undefined | Better HN

0 pointsavmich8y ago0 comments

> the feeling is that there is a massive potential for chaos and that the iron grip of the government prevents that chaos from emerging

This is similar to how Russian government presents the situation in Russia, and lots of people getting the information from government channels tend to agree with that.

The difference is that China is moving ahead economically much faster than Russia today. As soon as advancement stops, subsequent talks about maintaining stability are met with slowly growing scepticism. Stability is only good when it a stable advancement or if the state of affairs is perceived as good (i.e., after recent raising out of abject poverty). As soon as stability is preserving the undeserving status quo, it's not as good.

This change of view may not necessarily happen soon after slowdown though.

0 comments

RobertoG8y ago

>"[..] the situation in Russia, and lots of people getting the information from government channels [..]"

It's not only people getting the information from government.

I have spoken to Russians living in the European Union, that don't support the current Russian government, and there is an agreement that the current situation is better that the 90's , that they frequently describe like the "wild west".

This is, I think, one of the reasons of the popularity of Putin in Russia.

vidoc8y ago

>>"[..] the situation in Russia, and lots of people getting the information from government channels [..]" > It's not only people getting the information from government.

Getting the majority of information through government media is widely known as not necessary to having the populace think exactly how the government wants it to. In fact, an independent/private media can be more pro government than a government stated media, extremely well known paradox.

Look no further than the united states and make a very simple exercice: pick a random media of just any political stance, pick a random foreign policy or national security topic and count the number of times you dont see gospel of the state department.

woodandsteel8y ago

>Look no further than the united states and make a very simple exercice: pick a random media of just any political stance, pick a random foreign policy or national security topic and count the number of times you dont see gospel of the state department.

That's simply not true. Take any international issue and look at the mainstream media and you will find lots of debate. To take just one example, in the run-up to the Iraq War, there were many well-known voices both for and against it.

I may be wrong, but I am guessing you know this perfectly well, and are trying to mislead people for some political or ideological motive.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse