Nothing ever happens in the USA without internal criticism. It is a cacophony of political discourse. Comparing us to China, "literally", is so off base that it makes your post look in bad faith.
Not trying to argue in bad faith, but why is it all that different if the outcome of legal avenues is effectively the same? It's not like joe schmoe tweeting about their outrage will change how the law is interpreted or what constitutes legal precedent.
One could argue that a cacophony of opinions spanning the entire spectrum of possibilities isn't necessarily much better than having no freedom of press, if the end result is people literally believing deceptive propaganda, as opposed to merely being afraid of voicing informed, dissenting opinions.
IMHO, patriotism should be about defending the values of a country and calling out BS when it's appropriate, instead of merely defending the country's name without concern for the substance of the criticism.
if the outcome of legal avenues is effectively the same?
They’re not even remotely the same. The U.S. has serious problems with racism, mass incarceration, police brutality, unaffordable health care, etc.
But that isn’t even close to the problems China has with organ harvesting, concentration camps in Xinjiang, mass corruption, food fraud, political prisoners etc.
The lies and propaganda are nothing new. The name of the game has always been to build the constituency for your issue by hook or crook. Absolute truth was never a requirement, only majority opinion. And Joe Schmoe's tweets are absolutely a part of the power structure of the country. They are the drops of water that form the wave. I have worked on policy and advocacy in Washington and seen it all in motion. Individuals, groups, states, companies, professions and each of their dollars in a mad scramble. In all its chaos, I believe our system continues to work as intended.
I would much rather be called a pragmatist than a patriot.
Again, let me preface that I'm playing devil's advocate, but one could argue that constituency is also the name of the game in China: it may sound crazy to us over this side of the pond, but a lot of mainland chinese people actually support the CCP.
Both there and here, there's political work being done, each with their own ideas of what is best for their people. We can argue that their great firewall effort is oppressive for example, but on the other hand, they are probably more than happy the US has outsourced manufacturing to China to such an extensive degree. Both countries ostensibly "work as intended". I guess the end result of all that work still remains to be seen.
Another point that I think is worth pondering about is whether majority opinion is necessarily correct. The US response to covid, for example, has been all over the place, with places like San Francisco, CA being more strict and successful, to places like Minot, ND being hit really hard.
Like you, I'm also all for pragmatism, but I think things like the early perception of the epidemic in the west shows that sometimes the right course of action might sometimes fly in the face of public opinion.
We know there is "freedom of speech" in the US and that there is no such thing in China. But with Assange, the US "freedom of speech" is diverging to the China's "no freedom of speech". Maybe the "internal criticism" you mentioned will follow soon...
Suggesting that the USA will soon adopt China's approach to censorship of public discourse is basically preposterous. Our public discourse is not some extravagance that our government allows us. It is the core of our system and has been from the moment of the country's founding in reaction to hereditary monarchy. The government's right to rule flows out of this conversation. If the conversation stops, the country will cease to be.
So while I think you are quite wrong about the current risk, we are in complete agreement that freedom of speech should be vigilantly protected.
There is a large body of philosophical work over the past 2 decades that argues that no rules is precisely the marker of an iron-clad ideological structure wherein the citizenry self-discipline so that the order functions with total freedom of choice between given options. Meanwhile, we never get any access to the frame or the economic and political decisions (QE, Current War with China and Russia through Sanctions). China, on the other hand, the argument goes, requires strict rules because the people there know that they live in a strict ideological structure and fight against it constantly. While we in the west are so certain we are free because we can choose between two candidates, zillions of types of products and popping off polemically on all our platforms.
We are already on our way to full blown censorship. Cancel culture et al is effectively the beginning of the same outcome. Censorship starts with chilling effects
>We are already on our way to full blown censorship. Cancel culture et al is effectively the beginning of the same outcome. Censorship starts with chilling effects
I suggest checking the US history, both somewhat recent and not recent at all. Cancel culture is just the continuation of the old tradition of "naming and shaming", it isn't something new.
First there was "tarring and feathering", then there were the witch hunts in MA, then, more recently, there was the red scare. Current "cancel culture" is pretty much just a much lighter version of that, and we are definitely not moving any closer to "full blown censorship". In fact, I think that the modern "cancel culture" (despite me being very much not a fan of it) cannot even hold a handle to the red scare investigations of just 60-70 years ago
There's a southpark episode about this specific scenario. The USA does a ton of awful shit, but as long as there is an outraged group, it's fine in the eyes of the world. They keep doing it though.
Fully accepting this, can you give me one example in the past 20 years that this cacophony of political discourse led to changes in political economy in the Western World for those who have no inherited wealth?
Oh yes, that's such a easy one that I'll give you a few.
BLM: People at the bottom of our society are pooling their political power and changing the conversation about policing, police budgets, racism and racial divide.
Me too: Everyday women are being heard and taking down men of wealth and power.
Gay rights: a small minority has won equality in the eyes of the law and public opinion.
Occupy: Raised class consciousness and set the stage for political movements such as Trump, Bernie, and the Tea Party.
Ok. I am going to push back on this: So, you believe that african-americans, working class women, LGBT+ and homelessness has improved over the past 20 years? I know that culturally all of these things have changed. There is no socially acceptable forum to be sexist, homophobic, racist (8ken, redpillsubreddits aside). But - has any actual change happened for anyone outside the 20% of us in the, from Peter Sloterdijk's 'spherology, cupoloa of privilege? Or are we imagining an outside of improvement from inside our safety? Thinking of the work of Moten/Harney/Agamben here and destituent power. How do we, in here, know these things work? Or do these stories circulate to buy our peace at night? Like buying products from black-owned stores or RT Rose McGowan or put up rainbow flags.
I am a gay man. I don't believe things have changed for the better in the past 20 years. I know so. I now enjoy wide social acceptance, legal protection, and rights I absolutely did not have before. This has given me more opportunities in life and I can live my life with more happiness and less fear. I am not alone in this experience. Every LGBT+ person in the country over the age of 30 has lived it.
Based on your post, you must be very isolated from society if you think the improvements minorities have won are just fake news, telling you what what you want to hear.
