Hacker News Reader

> And let's not forget that people always have a choice of leaving or changing their government

Absolutely don't agree. People definitely don't typically have that power. In authoritarian nations not even motivated majorities might not be able to overthrow their government.

It's a quite rude thing to claim, implying that any time there's a cheating, lying, corrupt bastard leader around, it's because their people choose them.

I'd argue that in the last decades revolution has actually become increasingly difficult because law enforcement authorities benefit a lot from the improvements to surveillance and communication technology.

It's not rude at all. It's true. Those bastard leaders are there because their people refuse to do anything about it, and a large fraction of those people serve in the military and police forces to keep the bastard in power. The only way a "motivated majority" can be unable to overthrow their government is if a very sizeable, motivated minority holds a lot of military power somehow (which was arguably the case in Saddam's Iraq, where the Sunni minority oppressed the other two minority groups). Usually, this is not the case.

The people are almost always to blame for their authoritarian leadership. I'll give a pass to a few people, such as the Kurds in Saddam's Iraq who actively resisted his rule, but generally speaking the people are the ones ultimately to blame. It's quite rude to claim that people have no agency and somehow are magically forced to do the bidding of a geriatric leader.

I understand your perspective. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but just adding a few notes.

When it comes to certain historical events or experiences, there are nuances that can only be truly understood by those who have lived through them. This does not mean that those who haven't experienced a particular event or lived through a specific period of history are incapable of contributing to the discussion or forming valid opinions.

The world we live in is indeed far from black and white. It is filled with shades of gray, and acknowledging this complexity is essential when discussing matters of politics, power, and oppression. Recognizing the intricacies involved helps us avoid oversimplifications and enables us to delve into a more comprehensive analysis.

Opressive regimes throughout history have demonstrated their ability to manipulate people and gain and perpetuate power. It is a phenomenon worth studying and understanding. By examining historical examples, we can gain insights into the factors and mechanisms that contribute to the rise and longevity of oppressive regimes.

Revolutionary movements do exist, but they are often the result of a long process that builds up over time. Social, economic, and political factors intertwine in complex ways, eventually leading to significant changes.

>Opressive regimes throughout history have demonstrated their ability to manipulate people and gain and perpetuate power.

Of course, this is indeed true. We can see it in Russia today, with so many people believing the lies from the regime, and security forces working to suppress outside news or views. But this doesn't excuse those people IMO. Committing a horrible crime against a victim because someone else convinced you that the victim somehow deserved it does not excuse your crime. If you pull the trigger, ultimately you're responsible, not the guy urging you to do so. The Nuremberg trials put to rest, for once and for all, that "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. If we want to progress as a species into a future with a more peaceful and enlightened society, then we must hold everyone accountable for their actions, regardless of how deceived they were.

I’ve missed some previous context, not at all excusing those who commit crimes and perpetuate opressive regimes. They should be prosecuted and taken to trial.

I don't think you've missed any context, it's just the discussion continuing on a tangent I guess. Anyway, the question is: how do you prosecute the people who perpetuate oppressive regimes? Even when Nazi Germany fell, all the people responsible were not prosecuted; there were simply far too many. The top people were, of course, but low-level police or whoever were not. But all those people, collectively, are part of the problem, which is my point. It's not just a few jerks at the top, it's all the other people below them who enable them (especially the police or other security services). Should all the cops be rounded up and shoved into the gas chambers for their crimes of complicity? I don't think the court system can realistically prosecute that many people, and a few of them probably did try in some ways to resist.

There is no way in any shape or form that the same country the invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, steals OIL left, right and center, and supported more coups than anyone can be though of as caring for human rights.

They don't care at all, it never mattered.

> In each case there is a reason, you know, like a blatant violations of human rights, mass rapes, ethnic cleansings, things like that.

Some of those sanctions are for these reasons. Others are for geopolitical reasons.

Imagine China imposing sanctions on America for geopolitical reasons such that you are unable to buy food for your kids. This amount of power is never admired.