They argue that universal values are the new imperialism, imposed on people who want security and stability instead. Here is why they are wrong.

  • CoffeeAddictOP
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hello shitlibs - here is your daily post.

    I think the article makes some very interesting points regarding China’s stance against Western ideals. For those who are unaware, one of the core beleifs of Chinese politics is that stability and security are all the people really want, and that Western ideals are not compatible with those goals.

    This article discusses how many of the Western ideals authoritarians stand against are actually a direct result of stability and security, and that the lack of individualism and individual expression is indicative of fear, or the fear of instability.

    Furthermore, it points out how authoritarians often create instability, or at the very least the illusion of instability, becuase it makes people more comfortable with a dictator taking over.

    Thoughts?

    • MotorheadKusanagi
      link
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You sound like Carl Schmidt.

      Edit: I was mistaken here.

      • CoffeeAddictOP
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Carl Schmidt was a nazi and an authoritarian. The day he died was a good day for the world.

        I am sorry if it was not clear, but this article is endorsing liberal values and democracy. Individualism, acceptance, diversity, etc are allowed to flourish because of the security and stability provided by democratic political systems.

        • MotorheadKusanagi
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I appreciate the clarification!

          If you find the problems inherent with keeping an open society free and open, you will find a lot to like with Karl Popper.

          He and Herbert Marcuse agree that tolerance is wonderful, but repressive tolerance is not. Or another way, it’s fine to hate the haters. Popper then describes the core purpose of law in open societies as being a necessary force for preventing suffering. It is not to impose opinions on the public, but to help them avoid pain inflicted on them by others.

          The article is right to endorse liberal values, but it is paywalled so I dont know. It is surely influenced by Popper’s writings.

          (I see now that you posted the article! thank you!)

      • @StupidFatRat
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        Lmao what? This doenst even make sense.

          • @MarigoldPuppyFlavors
            link
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            it isnt a big deal.

            That’s what I end with every time I make a mistake too. It lets people know that I’m a mature, self-assured adult.