Exciting how?

How do you see the average person taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection? We live in a world of great dogmatic divisions - big question - is there are approach which less educated folk can employ to enlarge their perspectives? — Tom Storm

Why should the average person "take on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection"?
Why should the less educated folk "enlarge their perspectives"?

Seriously, can you answer that?

And is it even possible to answer that without sounding like yet another patronizing bourgeois?

I was thinking more in terms of exhilarating stuff that happen before we kick the bucket. — Agent Smith

You mean, the distractions?

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we in the West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"?
— baker

Free speech — Christoffer

I do not recall a single day of my life when I had "free speech".

and you don't get imprisoned or killed if you criticize those in power.

The scope of the consequences of criticizing those in power is a practical matter, not a moral one.

In the West, a common consequence of criticizing those in power is loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of clients. In some banana republic, people also get evicted, imprisoned, maimed, killed.

This difference can lead one to conclude that the powers that be in the West have respect for human life, while those in a banana republic don't. Such a conclusion would be a hasty one. The Western powers that be merely have more practical resources than those in a banana republic. If, however, those resources become scarce, the difference disappears. As can be seen when the police use real bullets to shoot protesters.

It's quite clear what I'm speaking about, isn't it?

I want you to spell it out, so that I can use it as a reference.

Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered.

I'll meet you at zero carbon footprint.

You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

A part of them do. Just like only a part of Westerners do.

Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for.

Talk about dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now!

Just try being poor in a first-world country.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. It's so irrelevant to just say "west bad" and present nothing else that is practically possible if the result is Russia's population being free of their authoritarian boot.

Well, self-sufficiency indeed seems awfully unrealistic and practically impossible.

Are you actually worried about the Russian people?
— baker

Uhhh, yeah, there are millions who don't want Putin and his bullshit, who want to live according to what I described as a free society. Why wouldn't I care for them?

Seems more like patronizing, rather than care.

So give me an alternative then. Why can't you just do that in order to prove the dichotomy wrong? Because you've only presented two alternatives, either Russia as it is now or western standards which means it becoming a consumerist hell hole. — Christoffer

No, that's all your doing. I said I want every country to be self-sufficient:

My vision for every country is to be self-sufficient.
(Even if this means economy on the preindustrial level.) — baker

If it were up to me, I would enforce self-sufficiency at all costs. How this works out in any particular case depends on the particular cirucmstances.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further.
— baker

That's why we have a representative democracy. But what are you actually saying here? Are you defending authoritarian dictatorship because giving the people power makes it worse? What's your point?

The masses cannot be trusted to make wise decisions. This is the entire scope of my claim.
That doesn't mean I "defend authoritarian dictatorship". The masses want panem et circenses. If they are allowed to pursue that, they will destroy everything.

This is an extreme oversimplification of everything and you still have no alternative to western society.

I favor self-sufficiency.

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of a state boot?

Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of limited natural (and other) resources.

A western society may make "drones" out of the masses, but it also generates outliers that can drive society in new directions. In an authoritarian society, it is even more impossible to be different from each other, you need to stay in line, otherwise, you'll get shot or imprisoned. Why do you think ethnic cleansing is a common thing within these authoritarian societies? Because anything different is a threat to the power. This is less common in western societies.

The way people in Western society are different from one another is trivial, superficial. Those differences are merely artificially trumped up, so that people can brag about them and their "tolerance".

The authoritarian reality of Russia makes its society worse than western societies, that is a fact.

You should read some modern Western books on psychology, such as the DSM. Then you'd understand what authoritarianism really is.

I can sit here and write openly with criticism against people in power and I won't get killed or become imprisoned, I can try and change things in society, but in Russia, I wouldn't be able to without risking a poisoned umbrella tip.

Being able to criticize those in power is overrated anyway. It doesn't affect those in power (other than to give them reason to retaliate). Moreover, the critics just want to air their outrage, vent their emotions. They aren't interested in constructive action.

So, if there are no alternatives, Russia should really become a westernized country. Because it's a corrupt authoritarian pariah state now, where people get imprisoned on a daily basis and state critics are either dead or in Siberia. To say that westernizing Russia is worse than what they have now is a fucking joke.

How politically correct.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what?
— baker

Of their authoritarian boot silencing them and making them unable to choose any other person in power than Putin. What the hell do you think I mean? Seriously do you have problems understanding this?

In the West, we have no freedom in terms of sex, food, how we go about relationships, what we think the meaning of life is, and so on. It's all prescribed, all standardized, normativized.
The freedoms that we do have pertain only to trivialities. It's a golden cage we're in.

Or are you just apologetic about Russia/Putin and deny what is going on there?

More pc.

Tell that to state critics six feet under after getting poisoned or those in prisons or free media or the people getting dragged off the street in busses. Are you seriously saying that western societies and Russia are "basically the same". Seriously?

The differences are only in terms of practical circumstances, but not in terms of morality.

You absolutely can. I don't know what the fuck you are writing now but it's just nonsense blanked opinions as some kind of valid premises. Seriously, either you live in a nation with broken democracy and you're biased because of it or you are just blind to more perspectives than this.

I can support whatever the fuck I want in my country and no one would do anything about it, I can write critically about the government or some party or leader or whatever and my employer can't do a thing about it.

Or, more likely, you're so politically correct that your "criticism" doesn't "rub anyone the wrong way".
From what you've said so far, you sound very politically correct, just the kind of person Western societies like.

This is not an example of authoritarian power. It's an example of either a demonstration getting out of control or police going too far. Has nothing to do with state control of the people in the way that is going on in Russia.

Again, you're failing to see the similarity.

Seriously, are you unable to understand the differences here?

You're unable to see the similiarity.

Understand the grey area we're discussing?

Hold on. You call it a "grey area"??

France is a fucking paradise compared to living in Russia now.

Try being poor in France then.

I'm asking for a practical solution here, not some blanket statements of how the west is a hellhole and therefore Russia is fine without it.

And I said: self-sufficiency.

Nice is-ought mistake there. — Benkei

No, that one is only in your mind. I'm not going to defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

Selective in your history too.

*sigh*

I didn't say all societies throughout history had a soldier class.

And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same.

Your use of "we" says otherwise.

And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy.

Then you need to read up on infanticide in animals:

In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of the same species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. The practice has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates (primate infanticide) but including microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals.[2] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

Infanticide caused by sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (often male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable.[3] This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fitness by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sex may have counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this practice.[3] It may also occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food between females. In this case individuals may even kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals as well.

And, of course, intrauterine cannibalism.

The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You are really mean. I addressed a topic, and you shot it down with a taboo.

Is this a philosophy forum or the watercooler??!!

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.
— baker
This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. — Alkis Piskas

The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people.

At what point is this deterioration/escalation justifiable? — Possibility

At the point when people take for granted that it is morally right to hate and despise others.

During my troubled-teen years of the 1980s, I observed how, in general, by ‘swinging first’ a person potentially places himself (or herself) in an unanticipated psychological disadvantage—one favoring the combatant who chooses to patiently wait for his opponent to take the first swing, perhaps even without the fist necessarily connecting. — FrankGSterleJr

Not in my experience.

Throwing the first stone (in whatever form, whether by being the first to offend, to act in bad faith, to hit, to call the police, or any combination of these) is usually how a person establishes his innocence and has a better chance of taking the moral high ground.

Being patient and waiting usually translates into being easy to take advantage of.

So time limits for goals, as part of the very goals themselves can be set by the individual who wants to achieve said goals, at least I often set time limits for myself in which to achieve certain goals, anybody else? — HardWorker

It's standard to do so. The term is "smart goals".

Skip to the interesting part storyteller, forget the buildup, I want to know how it ends! — Agent Smith

It ends in aging, illness, and death. How else?

I don't set goals. — Tom Storm

You let other people set goals for you?

(P2) The deaths of the five would not be worse than the death of the one.

I am looking for insight into proving the implausibility of P2. — Camille

Five terrorists vs. one infant.

In order to prove the implausibility of P2, you'd need to leave the realm of politically correct egalitarianism.

Note how the term "tragedy" is nowadays often used to describe a great variety of events happening to a great variety of people. But originally, in the ancient Greek context, tragedy was reserved for royals. One killed royal was a tragedy; a thousand killed commoners was not.

When I say "survival", I don't mean survive just as a body, i.e. "stay alive" or escape danger or death. Although in cases of sickness, threat, war, etc. it might mean just that, as a priority. There is another kind or level of survival beyond that, once that has been secured: "well-being". Happiness and pleasure are also two essential elements in human life. (In animal life too, if you just replace "happiness" with "satisfaction". Also ) But these are still very basic and common to everyone. Their opposite, "misery" and "pain", are leading towards death. There's a whole scale of survival here at work.

Yet, "survival" has a much broader meaning. It pertains to our financial situation, our relation with another person of the opposite sex --including sex itself-- our existence as fathers, employees, members of a group, citizens and human being in general. We need to survive from all these aspects too. Failure to do so, might not mean death, but it could mean poverty, separation or divorce, being dismissed from our job or group, and so on, as parallel and opposite situations of the above.

In short, we are surviving on a scale in various aspects of our life. — Alkis Piskas

Sure.

How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?
— baker
I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...

The concept of zombies concisely illustrates the futility of living merely for the sake of living.

You said earlier

ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival — Alkis Piskas

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival: the purpose of life. — Alkis Piskas

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.

My question is, with such ethical principles as you state above, how do we avoid the scenario in which a great number of people do survive for some duration of time, but they live lives of poor quality?

In practice, two notable solutions have been attempted: debt and reliance on charity or mercy of others.
In order to ensure current wellbeing, there is the practice of indebting oneself (and thus effectively gambling that one will be able to pay off the debt, with interests). Another is to rely on gifts from others, with no specified intention to repay them. Both of these attempted solutions make people rely on things that are not under their control, and as such, are less than feasible.

Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.

How is it for our benefit?

I think all socially directed violence is illegitimate. Only personal self-defence is legitimate. Whenever someone decides for others to go forth elsewhere and fight to the death, whatever the reason, it is ethically wrong whether we label that war a just war or not.

We're not made for this, and I mean that in a very real biological and mental sense — Benkei

What do you base this claim on?

Throughout history, pretty much every society has had a social class or category of soldiers, warriors. These were people whose primary or sole purpose in life was to go to war. Not every person is or can be a member of this class, but some are. You, however, seem to think that all people are the same, or should be the same.

If you take away thoughts, what is left of the self? Is there anything?

By thoughts I mean self talk, visualizations, and any other perceptual modality you use to think.

Without thoughts, is there self awareness? Without self awareness, is there awareness? — hypericin

What one considers to be an acceptable reply to these questions depends on one's intention for asking them. Because there are many ways to reply to these questions, each reply different according to the intention with which it was made, and its acceptability measured by the intention with which it was asked for.

My question would be whether there's any reason why improved algorithms, more compute, and more/better data won't eventually result in machines being as good as humans at translation? — jas0n

It depends on what we translate.
If the current trend toward idiocity is anything to go by, machine translation will soon surpass the average human.

One thing I didn't consider: without thoughts, we still have bodily feelings, and emotions. — hypericin

Do you know that, personally?

Are you able to have bodily feelings or emotions without also having some thoughts along with them?

Unless I am dissociated, this pain is my pain, and I am frightened.

To feel fear, one must already have certain beliefs about the workings of the world and the meaning of life.

He is terrified, but is unable to mentally formulate his situation in any way.

How do you know?
Is it because he merely can't speak or write, due to the stroke, or is he truly mentally disabled?

Then, his migraine fades away, replaced by an all encompassing numbness. Yet even numbness is a feeling, what he feels is nothing. His terror is replaced by a corresponding emotional blankness. He sees bright lights passing above him. He hears the doctors comment on his condition, but can't seem to understand. He smells the antiseptic odor of hospital, and tastes copper in his mouth. That is all. No thoughts, no feelings, no sense of the body. Can you empathize? Is this being strictly speaking still sentient?

If one measures oneself the way a not particularly compassionate external observer might judge one, then the result is going to be truly meagre.

No I don't. That is only my opinion. I agree, other people have other opinions, and they are free to express them, and I can then take issue with them, or not. — Wayfarer

No, you're not that modest. You speak with far more certainty.

My mother-in-law told me I'd never really understand Chekhov because I'm not Russian. — jamalrob

You don't and you won't. I don't know what exactly it is, but I can tell whether someone has it or not.
There is a certain "quality of the spirit" that a person either has or doesn't have.

Although I find that in modern times, this particular "quality of the spirit" is a disadvantage.

If there isn't a secondary alternative with the same level of quality for the citizens, then why don't we start with western standards and together improve up from there? — Christoffer

Because it's not possible, it's pragmatically not possible. Because Western standards are destructive. They destroy nature, they destroy people.

It still needs to be answered in order to have an alternative for Russia if the authoritarian regime collapses and something else is built upon those ruins. — Christoffer

Are you actually worried about the Russian people?

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here: — ssu

*sigh*

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673428

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673458

If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards? — Christoffer

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we inthe West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"?

Really, list the ways in which we are "free".

So there are no other roads to take? It's either the authoritarian regime imprisoning or poisoning critics of the state, propaganda to the point of total denying reality... or a consumerist hellhole? — Christoffer

How did you arrive at this dichotomy???

Because that is the dichotomy you are presenting here.

No, that's the one you're seeing.

If giving the population the individual freedom to choose their own path in life, to give them security in freedom of speech, to have real democratic elections (a democracy with low corruption is still the best system in existence, and if you don't agree then provide an example of a functioning alternative system), is the same as a consumerist hellhole, you might need to elaborate how you reach that conclusion.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further.

(By the way, this was the idea behind the US institution of the Electoral College: to make sure that some idiot wouldn't obtain a position of power simply because the majority of the people voted for him.)

Just because western culture has a lot of problems that a lot of modern philosophy is examining and dissecting, that doesn't mean Russia is better. It's not, it's an authoritarian state with state violence against anyone who doesn't follow the rule of the "king".

Like I said:

The total genius of Western democracies is that they outsourced government oppression to individual people. So that it isn't the government which oppresses people, it's Tom oppressing Dick and Harry. The government's hands are clean, but the people walk on eggshells and fear for their jobs and lives. At the same time, they are becoming more and more alike, the differences between them are superficial at best, one big mass of mindless drones. And what does it help if some politician can hold his elected position of power only for 4, 8 or, 10 years, or so, if the next one differs from him only by name?

The greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. — baker

Maybe first get Russia to a place where people don't get poisoned, imprisoned, and don't have an authoritarian leader who plays around with his rich friends while a large part of Russia lives on almost nothing. If that means more western standards, so be it. If not western standards, then feel free to present a system of state that frees Russia while keeping western standards of living out of there.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what?

It's tiresome to hear people complain about a solution when there's no alternative solution presented that is better. If you want real-world solutions you might need to be a bit more pragmatic. Idealism is good for changing a system that is already somewhat functioning, pragmatism is needed when a system is fundamentally broken.

I'm saying that the situation in Russia is actually not that different from the situation in the West.
That the "freedoms" and "advantages" of Western societies are artificially trumped up, presented as more valuable and more relevant than they actually are.

There is no country in this world where one could "speak up against the government" without this having some negative consequences for one. If not imposed by the government, then imposed informally, by one's employer, one's customers, one's friends, and relatives. One can simply never speak badly about those in power without this backfiring in some way.

Police fire tear gas as anti-Covid restrictions ‘Freedom Convoy’ enters Paris

And so on. We can also look up how many times the police in Western countries have used real bullets against protesters, not just rubber bullets (which can sometimes be as dangerous as real ones), water cannons, tear gas, mass arrests. (Oh, and if the West is so wonderful, then why on earth are people protesting at all?!)

Secondly, if you think that having twenty kinds of potato chips to chose from is somehow indicative of wellbeing and prosperity, then you have let capitalism lull you into a moral turpitude.

Or maybe this Littell fuck is sincere - it really is just better for the West when Russians are swamped in poverty. — StreetlightX

The Western ego feeds on the misery of others.

I think he really did at one time expect and desire that Russia go down the route of liberal democracy in the style of Western Europe. The difference in his explicit position on these issues between then and now is striking, and important to understand. — jamalrob

I think the difference is in how different people understand "democracy".

For some people, esp. Westerners, "democracy" is simply about coming into a position of power by being elected into it, as opposed to inheriting or usurping it. And that's it. And once in position of power, it's all about power, and your opponents must have "the maturity to accept their loss".

Such a Western notion of "democarcy" is one where the quality of a proposed solution to a problem is irrelevant, but where the only thing that matters is what those in power want to do (even when they enact technologically, logistically suboptimal solutions to problems).

There was a discussion of this a while ago here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607969

The more "Eastern" notion of ruling has to do with the quality of solutions to problems and there is an implicit belief that ordinary people do not know, are not qualified to know what the optimal solution to a problem would be. Hence their votes shouldn't be taken too seriously.

From that other thread:

Where is the "emotional maturity" of doing politics primarily or even solely on the level of whose will prevails??
— baker

It requires enough faith in people that you can allow them to discover their own way.

Every generation faces challenges to that faith. People who want to destroy that faith abound. You're an example of a person who's never had that faith.

It's not for everyone. That's for sure. — frank

Ie. democracy as, for all practical intents and purposes, an act of relying on an oracle.

So I guess where I disagree with your analysis, is that I do believe that Putin is solely responsible. He is, after all, a dictator. He's dictated this conflict, written the script, which has not turned out at all as planned. — Wayfarer

Putin, the superhero. You're making the same mistake as those who blame WWII solely on Hitler.

It's simply not possible for one single person to orchestrate such a thing.

It can be psychologically appeasing to blame large, complex events on one person, but it's just not realistic.

The full speech, made in 2005, is in English on the Kremlin website: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/22931 — jamalrob

I can't access it.

As much as I would like to believe this I would not frame things in these terms. For one, it assumes the EU gives a damn about trading with tyrants. — StreetlightX

No, I'm saying that they potray them as tyrants.
If, say, tomorrow in France, an enormous store of natural gas would be discovered and France would export it to other countries in great amounts, those other countries would begin to resent France, start painting it as a tyrant. Even though previously, they considered France to be a wonderful, democratic country. Being dependent on someone can have a negative effect on one's morale if left unchecked.

Second, never account in terms of feelings what can be accounted for in terms of power. And this is very much about power.

I'm talking about the lack of decency on the part of the EU, the way it takes for granted natural resources, and doesn't show proper gratitude and respect toward those who give them those natural resources.

Depending for one's basic resources on someone else should fill one with trepidation, not hubris.

There are people just like us in Urkaine - parents with families, wage-earners, people just trying to get along, make a living, live their lives, whose homes are destroyed, loved ones killed, families separated, cities in ruins. And for what? Let's not forget that. — Wayfarer

While living in a democratic country under the rule of law where your neighbor can destroy your home -- and laugh -- and get away with it, is just so much better ...

the selective hysterics over Russia — StreetlightX

I think there's another element to this, pedestrian but powerful:
The EU resents being dependent for resources, doubly so because they are dirty resources that pollute the environment, and so it projects these negative feelings onto the country from which it imports those resources.

Instead of being resentful and haughty toward Russia, the EU should feel humbled that it needs to import the basics.

And had they taken Kiev, they'd go on to occupy Poland, and so on, right?

What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying a promise should be made, but with no intention to actually keep it?
— baker

For the sake of peace, a ceasefire deal affected and used as an opportunity to re-think and pursue strategic objectives further down the road when Russia is weakened by sanctions. — FreeEmotion

No, I'm asking you about what so far appears to be your support of acting in bad faith.

Why the insistence on making a tough stand now

For the sake of the ego.

I am learning new and disturbing things about 'our' world, things that do not inspire confidence in a peaceful future.

Then you're late.

But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. — Alkis Piskas

Hence, eventually: zombies.

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)

By all means, do tell. How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?

My view is — Wayfarer

Exactly.
Yet you want it to be taken as more than that.

It is apparent that it is not possible to set out what it is to be a religion, any more than for what it is to be a game. — Banno

Yet people do it all the time, those Humpty Dumpties!

All these events deny people the right to be an individual; perhaps we can say that these governments are “anti-person” or “anti-personalism.” — Dermot Griffin

So you feel that capitalism and consumerism respect your right to be an individual?

If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first. — Dermot Griffin

A change to what, and why?

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away. — Baden

Very easily: By declaring themselves to be the moral winners. The West is already helping them do that.

What I do not understand is why at least agree to a deal that can be simply rescinded at a later date — FreeEmotion

Promises can be broken so I do not see the point except to bring a ceasfire. — FreeEmotion

What exactly are you talking about? Are you saying a promise should be made, but with no intention to actually keep it?

We want Russia to be free. — Olivier5

No. You want Russia to be Western. To be yet another consumerist hellhole.

Without some minimum degree of freedom of expression, new ideas just don't get expressed because expressing them would be dangerous. And if one can't express new ideas, why have them? So only cultures that are reasonably open and tolerant can generate new ideas at a sustained rate. Of course these things come and go: cultures evolve all the time. — Olivier5

Ideas that are merely new are useless. An idea must be good.

People were reasonably content but no one was happy. Nobody was ever smiling for instance, or joking or laughing their ass off, even when drunk. No public expression of joy. — Olivier5

Yes, because some people still know how to behave decently.

It must be pretty schizophrenic. I travelled through Hungary in the 80's. It was rather sad how nobody would ever speak their mind in public but would unload in private. — Olivier5

Exactly like in modern democracies.

Unless, of course, one's "own opinion" is actually all politically correct and pleasing to the regime.

I met an Albanian once, who had this story about the death of Enver Hoxha. She was at school when the news broke, a pupil in an average primary school in Albania. The teacher said that this was a terrible news and that they should all cry now. She found it hard to do, in fact she started to laugh irrepressibly. She quickly put her head down in her arms, crouched on her desk, and pretended to sob, all the while she was laughing and laughing. That's how she got through that.

1. In schools everywhere, children are taught how to think, feel, speak, and act about a variety of things. Failure to comply has ramifications -- poor grades, poor references, stigma. Just because the system allows the dissenters to live doesn't mean it's not oppressive, as has been addressed earlier in the thread.

2. To prioritize the opinion of a child in political matters is infantile.

It’s significant how many contributors here use this subject as a pretext for questioning democracy generally.

And scary.

Mind you, some of them seem not to know what to believe, or even what is real. Probably too much screen time. If a Russian artillery shell comes through the wall of your building, that would be a wake-up call. Although not if it’s only something you read about in ‘the media’. Then, it’s ‘propaganda’. — Wayfarer

You, of all people, should know better.

But perhaps different principles apply to Russian artillery shells than they do to arrows.