Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Dictatorship=Locked In/Democracy=Locked Out?

ArKhani
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 8:51:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This equation very recently occured to me(while on toilet, as so often).

If the form of oppression faced in dictatorship can generally be summed up as being 'locked in', can being 'locked out' be used as a general synopsis of social/political wrongs in our western democracies?
I understand that there is no ideal example of this theory, as every state will have both models of injustice to some degree, however I do believe, that there is a specific tendency towards either of the two mentioned.

To further explain this assumption:
What I saw in middle-eastern countries(those atleast, that are no western allies) is a tendency for shortages in social and political rights, with the government trying to maintain stability through indoctrination(education) and propaganda(media), with efforts to restrain means of free information and communication.
Measures are taken to deprive people from the ability to objectively observe the political and social processes and circumstances from the outside.
That last point induces the term of 'locking in'.

Western countries have at least the same level of indoctrination and propaganda, however in a more subtle and far more sophisticated way.
The main difference is in the way that communication and information are handled:
What is generally referred to as 'free' access to communication and information, seems to be instead an overload of the same.
While people are indeed free to read and say (almost)everything, with censorship only on the most critical information and voices, the insane flood of input numbs the average (media-)consumer(not excluding myself), rendering him/her unable to take notice of what happens on the (so called)inside.
Consequently, I suggest that the concept can be simplified to: Being 'locked out'.

Why is this relevant? Western apologists are often inclined to point out freedom of speech as an indicator and proof for the superiority of western society.

While I do not consider myself an 'eastern' apologist(if there is such a thing), as I am certainly not going to commit the mistakes that I so bluntly criticize, I feel like being 'locked out' is equally as bad as being 'locked in' and just another (equivalent) dimension of deprivation of rights/violation of justice.

So this just confirms my belief that humanity can only develop as a whole, and that to oppose the actions of wrongdoers, one should not support other wrongdoers.

Please give me some input on this topic, as I feel it's far from infallible, also maybe I'm wrong?
As Salamu Alaykum.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 10:27:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 8:51:09 AM, ArKhani wrote:
This equation very recently occured to me(while on toilet, as so often).

If the form of oppression faced in dictatorship can generally be summed up as being 'locked in', can being 'locked out' be used as a general synopsis of social/political wrongs in our western democracies?
I understand that there is no ideal example of this theory, as every state will have both models of injustice to some degree, however I do believe, that there is a specific tendency towards either of the two mentioned.

To further explain this assumption:
What I saw in middle-eastern countries(those atleast, that are no western allies) is a tendency for shortages in social and political rights, with the government trying to maintain stability through indoctrination(education) and propaganda(media), with efforts to restrain means of free information and communication.
Measures are taken to deprive people from the ability to objectively observe the political and social processes and circumstances from the outside.
That last point induces the term of 'locking in'.

Western countries have at least the same level of indoctrination and propaganda, however in a more subtle and far more sophisticated way.
The main difference is in the way that communication and information are handled:
What is generally referred to as 'free' access to communication and information, seems to be instead an overload of the same.
While people are indeed free to read and say (almost)everything, with censorship only on the most critical information and voices, the insane flood of input numbs the average (media-)consumer(not excluding myself), rendering him/her unable to take notice of what happens on the (so called)inside.
Consequently, I suggest that the concept can be simplified to: Being 'locked out'.

Why is this relevant? Western apologists are often inclined to point out freedom of speech as an indicator and proof for the superiority of western society.

While I do not consider myself an 'eastern' apologist(if there is such a thing), as I am certainly not going to commit the mistakes that I so bluntly criticize, I feel like being 'locked out' is equally as bad as being 'locked in' and just another (equivalent) dimension of deprivation of rights/violation of justice.

So this just confirms my belief that humanity can only develop as a whole, and that to oppose the actions of wrongdoers, one should not support other wrongdoers.

Please give me some input on this topic, as I feel it's far from infallible, also maybe I'm wrong?

...if you are still sitting on your thinking stool I would urge you to push the analogy further. This is the best part about parallel imagination to push to extreme.
Q: Why did you used to the term "locked" in? How do locked in and locked out countries perceive each other.
ArKhani
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 10:27:05 AM, fazz wrote:
...if you are still sitting on your thinking stool I would urge you to push the analogy further.
I satisfied the urge and left it :)

This is the best part about parallel imagination to push to extreme.
Q: Why did you used to the term "locked" in? How do locked in and locked out countries perceive each other.


To give a specific example(stereotypes alert):
The picture of the middle east about the west is coined by negative attributes like moral degeneration e.g. alcoholism/promiscuity/drug adddiction/pornography, loss of family culture and high rates of mental illnesses(anxiety/depresion/etc), all of which are certainly real problems that we have in the west, however not to with the exaggerated gravity attributed by the asians.
The positive attributes are sophisticated legislation, little corruption, fair executive forces, high social standard in administration, mostly things that middle-easterns complain about in their own countries.

It's the exact opposite in the west; the picture that we have of the middle-east(also the east in general, except for the traditional western allies) is generally that of primitive countries with corrupt governments, abusive police and many ethnical and religious struggles and especially lack of political understanding in the populace(which is btw. downright wrong,in my opinion).
As you can guess, the positive attributes are a family-based society, more down-to-earth lives, etc.

Either view is exaggerated, not least due to the mentioned doctrinal effort and propaganda; although the mentioned negative attributes are real problems, for the most part the populace is indeed concious of its own problems, even though they are generally ignored for convenience, which is just human.

Considering the terms 'locked in' and 'locked out'.
Mid-Easterners acknowledge the fact that their rights are curtailed.
Most westerners(I've grown up with, at least) however still succumb to the illusion that they yield any freedom in terms of political participation.

This is what I referred to 'more subtile, far more sophisticated'.
As Salamu Alaykum.