much every reputable international human rights organisation or press freedom organisation.
It's very much relevant because it shows that every government will censor information that it finds threatening. There is a long history of censorship in the west just like everywhere else. The real difference is what sort of things are censored. In Cuba, censorship focuses on preventing a capitalist counterrevolution.
PPP per capita is 5x lower in Cuba than in the US. In other words, salaries are low and people struggle to afford things in Cuba, whereas the average citizen in the US can afford much more.
So they can buy less commodities but generally still manage to live longer lives, are more able to read which means they can pursue intellectual and cultural pursuits, etc?
Sounds like a good trade, I bet it would be an even better trade without the blockade.
I'm not saying life on balance is necessarily worse or better. Just pointing out that cherry-picking statistics can sketch a wrong image.
"Less commodities" sounds a bit dismissive of the difference though. It is significantly less, e.g. the average salary is less than 190 USD per month. Most Cubans struggle to get enough food to get by, and whilst there are measures to avoid starvation, they're not exactly having much to eat either. They're not using their time for intellectual/cultural pursuits, most use their time to find additional sources of income.
Healthcare is free, but the equipment is old. Outcomes are poorer, due to lack of drugs. Cuba has an excellent HIV-program, with mandatory testing and cheap antivirals. Yet, HIV cases (and STIs in general) are on the rise due to a high prevalence of prostitution, caused by the low salaries and high wealth inequality.
Upsides and downsides. Reality is that several hundreds of thousands of Cubans attempt to flee the country every year. Between 2021 and 2023, nearly 500k people tried to do so, ~5% of the population. That's not very indicative of a place-to-be.
It may well be true that the US embargo is causing a lot of these issues. However, economists tend to argue that the lack of Soviet subsidies has a much larger negative effect.
I'm not so sure it's a good trade. There are things we can learn, certainly. But on balance, it doesn't seem better.
You forgot to factor in the cost of housing, healthcare, and education that people in Cuba don't have to worry about.
Sure, but other items cost much more compared to their salaries. It's a definite downside.
view more: next ›