-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
lol at the reception in this thread to SA finally embracing a moderate islam. NY Times is looking at the bigger picture here. this isnt just about SA, it's about the direction islam will take in the 21st century. SA and this new Prince are full of shit, but the steps they are taking will change the course of history if this prince succeeds.
When people look back at these events in 50-100 years, no one is going to give a shit about regional conflicts SA had with Yemen and Iran. They will mark this as the time when Islam turned a new leaf. SA has incredible influence. they spent decades spreading wahabi islam and funding millions if not billions into terrorism. with SA going moderate, things will change drastically. NY Times knows this.
When people look back at these events in 50-100 years, no one is going to give a shit about regional conflicts SA had with Yemen and Iran. They will mark this as the time when Islam turned a new leaf. SA has incredible influence. they spent decades spreading wahabi islam and funding millions if not billions into terrorism. with SA going moderate, things will change drastically. NY Times knows this.
What the fuck am I reading here? If they are full of shit then how is anything gonna change?
Or MBS is selling you a bill of goods. Think about the type of person who could work their way to the top of the pecking order in the Saudi royal family. That's not exactly the type of person that you would be well served placing blind faith in.
Saudi Arabia's conservatism has been a ground up movement, not a top down action. Evidenced by the Grand Mosque Seizure.
-Maybe the people are willing... I don't know.
-Maybe the people are willing... I don't know.
I mean in theory that's sound, the problem is very few people can handle that sort of power without being corrupted by it, regardless of their original intentions. You make compromises because you feel that you're still better than the alternative, and over time those compromises grow in magnitude until it's a full on crusade. This is especially true in places with a deeply entrenched elite who still hold significant power. And it's not an easy issue to solve because they need to walk a tightrope between being too harsh and tyrannical and being so lenient that they end up with a knife in the back.
To compound this problem, the people who end up in autocratic positions are rarely "worthy" because getting into that type of position usually entails a kind of drive for power and ambition that is easily corruptible
Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical. This is hardly the first time we've heard of reformist princes in Saudi Arabia, and I'm sure it won't be 5he last. If he actually gets reforms through, that's great obviously. I just doubt it'll happen. At least the recent arrests have given me a bit of hope, but that may have been a power play more the than anything else.
I'm not entirely sure his gender has much to do with it, and it's silly to think that's the case. More likely, the idea of reform in SA gets views, which is why we've seem stories like this in the past, despite not happening. Similar to many totalitarian governments. Remember how Un was supposed to be a reformer in Korea? Yeah, me too.
I'm not entirely sure his gender has much to do with it, and it's silly to think that's the case. More likely, the idea of reform in SA gets views, which is why we've seem stories like this in the past, despite not happening. Similar to many totalitarian governments. Remember how Un was supposed to be a reformer in Korea? Yeah, me too.
I dont think its the optimism that gets "views". Like I said before, articles like these make SA more palatable to the US. You cant pretend to be the good guys and align yourself with the likes of SA, so you do fluff pieces like these to make your country believe that you arent allied with evil.
Yeah besides you knowing, pumping billions of petrol dollars to spread that filth of wahabbi Islam to every corner of the muslim world. Salafi madrasahs from Pakistan to the Maghreb have been polluting the minds of two generations of muslim youth. You don't need to get involved militarily to meddle like the Saudis have done.
This should be a great example of a PR puff piece to students in the coming years. Yes, I'm rooting for MBS to liberalize Saudi Arabia as much as possible, but come on Friedman. The hyperbole and idiotic comparisons are unacceptable coming from an outlet like the NYT.
You're not wrong in general, but Thomas Friedman built a career out of telling people in the west that things are actually fine and you don't need to worry too much or change the way you live. Really, things are pretty great, believe me, sure, I was wrong about everything and yeah, we hit a snag or two, but we're fine, you're fine, everyone is fine.
And that dumbass built a pretty damn nice career out of it, so there's definitely a audience for that.
He's behind one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world (yemen).
