▲ 145 ▼ Younger Americans are friendlier to China (www.economist.com) submitted 2 years ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hot take. What's the eli5 behind the idea? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this. I don't necessarily agree with "moral". In western democracies laws and use of force doesn't legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn't make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children) It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework. Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign. So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Authoritarianism was a bullshit term invented by child-fucker libertarians to frame themselves as being the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago And every functional family. permalink fedilink source parent [–] anewbeginning@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hot take. What's the eli5 behind the idea? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this. I don't necessarily agree with "moral". In western democracies laws and use of force doesn't legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn't make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children) It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework. Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign. So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this. I don't necessarily agree with "moral". In western democracies laws and use of force doesn't legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn't make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children) It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework. Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign. So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this. I don't necessarily agree with "moral". In western democracies laws and use of force doesn't legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn't make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children) It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework. Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign. So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children) It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework. Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign. So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children) It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework. Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign. So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] feminalpanda@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Authoritarianism was a bullshit term invented by child-fucker libertarians to frame themselves as being the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago And every functional family. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anewbeginning@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That makes no sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent