Hacker News Reader

Comment by malechimp | Hacker News Reader

Democracy? With guys like Victor Orban? Nope. You think you live in a democracy but it is something else entirely.

I'm not playing smart. I'm a Greek myself and our govt is mimicking Orban to a large degree. TBH I'm afraid that democracy is going down the drain for most of EU anyway. The way yellow-vests were treated in "democratic" France (hint: plastic bullets shot at demostrators' eyes) kind of convinced me on that one. As for Greece, well, yeah. You won't find anything but praise for the govt in the mass media. A few fringe ones daring the other side of events survive on readers subscriptions. All tied up in a tightly knitted nexus of political friends, family, friendly businessmen, huge debt (govt party has a massive debt on its own as most mass media also do), ever expanding police-state, religious leaders (Orthodox Christian Church) and God knows whom else.

So, anyway, all the best...

View on HN

At least, in France, in my opinion, it's becoming difficult to find favourable coverage of the government in the press, even in state-owned media. I find it neutral at best.

At least you French have a decent and established culture of protesting, compared to us Germans...

Wrong. In France, this "culture of protest" means to go all-in, on strike, right from the beginning for any reason, be it serious or just a pettiness. And in France, taking it to the streets and making noise is more often than not some sort of a social happening, too often for economical reasons, like yellow wests initially did. Not for any "higher" reasons like democracy, justice, freedom etc. It's individual people and various interest groups competing (on a wider level) with each other in their subsidiary demands, united in their fear of loosing status and comparative influence of the social group they belong to. E.g. rail-road syndicates. In short: Citizens of a rich country worried about their pockets, demanding reforms, refusing change, regarding it be some a kind of a zero-sum game, thus preferring short-term egoistic strategies.

Compare it with Eastern Europe with seldom protests, maybe once in 20 years or so. And not against poverty but for justice (Slovakia), democracy (Ukraine, Serbia) or alike.

What's wrong with economic reasons?

What good is freedom and democracy if it doesn't give you enough to eat?

Economic trouble is was causes totalitarianism.

> What good is freedom and democracy if it doesn't give you enough to eat?

It's called escape from freedom.

My first question would be whether the culture of protesting and having constantly negative coverage of the government makes any difference in a country full of old money.

I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes, but given that France is on its fifth republic in 200 years, it certainly seems to be capable of changing how its governed.

France had literally lost control over it’s government about 6 times since 1815.

So of course it’s capable of changing how it’s governed - it was never a choice.

or, was, before the internet enabled fascism to the extent that it has.

We've yet to see that proven conclusively.

I feel like one the best examples of out-spoken minority rules might be the recent rabid defense of confederate statues. I agree that we have yet to see conclusive evidence - but we've got a whole bunch of strong indicators including my absolute least favorite: rampant nepotism.

What do you mean? Living in Germany I see plenty of protests.

I mean, we (US) helped set the stage for these kind of governments in Greece a few decades ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_junta#American_influence...

1949 is not what most people would consider "a few decades ago".

Greece's junta government lasted until '74. That's still ~50 years ago but it's not like this stuff goes away immediately.

I'm from South America where the US experimented with setting up dictatorships after WWII as well, and the effects are still felt today.

Exactly. Spain's government and institutions are still riddled with Francoists despite passing away in 1975 and there's still very much a fascist element that rear their ugly heads from time to time.

Spain's government is socialist + communist.

Sure, the "government" is, as in the elected representatives, which is just a recent thing, but I think you'll find the Franco old guard lurking in many non-elected but powerful positions. And it wasn't so long ago that Madrid sent the Guardia Civil to suppress, with violence and impunity, the Catalonian independence referendum. An organisation that still has links to modern Franco'ist supporters.

Socialist + "extreme centre" at best. And that's the executive. The legislature and the judicial are still packed and dominated by francoists, respectively. And don't get me started on the military...

Spain was an openly fascist country that made the transition into a covertly fascist one in the late 70s. It wasn't the democratic forces who forced the transition, it was the fascists who half-conceded it because they wanted a halo of legitimacy in the international stage.

Ironically, the old King that allegedly lead the change into "democracy" just ran away after accepting millions in bribes from Saudis, and having mistresses in the press gloating how much he loves her, he even let her skim a couple million off the top to buy some luxurious house.

And that's not the worst. The worst is that all of this was well known by pretty much everyone in the country. I've been hearing about these dealings, the King's affairs, and generalized corruption in the Royal House for 30 years (pretty much ever since I started paying attention to these things).

Not only the country knew of the King's dealings with Saudis and other fascist dictators, they used those dealings to make a case in favor of the Monarchy. "Of course, he'll take a cut! It's the least he should get after sealing that multi-million deal!" went the general conversation (among the population, of course, the media remained silent at all times). This should give people a taste for how Spain works, and the attitude of their citizens.

Another interesting thing that nobody has mentioned in the press yet is that maintenance and servicing (staff) of most if not all of the Monarchy assets (houses, palaces, boats!) is paid by Patrimonio Nacional (National Heritage; supposedly in charge of public assets of cultural and historical relevance), not by Casa Real (Royal Household; in charge of the Monarchy expenses). I.e.: a significant part of the budget allocated to public affairs is redirected to the private affairs of the Monarchy. Then they will claim "but relatively speaking, it's not that expensive", when a significant portion of the cost is hidden behind a different institution.

> I'm from South America where the US experimented with setting up dictatorships after WWII

Source?

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

Though I'm pretty amazed it isn't just common knowledge - America has a long history of fixing democracies... It takes working democracies and replaces them with military dictatorships.

Thanks.

“Common knowledge” of history (ancient and recent) differs vastly from country to country. In Norway, we basically just learn of USA that it’s the country that turns the tide of war whenever it enters; for which we learn of two occasions: 1st and 2nd WW; not much else.

Pardon my english.

>In Norway, we basically just learn of USA that it’s the country that turns the tide of war whenever it enters

Well, even that's not true. See: Vietnam.

What is common knowledge in Norway is that ‘USA does a lot of stupid stuff;’ and there generally seems to us that there’s a certain lack of education. How much truth this carries I never thought to check.

I'm really sorry if that is all you got out of Norwegian history classes. Though I might add that what you get out of it is indeed highly dependent on who you get as a history teacher, because the books themselves are appalling. I would know. I'm an adjunkt (official Norwegian teaching title).

Personally I think I'm quite lucky. I got a self-appointed, and rather proud Marxist as a history teacher in upper secondary school. He solemnly declared that, while this was indeed his conviction, he would not let it colour his classes. Then he went on to give us college lectures about WWI and the Russian Revolution, because he trusted us to be smart enough to understand it anyway.

I shall never forget these amazing classes, but this style of teaching didn't sit well with the, shall we say, less aware pupils in the class, who promptly wrote up a complaint against his use of difficult to understand concepts and use of academic language.

After a meeting between us, him and the principal, he declared that he was very disappointed with us, and that—despite the authors retracting the complaint—he would not continue as a teacher for our class anymore. Then he donned his motorcycle gear and rode off on his Harley. I'm telling you! You can't make this shit up! :D

The next day we got a brand new history teacher. Instead of teaching, he would merely read up passages from the pre-approved history book, in the most passive and uninspired way possible. Then he would give us the lamest of lame assignements such as, "describe who was the prime minister of Great Britain during World War II and why," and other such mindblowingly boring stuff. Meanwhile the Marxist teacher would tell us interesting tidbits about Churchill and his role in the sinking of the USS Lusitania, and fascinating stuff like "contra-factual hypothesis", and so on.

You're probably wondering how I feel about Marxism now. Well, let's just say that I think it's a failed philosophy. But the stories that extremely Marxist teacher shared with us, were so good and so captivating, that they have simply stuck with me and everyone who were lucky enough to have this true rebell as a history teacher.

Anway, if you're still not satisfied, and just want bloody good "history lessons," then I can highly recommend the podcast Blueprint for Armageddon, about WWI as told by Dan Carlin.

Amazing! And indeed, my history teacher wasn’t much (he forgot to turn up for some classes o_O). Though I’ve had a couple of truly good teachers too; a math teacher gave me not good grades (I didn’t deserve them anyways), but he was extremely passionate about maths and such passion, it seems, easily transfers; had I been just slightly more daring, I would now dedicate my life to maths... Instead though, I just got in to the University of Oslo where I’ll study physics :D Which also is something I love, and I can keep doing maths!

> I can highly recommend the podcast Blueprint for Armageddon, about WWI as told by Dan Carlin.

I’ve been reading so much english lately, that I’m losing grasp of my native norwegian. (Yet I can’t seem to get my syntax quite right.) This is frightening and also the reason I’m always trying to find norwegian books on whatever subject I’m interested in — which isn’t always easy...

Don't worry about it. As long as you avoid obvious anglisisms, you should be fine. Considering how much Norse has affected English, it's really just going full circle. And if you're ever stuck, there's always "Det norske akademis ordbok"[1] (a Norwegian dictionary). :) It's particularly good because it includes etymology.

[1]: https://naob.no/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

May I ask why this is downvoted?

I didn't downvote it, but I guess it was for asking for a source for something that at least I thought was common knowledge.

You seemed to be expressing curt disbelief of a broadly uncontroversial historical fact. Could easily be seen as trolling or an unwillingness to take the time to do some basic self-education.

Ah, I suppose it seems that way, thanks.

I really had not heard of this; which was why I asked for a source, so that I could learn of it. The request was stupidly lazy, I admit; but I think asking (if done properly) for a source is one of the things that never should be met with disapproval.

Downvoting is a bit like flipping the finger to someone, or sticking out your tongue. It's not really an argument, just a rather nasty symbol of dismay. Now watch this post get downvoted just for divulging this HN secret. ;)

The EU handling of Greece hasn't helped either. And it happened only a decade ago rather than half a century ago.

You mean installing a dictatorship is comparable to attaching (perhaps excessively harsh) conditions to financial support?

AFAIK that Junta was removed almost 40+ years ago. It's effect is lesser than something that happened relatively recently.

Meanwhile, by refusing to help Greece with its debt, not only did EU increased the debt, but inadvertently legitimized the right option, by saying there will be no debt canceling (which was left position at the time).

Giving money in exchange for reforms seems like help to me. You're helping when you teach a man to fish, not when you just hand him a fish to only eat for one day.

Except the reforms were not reasonable. More like telling a man to cut off an arm to get a fish. Doesn’t teach you to fish in the future and creates lots of suffering in the present.

I wonder who would be suitable to decide what is reasonable. Is it:

a) a country with a record of mismanagement and debt it cannot pay back

b) a set of countries that do not have a record of mismanagement and have the ability to help out a country that is in debt

If we take your metaphor we could say the choice is:

a) do not accept the terms and starve to death

b) cut off your arm and live with rules to live by to prevent the scenario from repeating

Let me rephrase your first (b).

b) a set of banks who were willingly ignorant that they were lending to a state with a history of bankruptcy over many decades, because they believed/knew that when push came to shove the EU (taxpayers) would bail them out (which they did. You realise that the Greek "bailout" was a bailout of the EU banks that lent to the Greek state).

I think it is widely accepted that the terms imposed on Greece were unreasonable – not just because they caused very high unemployment and poverty, but also because they were based on a completely unrealistic assessment of the country’s ability to pay back its debt. A good book on the topic (and much else) is Adam Tooze’s Crashed.

>Except the reforms were not reasonable.

So the optimal option would've been to leave Greece to its own devices?

The optimal option would have been to demand root and branch reforms in exchange for very substantial debt relief.

The EU's "financial support" means that Greece's economy will be in slow growth or recession with high unemployment for decades. That will probably lead to unhealthy governments. They would be better off if they had gone through with grexit when they had the chance.

The difference is that a military junta doesn't give the people a choice.

Contrary to that, the agreement with the EU was negotiated by multiple democratically elected governments and confirmed in a referendum.

They had a chance to make different choices and they still do. No one is taking their democratic rights away from them.

> the agreement with the EU was negotiated by multiple democratically elected governments and confirmed in a referendum.

Excuse me? Syriza reneged on the referendum result! The people spoke, and Tsipras did the opposite!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Greek_bailout_referendum#...

I was wrong (can no longer edit). The referendum did not confirm the bailout terms. In fact it went against the agreement, but the newly elected government still made a deal.

> The difference is that a military junta doesn't give the people a choice.

That's not true. Military junta gives you option. Serve us or be punished. Prison or death.

EU negotiators gave Greece a choice too. Agree to our demands or we destroy your economy.

Thing is, that works for Greece, since the debt was small compared to EU budget. That won't work for Italy or Spain.

And if they get debt relief, when Greece didn't, there are going to be problems.

>EU negotiators gave Greece a choice too. Agree to our demands or we destroy your economy.

No. The destruction was done in decades of mismanagement by successive Greek governments.

But if you think that I agree with the bailout terms you are mistaken. Quite the contrary. I think there should have been debt relief so that Greece can make a new start.

But I reject the idea that installing a dictatorship is comparable to not granting someone debt relief or not extending new loans to them.

a few decades ago

~70 years ago.

Check out Bolivia, Honduras, and the failed attempt at Venezuela for some more recent examples within the last 15 years.

The "attempted coup" in Venezuela was a couple crazy dudes who got rounded up immediately. You think that represents an attempted coup by the American government?

Are we forgetting Guaido’s coup attempt last year? He had full support of the US government. He went to the US Congress this year and was praised and lauded. This is after years of US sanctions on Venezuela.

Define "full support"? Do you mean a vigorous nod, or arms and air support?

I approved of that coup attempt. Does that responsibility for the coup can be laid at my feet?

It definitely was NOT a "real" attempted coup with full US backing. That being said, the guy in charge of the coup ran security for Trump at many events and explicitly mentioned his relationship with the president when recruiting people. I suspect that there was tacit knowledge and approval of the attempt from a few people in government but it definitely wasn't a well-funded operation, backed by the US.

> "the guy in charge of the coup ran security for Trump at many events and explicitly mentioned his relationship with the president when recruiting people."

Just so no one over-reads into this, it's important to point out that 'doing security for Trump' is essentially meaningless as Trump has frequently held stadium-sized public events and all kinds of local security contractors from off-duty police to mall cops are hired as temps to help do outer-ring security from parking lot patrol to outside line management. There's very little vetting because they have no special access to the president. The inner rings of presidential security are handled by active-duty law enforcement, then active-duty military/national guard and lastly the secret service.

I read a lengthy interview with a former special ops person that knew and occasionally worked with this guy up until recently. The guy was widely known to exaggerate his history, credentials and contacts. He tried to recruit his 'friend' to this effort but, according to the interviewed guy, anyone with half a clue avoided getting involved as the whole thing was clearly a half-assed cluster-fuck with no real support from anyone that matters. This erstwhile 'coup leader' appears to be no different than thousands of other ex-military dudes squeaking out a post-service living doing security contracting and playing at being a 'solder of fortune', except this guy was even more fringe than most. The only people that are known to have given him any real encouragement or money were some U.S.-base Venezuelan ex-pats fantasizing about over throwing the govt.

Honduras? Obama was friendly to Zelaya and condemned the coup.

> The way yellow-vests were treated in "democratic" France (hint: plastic bullets shot at demonstrators' eyes)

France is in no way behind the USA in repressing popular demonstrations.

AFAIR in France nobody sent out paramilitary units to quell the protests - read: instigate violence and save his/her election. And that makes for a huge difference. But if you prefer to ignore the facts not supporting your interpretation, well then...

> AFAIR in France nobody sent out paramilitary units to quell the protests

Only Benalla, the president's personal praetorian.

This is the current normal in many countries.

Actually many of these have been empowered by some kind of internet troll movement. The emergence of such parties is eerily similar - an overwhelming majority who is peeved at some designated and vilified minority getting even minor privileges. Plus a lot of ranting against left liberalism and globalism. They conveniently forget the fact that such egalitarian viewpoints have more or less assured a stable 75 years in recent world history. Nearly a century of peace in large parts of the world - this has been a great achievement unprecedented in the last 500 years.

Unfortunately for us, I think since Internet 2.0, this trend has been exacerbated by the echo chambers which constitute most social media.

>Actually many of these have been empowered by some kind of internet troll movement.

It's not a "movement". It's information warfare enabled by the fact that most information sources online don't even give lip service to the idea of separating propaganda and manipulation from honest public discussion.

The Russians are (obviously) getting very good at this, and other countries like China aren't far behind. Until companies like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and others recognize that protecting public discussion from interference isn't optional, you can expect this to continue.

The Russians didn't start this brand of insanity in the US, it has been a cornerstone of Republican policy for the past ~12 years. (And has been present, on a lower-key note, for the prior 20. The toxic culture war isn't anything new - Reagan was fighting it against homosexuals[1] and welfare queens 40 years ago.)

It's a monster of our own making. When politicians start courting that fringe, you get a virtuous cycle, where the fringe starts impacting policy, which emboldens and encourages more and more radicalization.

[1] Look at the rhetoric surrounding the AIDS epidemic, and tell me if anything has changed.

It's not just such countries. All political parties all around the world are doing similar things, and have their own troll farms and twitter armies. Look up the profiles of the "followers" of major world leaders. Many of them are 'shallow' - not old enough as profiles, and not enough activity.

It's naïve to think that companies are unaware of this. I think they actively encourage this outrage-fest, because it increases eyeballs. We are paying a heavy social price for a flawed advertisement revenue model.

You can look up the documentary on Cambridge Analytica. The logo _most_ prominently displayed the CEO's office is that of major Indian political party. And that party is not even the top dog in this game.

Exactly.

WWIII has already started - but its "hearts and minds" but with Corporatocracy and with covid being the opening salvo to drive fear and socially engineered behavior into the global populous.

You cant control 7B people without first taking over their minds.... (emotions and behaviors)

> They conveniently forget the fact that such egalitarian viewpoints have more or less assured a stable 75 years in recent world history. Nearly a century of peace in large parts of the world - this has been a great achievement unprecedented in the last 500 years.

Isn't a large part of this from nuclear detente?

I'm from Hungary and I agree. I don't think this is a democracy. In fact it never was. We never recovered from communism we just changed the old mafia to a new one.

"recovered from communism"

Recover what? You say it as if what was before communism was better than communism.

Communism was probably the best system ever to exist in Hungary up until 1989, at least it was certainly the best to last.

It wasn't democratic by any means, but to me it's weird to say "recovered from communism", as if there was something before communism to recover.

To the person who downvoted I ask, which pre-1989 political system of Hungary was better than communism?

Hungary exists as an independent nation since 31 July 1921. Since then, these are the political systems that lasted any significant amount of time:

- Kingdom of Hungary: created anti-semitic laws before the nazis, waged wars of conquest against it's neighbors and collaborated with the Nazi regime, perpetrator of Holocaust

- 1944 until the end of world war: Nazi control of Hungary, perpetrator of Holocaust

- until 1989: a few years of Soviet military occupation, then Communism

- since 1989 current system

So which of the pre-communist political systems of Hungary is the one worth recovering in your opinion?

May I suggest you re-evaluate your history reference material?

Which pre-communist political system of Hungary do you wish to recover?

Exactly like in Portugal, except for the religious leaders.

And India, but includes religious leaders.

A democracy doesn't give you the right to block traffic and public transportation every weekend because you think you have an important cause.

In a free democracy, it actually kind of does. As long as it is done peacefully and with willingness to engage in open dialogue. The ability to influence the powerful and rich requires being able to force their hand to have discussions. Without it, the democracy crumbles. And despite the irritation it may cause you or I, peacefully shutting down transit is one of the levers that doesn't require that power/money.

"As long as it is done peacefully and with willingness to engage in open dialogue. "

No, it absolutely does not.

You have absolutely not right to suppress other people with your ideology for anything other than a moment.

"Without it, the democracy crumbles"

This is completely false.

There is no such thing as 'peaceful' closure of public transit, it's only authoritarian, frankly.

There are exactly 0 examples of 'democracy crumbling' because protestors were not able to stop public transit and public roads.

In very certain terms - you don't have the right to close public spaces, to stop public activity with your political ideology.

It's completely illegal if 1 of you do it, it doesn't make it legal if 1000 of you do it, though you might get away with just a fine or whatever if you 'take it down' soon enough.

It's helpful to think of a cause that you don't support, or are perhaps against, even think of as 'immoral' and consider how you'd react if they shut your office down every few days.

It depends on where you live. Where I live, I certainly am legally able to block the road as an individual. I have to do so peacefully and if I'd like to do more, file the appropriate permit. But I certainly can.

I don't have to think about it. My office has been shutdown on multiple occasions by causes I don't agree with (we are located by federal land). In fact, it happens at least once a year. Not once have I wanted the protesters to be prevented or forced to disperse. Is it an inconvenience? Yes. But it is their right and a right that is critical to democracy.

No it does not. In a democracy you are to free to voice your opinion, any way you prefer as long as it does not infringe on others' lives.

Blocking the road to work, hospital, etc. is infringing on others.

You seem to be conflating "democracy" with "libertarian" or some flavor of anarchist or some vague notion of "good" Democracy means "the people rule"

There are two kinds of protests. One where you go on the main square with a banner inviting people to join your fight for a noble cause. And the other is... well, not that many will join you in your fight for full pockets and you know it. So you go for the next round-about, straight on.

Yes, it does. It may be inconvenient, but that is part of the democratic game. The option is to live in an authoritarian regime.

If the people blocking roads were a majority of the population, they wouldn't need to engage in such protests.

Control of the majority by the minority is by definition not democratic.

Authoritarian regimes are the exact ones who control the majority with a small minority of the population.

Tyranny of the majority can happen and so allowing minority populations to protest is part of democracy.

No it doesn't. Democracy means you have the freedom (free press, independent judicial system, etc) to vote for the government you want. It doesn't mean you get the government you want. And it surely doesn't mean you get to block something because you don't get what you want. A democracy is not a kindergarten.

If people are in the street demonstrating, this is a sign that something is not right. Unless there is some mental disease going on, people will not let their fulfilling lives to be protesting against living conditions. This is a sign that something is broken and should be fixed, which is the whole of government, even if that government is not the one that I voted for. This is democracy 101.

This is a confused argument to me and I think many other comments in this thread are similarly confused. By confused I don't necessarily mean "wrong" but more like "muddled" or hard to understand.

I'm coming at this from a US point of view but would be interested in hearing other perspectives.

In casual use I think "democracy" is best understood to mean the more technically accurate concept of "democratic republic" and additionally that there are a core set of individual rights that are not subject to infringement by the majority via legislation. One of the primary roles of the government is to protect those individual rights.

The right to peaceful assembly, to free speech, to association, and to petition the government are all protected and foundational to what we might call "protesting" or "demonstrating".

I think "democracy" is generally used as a short-hand to refer to this bundle of ideas and not to the concept of a "direct democracy" where "majority rules" is the operating principle with no limitations.

But those rights aren't absolute and they have to be balanced with rights of others who aren't participating in the protest. If your group is no longer peaceful, or your speech is inciting violence, or your group is unlawfully impeding the free movement of others, or your actions are in fact crimes against people or property then you are no longer engaging in protected activities.

Blocking a public right-of-way without permission (like getting a parade permit, for example) is infringing on other people's rights and is not peaceful. It is not protected activity. It is dangerous and puts other people at risk. Similarly arson, vandalism, and other destruction of property is not part of the idea of "peaceful protest" and is not protected activity.

What does any of that have to do with democracy? A democratic government can still kill people in various immoral ways. A democracy can have slaves, apparently! Why can't democratic civilians be violent?

Hard to sort out what you are saying.

I was pointing out that "democracy" doesn't mean that "protest" is automatically lawful, which was the confused assertion of the comment I was responding to.

I'm not sure what anything I wrote has to do with government killing people in "immoral ways" or democracy having slaves or civilians being violent. That just seems to be a bunch on non-sequiturs.

I'll attempt to respond though:

Government officials can obviously act in immoral ways regardless of the political system. But that is basically just a statement that people have free will. Laws don't magically make people obey them, so we can have a discussion about what is or isn't lawful but the statement that people can be immoral is just an obvious assertion about humanity without some specific fact pattern to discuss.

A liberal democracy that upholds individual rights (which I claimed was what people mean when they use the shorthand "democracy"), can't simultaneously assert the legality of slaves. That is a contradiction. Of course reality can be full of contradictions and people and governments can fail to adhere to their own laws. Is that some surprise to you?

It is hard to know what "Why can't democratic civilians be violent" means. People have free will so of course they can be "violent" and those actions may or may not be crimes, depends on the motivation and target of the "violence".

Yes, people can protest, nobody is arguing that.

But you can't block the highway, subway, or traffic and it has little to do with 'democracy'.

The only reason people are not cleared out sooner, is because politicians are afraid of ugly images - it's hard to physical move people with someone, somewhere getting hurt.

If there were an easy way to move people, they'd be moved.

People can picket all they want in front of Parliament or wherever, just not on the subway tracks.

Dying in an ambulance or shot to death because police could not get there because "democratic" protests block the road is not inconvenient.

Police are incredibly unlikely to save you from being shot, they mostly clean up after the fact.

And protesters tend to allow ambulances to get through, because most of them aren't monsters.

" but that is part of the democratic game. The option is to live in an authoritarian regime."

Both of those statements a very false.

I can't really speak for the media landscape of Hungary, but on a general basis a diverse media landscape that allows for different and even unpopular opinions, is very important for a functioning democracy, because, believe it or not, but Hungary is in fact a democracy. Unlike most other states in the EU, Orbán enjoys a clear parliamentary majority. That means that his policies enjoy wide support within the national assembly. Moreover, it means that whatever he proposes will be voted in much more easily.

On the other hand, the Hungarian opposition owning such a small minority, may even feel oppressed because of it. This is why I think it's unfortunate if this alternative media outlet is indeed being pressured into being more polite towards the sitting government. But speaking of poor resources among alternative and fringe media may also be misleading. In some respects it is no different than the alternative media in Left leaning countries, such as Sweden or Norway. Over here it is the alternative Right Wing media that are on the brink of extinction, and Left Wing supporters are constantly calling for their defunding and cancellation, even resorting to call out or boycott businesses who dare advertise with them.

This tactic certainly seems to have worked with the big tech companies. Moreover there seems to be little to no discussion in Left Wing media about the larger ongoing censorship happening in Western Europe and the USA. As such, some may even call this event welcome when compared to what is happening on giant platforms like Twitter, Google, Facebook or YouTube. However I'm unsure if fighting cancel culture with more cancel culture is a very bright idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com