Using the guise of reform. He tried to take control of media, he took a neighboring country's leader and two Saudi royals hostage. The neighboring country's leader owns a news station, and the 2 Saudi billionaires have large stakes in multi national media conglomerates (that they refused to sell their stakes to the crowned prince).
The western media has largely ignored both the war, and his attempts to restrict and control the media in the region.
I would more than anything like for the region to move away from wahabism/extremism and giving women equal rights.
At the same time seeing people ignore the above while singing praise of the crown prince is concerning.
On the one hand, MBS is doing some good things for Saudi Arabia, on the other hand... Thomas Friedman
Basically, yeah. Churchill's claim that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" rings truest. Or another quote, from Douglas Adams, "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it..."
Basically, where I believe a benevolent dictatorship is the best way of doing things, there would then be no controls, no insurances, against a malevolent dictator as a successor somewhere down the line. This poses the largest problem with the idea outside of theory. But even then, I believe democracy is irrevocably flawed due to the lack of care for information pertaining to it, the inherent green and tribalism that is the human condition perpetuates suffering, and the political will to change things enough to alleviate that suffering must be borne from the knowledgeable.
Or, put another way, I don't believe in liberal democracy, but it's kind of all we have that kinda sorta works. Like when a belt breaks on your car and you use your pantyhose as a stopgap, but instead of fixing it with a new belt, we just keep putting different pairs of pantyhose in its place when they're stretched, torn, and unusable. And on and on it goes.
Typically, the people most suited to rule in the manner I'm describing are also those least trustful of themselves to be able to rise to that challenge in the first place, so they actively avoid such conditions.
In essence, it feels as if we've given up. That we were so happy that our pantyhose "fixed" the broken belt that we never thought that, perhaps we could just replace the belt.
We can still fix the belt by bolstering our liberal democracy but I doubt that as much as I doubt MBS is going to be a force for "good," or whatever passes for it these days.
There's also the issue that while it's easy to talk about benevolent dictators enacting unpopular policies because they don't need to cave to public opinion, this is more in theory than in practice, because if the public is unwilling to follow a policy (regardless of whether that policy would ultimately benefit the public), you're left with very few options for getting it to happen properly because no matter the form of government everything ultimately depends on the public at large complying. Tyrannical dictators can get around this by forcing people to comply at gun point, but getting people to accept unpopular policies without violence or the threat thereof can be very, very difficult. No matter who you are one person can not make and enforce the law alone
We have that same problem here in the US, too, though. Unpopular policies, even when pushed by unpopular politicians, and even when universally derided and scorned, will tend to stick around because those very same unpopular policies are popular to monied interests, OR they work better than alternatives. And, if you don't abide by those policies, you'll be fined, threatened, and, if need be, attacked by the very violent police force, federal or otherwise. So that's kind of a wash -- it's not perfect, but basing your rule off of what is popular is not in actuality a precursor to democratic election OR benevolent dictatorship.
However, where basing your rule off of what is BEST isn't a precursor to democratic election, it would be for a benevolent dictatorship, lest you succumb to the standard problems of any kleptocratic autocracy, like Russia. Or like the United States has the very real risk of descending into.
You can get unpopular policies through and implemented, but it usually depends on the level of awareness and unpopularity, as well as how they balance with other policies. Stuff like net neutrality gets through despite being wildly unpopular because most of the public isn't very aware and/or does not place it high on a priority list while voting. Not to mention the US does still heavily lean on other methods of placating the populace such as misinformation campaigns among other tactics. But if an issue is hot button enough and ingrained enough in public consciousness, getting it through will always come with conflict, regardless of government system. A perfect example of this in democracy is slavery in America and the civil war
I stopped giving Friedman the time of day a long time ago. Naive doesn't begin to describe his vision of the Middle East.
That being said, I sincerely hope Saudi Arabia experiences a turn for the better. Their actions in Yemen do not inspire confidence, however.
That being said, I sincerely hope Saudi Arabia experiences a turn for the better. Their actions in Yemen do not inspire confidence, however.
