Every government is a good representation of its country.

[Islam Imamate]

But that raises yet another question.

How long will it be acceptable to call it a mistake before it is either due to ideological blinkers or intentional?

The most flagrant example of this is how the most prestigious newspaper in Sweden (Daily News) said in a headline that Sandviken (a small municipality) makes billions on taking on many immigrants. Fast forward two or three years and the economy is in rut and people are afraid of going outside due to crime. It's just one example but it was used by politicians and other media to justify mass-immigration.

That is fair to consider but I'd also caution to not underestimate the power of ideological blinders. They're especially powerful when the political class does not live with the consequences they themselves are responsible for.

 

[Son of Jamin]

That is fair to consider but I'd also caution to not underestimate the power of ideological blinders. They're especially powerful when the political class does not live with the consequences they have themselves are responsible for.

That is spot on!

The same goes for many of the white middle class feminists in Sweden as well, they focus more on manspreading or that a man walked Meghan Markle down the aisle than the major problems with "a morality police" that patrols many of the suburbs in Sweden.

 

[TheLastSpartan]

I tend to agree with that statement with regards to developed countries.

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with regards to democracies.

 

[Billy no mates]

I would tend to agree premise , even more concerning is when you get the opposition you deserve at the same time that's when people become jaded or cynical through lack of a viable alternative or even the visible means for one to emerge .

 

[RockstarChris]

Dat North Korean Peoples' Government

 

[Prutfis]

I think over the decades the political elite have stacked the deck against the population. Advantages through legislation etc.

 

[Rusk]

Sounds to me like it is @Rusk's position that all Russians are stupid shit heads.

Yes masses that are enabling Putin are shit heads.

Yes but no?



In the analogy i said bricks are people and you said most bricks are shit.



You said Europe and i assumed. Also suffering isnt really a common denominator, since pretty much all nations have suffered and plenty of succesful nations have suffered pretty little (USA) in comparison to others.



Every country is made by different minorities, class, education level, professions, etc, etc. These minorities still influence and shape the events of a country.



The issue is that you are talking about hypotheticals "what is a random Somalian was dropped in a random Swedish place" while i am talking about real case scenarios "Economic immigrants from poor countries moving into countries looking for work".

As i have said before, nobody is moving to America to become a hobo.

America isnt getting random people, they are getting people with marketeable skills.

I feel like we are talking past each other at this point.

 

[SMillard]

I actually updated my post but you must have quoted it before I did. In functional democracies, people basically get what they deserve. The capability is there to educate the citizens, choose a government, run for office, institute change, etc.

Even shitty media sources are a choice. They are entirely ratings driven. If people wanted quality news, they'd watch quality news. They don't want it.

Education is one thing, but laziness puts it into a whole new light. People that rely on single source news outlets, on if the person has a D or a R next to their name on the ballot, or simply people that base their vote simply on name recognition are a bigger threat. I can't tell you the number of people that look at me like I've got a third eye or say "way to waste your vote" if I vote for a third party or independent candidate, I especially love it when they reveal that they didn't even vote, or they voted for the man or woman that either they liked their look or one thing about them. I was at a park walking the dogs with my wife and this woman comes up and she's running for mayor walking her blood hound, no topic of issues was discussed, but my wife was "oh, I'm voting for her, she's a dog lover". Another instance of when I thought to myself "I married a moron"

 

[Rod1]

I feel like we are talking past each other at this point.

So lets go back to the source of the disagreement, your claim is that if a country isnt doing well, ergo immigration from said country is by definition deleterious.

I said that isnt a logical conclusion because immigrants are not a randomly selected sample of the parent population.

You said they are.

I countered with the Indian-American group.

You said India doesnt counts because "tons of people".

 

[Rod1]

In a pre-international era? Perhaps.

But to say that now is, in my opinion, extremely obtuse. You think that all the Latin American countries whose democratic aims were undermined by the United States thereafter deserved the following governmental regimes? You think countries like El Salvador and Chile deserved what the US gave them? You think Iran deserves to live under a theocratic quasi-autocracy because the United States ousted their elected social democratic leader? When the premises that lead to a conclusion were posited not by the people but by outside interference, it seems kind of silly to then hold the conclusion as representative of the native population.

Iran didnt had to select a theocracy after the oust of Sha, Chile is a good example because neither Allende, nor Pinochet went all the way. Allende could had purged the military and Pinochet could had retained complete power well into his death.

 

[Trotsky]

Iran didnt had to select a theocracy after the oust of Sha.

Well, it wasn't like the Sha vacated power and then the people organically arrived at Islamic Republic. The Ayatollah and clergy were empowered by the Sha and by the US to oust Mossadegh, and ultimately deposed and replaced the Sha. Even if it were a case of them having stepped into a power vacuum (it wasn't) and even if it were the case that Khomenei's reign was representative of his public platform (it wasn't), it would still be the case that the Iranian's people democratic choice was nullified by the US.

 

[tramendous]

Its easy to look down on people from other countries and saying they deserve it. But if you were in their situation, chances are you'd go with the flow. Its not just you they come after in places like north korea for example, its your family too.

 

[Neph]

Its easy to look down on people from other countries and saying they deserve it. But if you were in their situation, chances are you'd go with the flow. Its not just you they come after in places like north korea for example, its your family too.

