> People waking up to the fact that the West and the East are equally bad
The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent that's why they don't need to use violence as openly as not-so-rich countries. When their monopoly is threatened, they act equally ruthlessly.
> The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent that's why they don't need to use violence as openly as not-so-rich countries.
Disregarding the fact that proving your angle is super hard.
So what? It sure beats beating and killing people.
> When their monopoly is threatened, they act equally ruthlessly.
Ok, but if they don't have to do that all the time, it <<still>> makes them better.
It's a tough pill to swallow, go check military casualties for wars. Get back to me after reading Wikipedia pages (so nothing super fancy) for 50-100, chosen randomly, and tell me how many have higher casualty rates for the Western party.
My back of the napkin analysis says that at most 10% of those wars have more Western casualties.
At the end of the day, that's what it boils down to. If you find ways to avoid violence and when you do have to become violent your stuff is better armorer, moves faster, shoots farther, flies higher, well, that's because someone ultimately, to some degree, maybe because they were forced by public consensus, respected citizens' lives.
It doesn't much matter how you get to that respect if you do get there more than your perceived rivals.
> The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent
Can you elaborate on this? Resources I agree with - but that boils down to controlling dissent by just removing a source of it which is not the same as controlling dissent by cracking down
> controlling dissent by just removing a source of it which is not the same as controlling dissent by cracking down
You will have to elaborate on how these two phrasings mean different things i.e. what's the difference between "cracking down" on the sources of dissent and "removing" the sources of dissent, and why you support one and condemn the other (if you do.)
Cracking down - the government suppresses dissent by force.
Removing the source of dissent - this means solving the underlying issue that would otherwise cause the dissent. This would be government/society providing for the needs and desires of it’s population.
I think most would agree that the first is much worse than the second.
The West has resources and well-oiled propaganda machinery in place to control the dissent that's why they don't need to use violence as openly as not-so-rich countries. When their monopoly is threatened, they act equally ruthlessly.