this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
522 points (93.9% liked)

World News

39041 readers
3117 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Video footage broadcast Wednesday by Al Jazeera shows Israeli soldiers gunning down two Palestinians on the coast of northern Gaza, even as one of them waves what appears to be a piece of white fabric. The video then shows Israeli soldiers burying the bodies with a bulldozer.

Richard Falk, former United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, toldAl Jazeera that the footage provides "vivid confirmation of continuing Israeli atrocities" and spotlights the "unambiguous character of Israeli atrocities that are being carried out on a daily basis."

"The eyes and ears of the world have been assaulted in real-time by this form of genocidal behavior," said Falk. "It is a shocking reality that there has been no adverse reaction from the liberal democracies in the West. It is a shameful moment."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Partial abdication, I'll grant that. What is ideological is to assume that something else exhibiting coercive power is some inherent negative. Liberalism specifically does not want a full monopoly on coercive power to be in the hands of any single system or institution. Instead it spreads it out.

That you see that as some negative or flaw is simply representative of your own position. Many institutions wielding coercive power is not inherently dangerous, just perhaps inefficient.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Liberalism specifically does not want a full monopoly on coercive power to be in the hands of any single system or institution.

But it does nothing to prevent it from accumulating, and does even less to prevent a state from accumulating too much power. A sovereign state that is dependent on the economic support of another that is 50+ times its size is no more free from tyranny than one living under the imperialist occupation of a monarch.

That you see that as some negative or flaw is simply representative of your own position

I don't see anything negative about spreading power into as many hands as possible, but I'm not delusional enough to believe liberalism can achieve that if it ignores the inherent power in capital.

Liberalism was foundational to transitioning away from monarchical power, but was simply ill-equipped (possibly intentionally so) to anticipate the inevitable failures caused by ignoring/denying the existence of power exercised through capital and the accumulation thereof.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 3 points 7 months ago

Good read, thanks guys.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Did you really say exhibiting coercive power isn't inherently negative? I'd say in both imperialism and Neocolonialism it certainly is as it's used to exploit the global south population and resources at their expense.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, I said: What is ideological is to assume that something else exhibiting coercive power is some inherent negative.

It can certainly be considered negative. Considering it so is ideological, however.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how exhibiting coercive power can be considered positive or neutral, especially in the context of imperialism or neocolonialism

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's fine. My point is that other ideologies would disagree. Fascism, for instance, is an ideology where coercive power is considered positive.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is your point that dehumanization is necessary for coercive power to be considered a positive? If so I agree.

I don't understand how you consider institutions that wield coercive power to not be inherently dangerous. Seems like they certainly are for the people getting coerced.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. All I was saying is that all of this is ideological in nature. Because someone was trying to say it wasn't.

What is or isn't dangerous, the importance of humanity, the role of institutions, this is all ideology.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was trying to understand what you're saying when you say

Many institutions wielding coercive power is not inherently dangerous, just perhaps inefficient.

Because the danger of coercion to the people being coerced is very real for any ideology. I agree that whether wielding coercive power is seen as a positive or a negative depends on ideology.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Hm. Valid question. In my view all forms of influence are fundamentally coercive at a certain level. I perhaps misspoke when I said they're not inherently dangerous though. Instead that danger gets spread out in a way where diverging interests and goals are meant to help keep that in check, in the liberal ideology. This is merely mitigation though, it does not actually diffuse the danger.