Yeah, very promising and he has delivered some of his more progressive ideas. He's already lifted women's restriction from driving and permitted mixed gender access to stadiums for events, this may seem insignificant but for a conservative kingdom this is a drastic change . Im sure he's getting a lot of heat from the powerful extremists within certain sections of government but he's done more then anyone in Saudi Arabia has in a long time.
Im cautious but hopeful that we'll see significant change. At least there's something to hope for. But, yeah, the treatment of Yeman and resentment for Iran is problematic, if he truly want SA to modernise and become more mainstream and to gain any form of goodwill he'll need to remove such backwards ideas, otherwise he's a different flavour of crazy.
Im cautious but hopeful that we'll see significant change. At least there's something to hope for. But, yeah, the treatment of Yeman and resentment for Iran is problematic, if he truly want SA to modernise and become more mainstream and to gain any form of goodwill he'll need to remove such backwards ideas, otherwise he's a different flavour of crazy.
Last edited:
Right. And the liberal democracy as it is known today throughout the US is one where there is material benefit from misinformation, disinformation, and the lack of information. Democracy, like capitalism, functions best when every actor is well informed. However, that has been shown to be an impossible task. The fight for net neutrality is how democracy is SUPPOSED to work, given the longshot that is the defeat of 'destruction of net neutrality' actually works.
Even if we put things on the ballot, there are far too many people who can't speak 'lawyer,' and, being laws, they have to be written as such. There will always be people who will be contrarian to the party line, but as the myriad malevolent dictatorships have shown, it takes a lot more effort to resist than to go along for the ride, and as long as you aren't affected in your day-to-day, nobody will give a shit about the communists trying to stop the nazis, or the bolsheviks trying to stop the royalists, or the antifa trying to fight the fascists, or so on and so forth. They typically believe what they are told and put no further thought into it, and why would they? Politics and business, all of those decisions are made by faceless men but it's still turned out alright for them. Who cares?
And that's why we have Trump. Therein lies the flaw of democracy, the flaw of capitalism, and the flaw of the human condition.
Now, this might just be the misanthropy that has overtaken every aspect of my life talking, but when surrounded by people who scarcely think for themselves, who notice nothing of the suffering they are surrounded by, even when they, themselves, are suffering in it, and yet do nothing...I don't believe democracy can ever truly work. At best, it's "not a complete failure for a while." And that's not good enough.
Faceless AI Overlord 2020
E: Also this is going way off topic, but it was a nice conversation, we could take it to PM instead if you'd like but this is about Saudi Arabia, not so much what I think about governmental systems.
User was banned for 24hrs for antisemitism
He's a Zionist puppet and he will fail.
But he will rip his nation apary doing so.
Good news is it is always darkest before dawn.
But he will rip his nation apary doing so.
Good news is it is always darkest before dawn.
Seems to me he is liberalizing Saudi Arabia which is a good thing but at the same time enforcing an iron rule and appears to be going down a dictator path.
I would love for SA to enter the 21st century in a positive way, but a lot of the things going on over there set off alarm bells in my head. All these arrests and the militaristic posturing and the cuddling up with Trumpypoo...it sounds like the recipe for an international incident in the near future.
Same Wahhabism does and still exists, MBS is himself a wahhabi. All 9/11 terrorists hated the previous kingdom and wanted to topple it . The previous kingdom was itself terrible but what MBS wants to do is take the Arab spring and x2 with conflict and war. This is not the time to attempt to provoke Iran with Israel and risk world war starting from this region where US and Russia are already involved. Why is he disturbing Lebanon potentially turning it into another Syria. Why is he attacking Qatar for being independent of the Arab hive mind. Why is he literally starving 100,000s if not millions soon of Yemenis.
You thought 9/11 was bad. Guess what happens if saudis and allies go to war with Iran and allies . World won't have many living souls left soon after that
People are rightfully worried about stuff like Fake News, but the shit that major publications like New York Times does is so fucking insidious. Don't forget that they were an instrumental propaganda tool in starting up the Iraq War.
