Reply to: There's good countries and there's bad countries

[sasguru]

It is the easiest thing in the world to say that "we have no democracy". It is easy to argue no matter what system would be in place. So I think that when people make these statements they should be forced (democratically of course) to explain what they understand a democracy should be.

Easy.
This is a much better system than we have:

Politics of Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly even Germany has a more democratic system than we have. the pupil has proved more adept than the master.

And the reason is simply that our political class of whatever party is wedded to too much power (historical reasons may have something to do with this).

[DodgyAgent]

I disagree, they may never be ready for democracy and neither are we. We haven't got democracy, just an elected oligarchy. We as ordinary people have very little power and yet we sneer at countries that haven't got our enlightened 'democracy', fecking bollocks.

It is the easiest thing in the world to say that "we have no democracy". It is easy to argue no matter what system would be in place. So I think that when people make these statements they should be forced (democratically of course) to explain what they understand a democracy should be.

[snaw]

Just looked to me like another of those extrapolations from nice people you've met to argue that there is little wrong with a society. Nearly everyone one meets is a nice person, it doesn't mean to say that collectively their society cannot have major issues and they may be ones which spring from majority opinion.

More specifically, I think that unless a regime is propped up by external forces as under the British empire or the USSR, it cannot survive without support of at least a fair proportion of its population. Every successful dictator is adept at rewarding and exploiting greivances and rivalries to keep as many onside as possible.

Ach the 1st part is wrong, cause I didn't say that and the 2nd part is bollocks cause history shows you all you need is the money and the guns to keep a majority of the population down. Of course there's going to be a 'fair' portion of the population supporting them, there has to be enough critical mass to wield the guns etc to keep the majority down - but fair isn't a lot of people, generally. And to somehow imply the rest deserve it is, or that they are in any way the majority is rubbish.

Sorry Xoggy, but yer talking pish. IMHO.

[shaunbhoy]

I agree it's a poor semblance of a democracy but it's clearly a lot nearer to one than you would get in some countries.

Ah yes, but we have the freedom to be slightly miffed about it.............as long as we don't want to get too vocal about it lest the Police use us for ninepin practice.

[xoggoth]

sneer at countries that haven't got our enlightened 'democracy'

I agree it's a poor semblance of a democracy but it's clearly a lot nearer to one than you would get in some countries.

[xoggoth]

you trying to put words into my mouth again Xog

Just looked to me like another of those extrapolations from nice people you've met to argue that there is little wrong with a society. Nearly everyone one meets is a nice person, it doesn't mean to say that collectively their society cannot have major issues and they may be ones which spring from majority opinion.

More specifically, I think that unless a regime is propped up by external forces as under the British empire or the USSR, it cannot survive without support of at least a fair proportion of its population. Every successful dictator is adept at rewarding and exploiting greivances and rivalries to keep as many onside as possible.

[sasguru]

I disagree, they may never be ready for democracy and neither are we. We haven't got democracy, just an elected oligarchy. We as ordinary people have very little power and yet we sneer at countries that haven't got our enlightened 'democracy', fecking bollocks.

Asd part of the oligarchy, I heartily concur.
Lond may it last.

[Gibbon]

All the "Arab spring" will bring about is a change of dictatorship because those societies are culturally 100 years away from being ready for democracy.

I disagree, they may never be ready for democracy and neither are we. We haven't got democracy, just an elected oligarchy. We as ordinary people have very little power and yet we sneer at countries that haven't got our enlightened 'democracy', fecking bollocks.

[snaw]

It is a nonsense to suggest that there is some huge disparity between reactionary government and enlightened people as Snaw seems to be suggesting.

I am? I'm not even sure I know what that means.

All I was suggesting was that I've met good and bad people (i.e. ones I like, and ones I think are dickheads) from lots of countries, inc some on that list labelled bad. Those people from countries which have bad governments generally speaking are aware that their governments aren't the best.

That's based on personal experience, so maybe I only encounter a certain kind of person, but unless you're brainwashed it's pretty hard not to be aware that their are better/freer societies in the world than the crappy one you're living in.

Which part of that is a nonsense, or you trying to put words into my mouth again Xog?

[xoggoth]

So, why would these pre-set perceptions exist in this country about whole countries full of people?

We can all only go on what we read and experience but, assuming the press are not misleading us, if we looked honestly at public perceptions and reality there would be a lot of congruence. Ordinary people judge on actual effect, it is the intellectuals, driven by their unrealistic idealism and their ideas of what humanity should be, rather than what it is, who are deluded.

It is completely meaningless to talk about good and bad people. Outside of Hollywood serial killer movies almost everyone does what they thinks is right. The Norway Killer thought what he was doing was to our future benefit, extreme Ilsamists genuinely think Shariah will improve the lot of all, I expect even Hitler had good intent.

It is a nonsense to suggest that there is some huge disparity between reactionary government and enlightened people as Snaw seems to be suggesting. Take a look at the Arab dictatorships, they are a part of a culture of allegiance to the extended family and the tribe. All the "Arab spring" will bring about is a change of dictatorship because those societies are culturally 100 years away from being ready for democracy.

What is (statistically) true us that societies can have views and objectives that are totally contrary to our own.
People make their culture and culture makes the people and wherever they go they take their beliefs and attitudes with them.

[swamp]

I've been to Argentina and I think they're, in a way, misunderstood. They do want the Falklands, but most are happy to let the diplomats deal with that and feel that the government should have other priorities. I didn't experience any hostility toward Brits, and although one or two people mentioned the 'Malvinas' in conversation, they weren't nasty about it. I think what actually annoys Argentinians is a feeling that they're seen by many in Europe as some kind of turd world country, and not seen or treated as equals, when they feel that their culture and way of life is essentially modern and European, and indeed it is. I think that if Britain were to offer them a route to doing business, studying and travelling in the EU as equals, perhaps with comprehensive free trade agreements etc, they'd feel somewhat happier, and some kind of economic cooperation to share benefits from the disputed areas would go a long way to ease tensions. It would probably benefit Britain as well as Argentina is a growing economy that can have a big future if their efforts to get corruption under control succeed.

Argentina is a turd world country, but it should be as successful as Australia. Once it was one of the world's richest countries but it made a complete hash of the 20th century despite dodging the two wars. Even Russia is doing better than Argentina, and they had to cope with seventy years of communism.

[mudskipper]

Interesting fact:

An anagram of countries is cretinous.

[Mich the Tester]

No it wasn't, you stated:



Who's we? I think if you went around different parts of the UK you'd get wildly different answers. Most Scots don't mind the argeis and a lot of english do object to aussies ...

I think the premise is wrong anyway, what's the point of it? People have pre conceived perceptions about people from other countries, it's hardly original, and I don't get why you have to draw up a list for the approval (or not) of others. WGAF?

I've been to Argentina and I think they're, in a way, misunderstood. They do want the Falklands, but most are happy to let the diplomats deal with that and feel that the government should have other priorities. I didn't experience any hostility toward Brits, and although one or two people mentioned the 'Malvinas' in conversation, they weren't nasty about it. I think what actually annoys Argentinians is a feeling that they're seen by many in Europe as some kind of turd world country, and not seen or treated as equals, when they feel that their culture and way of life is essentially modern and European, and indeed it is. I think that if Britain were to offer them a route to doing business, studying and travelling in the EU as equals, perhaps with comprehensive free trade agreements etc, they'd feel somewhat happier, and some kind of economic cooperation to share benefits from the disputed areas would go a long way to ease tensions. It would probably benefit Britain as well as Argentina is a growing economy that can have a big future if their efforts to get corruption under control succeed.

[TiroFijo]

There are some exceptionally fit women on Argentina's beaches.

You sir are correct!

[snaw]

That was the question I was asking. I think that if you went through my list of the good and the bad most people in the UK would put them into similar categories that I put them into as regards good, bad and OK. There may be minor deviations. So, why would these pre-set perceptions exist in this country about whole countries full of people?

No it wasn't, you stated:

We all have pre-set ideas of what the people of different countries are like and whether it is a good country or a bad one and whether its people are good or bad.

Who's we? I think if you went around different parts of the UK you'd get wildly different answers. Most Scots don't mind the argeis and a lot of english do object to aussies ...

I think the premise is wrong anyway, what's the point of it? People have pre conceived perceptions about people from other countries, it's hardly original, and I don't get why you have to draw up a list for the approval (or not) of others. WGAF?