Yep. We're educated and a lot of people in oppressed countries are not. Life is cheap there, people die all the time, and most people are keen to just get by and hopefully not have their family destroyed in violence and war. Even if you were the incredibly unlikely hero you would need to be outstandingly competent and charismatic to make any real change. Having the guts to do it isn't enough on its own. These people that change countries are exceptionally rare.

Unless you are a real trailblazer in your life (lets face it, we're arguing on Sherdog, I doubt many of us are) then I suspect you'd do nothing of the sort.

 

[tramendous]

I am saying that a Somalian would effect his environment the same way in Norway as he does in Somalia. Unless he is stopped somehow by the natives (police, social/economical pressure etc)

This is not true. As someone who comes from a messed up country, regular people are forced to go along with a broken system and even feed into it to survive and get by. When they go to another country, i.e. Norway they dont have to. So no that Somalian wouldnt necessarily effect his environment the same way in Somalia and Norway.

 

[snakedafunky]

No that could only be true if the government comes from within the people itself.
But in the last 100 years or so with the illegal meddling of evil imperial powers like the US, UK, France, and Russia that is almost impossible. I mean when was the election in this world were the Bochevics or the capitalists didn't willing meddle in and happily accepted millions of dead people as a result so the rich can get even richer?

The last time there was a true government formed by the people without outside influence.
Those countries conspired against it to start WW2.

So yeah it is not possible.

 

[Rod1]

No that could only be true if the government comes from within the people itself.
But in the last 100 years or so with the illegal meddling of evil imperial powers like the US, UK, France, and Russia that is almost impossible. I mean when was the election in this world were the Bochevics or the capitalists didn't willing meddle in and happily accepted millions of dead people as a result so the rich can get even richer?

The last time there was a true government formed by the people without outside influence.
Those countries conspired against it to start WW2.

So yeah it is not possible.

Bar invasion, a lot of these meddling tend to be simply exploiting one side against another, but said side tends to be partially or totally representative of the people.

I think only communists and jihadists tend to keep their ideology over their own cultural customs.

 

[snakedafunky]

Bar invasion, a lot of these meddling tend to be simply exploiting one side against another, but said side tends to be partially or totally representative of the people.

I think only communists and jihadists tend to keep their ideology over their own cultural customs.

Well, you don't need "two sides" in a government.
Lots of countries would have a different system, not democracy if it weren't for outside interference.
Then you could judge them on their government. But you can't say Russia deservers Putin because he did not come from a political system that developed out of the Russian people.

 

[Rod1]

Well, you don't need "two sides" in a government.
Lots of countries would have a different system, not democracy if it weren't for outside interference.
Then you could judge them on their government. But you can't say Russia deservers Putin because he did not come from a political system that developed out of the Russian people.

But Putinism did developed out of the Russian people.

 

[snakedafunky]

But Putinism did developed out of the Russian people.

Yeah, it depends what you would consider "out of the people".

In Putin's case, he just had to continue a system that was forced upon Russian because they lost the cold war.
He sort of has to swindle his way through democracy to stay in power because he doesn't have the political ability or support to be an authoritarian leader. Now that would be something that can come out of the Russian people.
Like the Tzar or Stalin. But this "democacry" or Putinism they currently have is not something that came out of the Russian people. I mean Putin doesn't have what it takes. He is just one step away from being hung on the red square. And always will be.

 

[Feniamin]

Yeah, it depends what you would consider "out of the people".

In Putin's case, he just had to continue a system that was forced upon Russian because they lost the cold war.
He sort of has to swindle his way through democracy to stay in power because he doesn't have the political ability or support to be an authoritarian leader. Now that would be something that can come out of the Russian people.
Like the Tzar or Stalin. But this "democacry" or Putinism they currently have is not something that came out of the Russian people. I mean Putin doesn't have what it takes. He is just one step away from being hung on the red square. And always will be.

I remembered there was a post or an article from one Russian writer some time ago. So to make story short he said that Putin is like a weaker/more liberal version of average Russian - like, average Russian doesn't want just Crimea they want all Ukraine occupied by Russia, they want war with USA/USA occupied by Russia etc.
Personally I see it like this - Russians are too naive/lazy or just don't care - like back in USSR everyone was Atheists, now majority of people are consider themselves religious (and I think there is some people, like deacon Kuraev back in USSR he was a professor of Scientific Atheism if I'm not mistaken) and stuff like that (like party/TV/government says what is right and people do it; same stuff with Putin - Yeltsin called him his heir - people voted for Putin). TV says that LGBT is bad and people agrees and bash gays and forget that not so long ago duo T.A.T.U. who pretended to be lesbians represented Russia at Eurovision and transvestite musician Verka Serduchka was at like 50 % of Russian TV programms about music/humor/entertainment (I think same stuff with musician Boris Moiseev who pretends to be a vulgar stereotypically gay man). And seems like this stuff is happens with everybody - there was an article from 2008 about Chechen girl who represented Chechnya at some Russian beauty contest and I think Kadyrov supported here and she was wearing all or almost all these open clothes which girls are wearing at such contests) and now both here and Kadyrov's wife wears all this closed Arabic/Muslim style clothes.