The secularists were the ones initially behind the revolution, only for the religious crazies to jump on board and hijack the movement. Not too dissimilar to what happened in Egypt with the MB. I still don't understand why they invited the Ayatollah back into the country.
If I got a dollar for every time I've heard about someone being a Zionist puppet, or Israel being behind something, I'd be a millionaire before I hit puberty.
How is he a Zionist puppet? Saud Arabia have always supported Palestine politically. They are literally the largest doners to the Palestinian government. They do not even recognize Israel as a country.
There is a lot about Saudi Arabia that I dislike. And now they've started to change that.
This is a fluff piece, sure. But there is a lot of truth to it. Women driving, having concerts, these are all things that are happening.
I disagree greatly with Saudi's foreign policy and how they handled Bahrain, Yemen and Qatar. But it's not like they did it all for shits and giggles. Iran has major influence all around them. To the south they have Iranian backed Houthi terrorists trying to topple the democratically elected government, and shooting Iranian rockets at them. To the north they have Hezbollah, and Iranian troops in Syria and Iraq.
I don't doubt there are some good things to pick out of current trends in Saudi Arabia, among the crackdown and power grab, but the tone of that article is just embarrassing. No dictator should be lauded like that, and no journalist should be that easy for some prince to wow.
Obviously not going to endorse any post calling anyone a Zionist puppet, but it is worth noting that amidst all that money for Palestine, the Saudis really have pursued a quiet alliance with Israel over Iran. The Palestinian cause matters to them, but the anti-Iranian cause matters more.
Obviously not going to endorse any post calling anyone a Zionist puppet, but it is worth noting that amidst all that money for Palestine, the Saudis really have pursued a quiet alliance with Israel over Iran. The Palestinian cause matters to them, but the anti-Iranian cause matters more.
It's a bit bittersweet, as a Finn, to see some countries taking the right steps with their education system while our own current government is determined to run down the system which has been the core driver behind the little success we've had after WW2. They announced ridiculous cuts into education pretty much first thing they did even though they campaigned with a promise no cuts would be made. And the worst thing about the whole thing is judging by the polls people don't give a shit :/
As for, S-A, awesome sauce!
Not to mention the IDF chief has stated that Israel is willing to work with SA in sharing intel against Iran... Guess it's "Enemy of an enemy is a friend" for Saudi Arabia...
I agree here, but that might be the one thing he cannot do. He'd have to Ataturk the country in order to do that.
He's taking a huge risk here, I hope for the world's sake it works. That said, I doubt the American right would want it work- it would take away their most convenient enemy.
This paper's abstract seems pretty dead-on here: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...9075081025096024127125082111099101000&EXT=pdf
Also, around 50% of the population is under 25, he's totally banking on having the support of young people.
Also, around 50% of the population is under 25, he's totally banking on having the support of young people.
Its a scam.
Guys. I'll do a longer post about it when I get on my computer but SA have done these PR pushes for moderacy for decades.
It never amounts to anything, and is mostly a ploy for good investments.
Its not a new thing.
https://www.google.dk/amp/s/www.was...am-but-critics-wonder-what-it-will-look-like/
Guys. I'll do a longer post about it when I get on my computer but SA have done these PR pushes for moderacy for decades.
It never amounts to anything, and is mostly a ploy for good investments.
Its not a new thing.
https://www.google.dk/amp/s/www.was...am-but-critics-wonder-what-it-will-look-like/
The fact that a civil war doesn't erupt today is because his father is sill alive; and they still trying to diverse attention to Iran. But good luck trying to push that two years down the road. Taking the pie from the entrenched church establishment have led to many wars in history.
I am not even sure he has secured the army. This should always the top priority for a dictator.
edit: Tom Friedman actually has worked in ME for a number of years, he should know better to push out junk like this.
I am not even sure he has secured the army. This should always the top priority for a dictator.
edit: Tom Friedman actually has worked in ME for a number of years, he should know better to push out junk like this.
Last edited:
