Because there is no moral equivalence between the despotisms of the middle east and the elected government of a secular democratic republic. Overturning tyrany is good. Attempting to overturn democracies in favor of mob rule is bad.
Democracy is not the perfect system that some people purport it to be.
You get someone elected, someone who is far from perfect but he's the only likely candidate to win, so what can you do. And then that person has 4 years to screw you over. That's not just.
Who said democracy is a perfect system? I certainly didn't. Democracy is flawed because people are flawed. But western representative democracy -- limited democracy supported by strong institutions -- is the best way to avoid autocracy on one side and mob rule on the other. There are no perfect solutions.
While not being perfect, that is still far better than regime in Zimbabwe, Venezuela or North Korea, where the head of state keeps the power as long as he is alive, or is replaced by force by another thug.
I'm pretty sure Venezuela was (and still is) a democracy.
I think people tend to conflate liberalism (in the classical sense), and democracy. You can have undemocratic liberal states (the Austro-Hungarian empire was a good example).
Undemocratic liberal states only stay liberal for as long as suits wealthy elites. Venezuala is technically a democracy, but, as I said in another comment, you also need strong institutions for a functioning democracy. Venzuala has a weak court system and Maduro didn't allow opposition parties to take part in the 2017 presidential elections, so it's not exactly a model democracy.
It's a lot more of a gray area than democracy vs. despotism. Much of this unpopular policy is emanating from Brussels, made by a chamber of unelected officials - closer to a Politburo than a Senate.
Because the protests against the democratically elected leadership during the Arab spring... Oh wait.
You may hate something equally under any regime but there's a huge difference when that something is done in a democracy versus basically any other common form or government. In democracies issues can be (are?) solved at the election booth. Not so much in a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any "pseudo-democracy" (see China), etc.
Protesting yes. Breaking the law... maybe also democratic. This doesn't change the fact that there is no comparing this to Arab spring.
The same act can have very different meaning in different contexts. In this case it doesn't feel like those protesters have exhausted their options before jumping to violence. As such this is a condemnable act.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
Macron isn't Hitler or Pol Pot or George III. He wants to put the price of diesel up to reduce environmental damage. He wants to reduce taxes on the rich to spur the economy. You can disagree with those aims, but he's not destroying the French system of government. For that, look to Venezuela.
He's a neoliberal who's screwing the working people, and now the working people are protesting. While I agree with the premise that they should've chosen someone else who cared about them like Le Pen, I don't see how this protest is illegitimate. (Not that I'm defending the property damage, of course.)
How do you feel about the US riots held for equal protection and rights from the cops? Morally inferior and less deserving of access to social media than the Muslim Brotherhood led riots overthrowing the Egyptian government and installing a (short lived) theocracy?
> In democracies issues can be (are?) solved at the election booth. Not so much in a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any "pseudo-democracy" (see China), etc.
These people were in these very same election booths last year so clearly issues aren't being solved that way.
<rant>
Also, we need to step down our high moral horse and stop patronizing other nations by bringing up our holy "democracies". There has been an increasing and almost delusional portrayal of countries like Russia, China, Iran etc. That's not to say they don't have flaws but let's just take a good long look at the mirror before we hop on the <insert non western nation> bashing hype train.
</rant>
I'm not patronizing any nation or bringing up the "holy" democracy. Even jumping the gun and introducing that "holy" in there makes betrays your message's very... zealoty nature. That is entirely your wording and understanding. If you want to make a point do it without distorting the message you're replying to into oblivion.
This being said, to this day there is no better real world alternative to democracy. I take it you know very little of how Russia and China work internally. It's going to sound cynical but if you did you'd appreciate the "lesser evil" of western democracy. Think at least of the fact that you're now free to express these opinions, as you do.
You know the upside of democracy? With enough people behind you you can easily install dictatorship. The other way around needs slightly more sacrifices. Pretty sure those people fighting in the Arab spring against their not elected leaders weren't doing it just to jump on the bashing hype train ;).
Go look in the mirror, you'll see much greater freedoms in western countries than any you've mentioned. The west doesn't actively persecute homosexuals, protects women's rights and supports a free press. The list goes on.
Glad that I'm not the only one noticing it. Last time it was Uber. Now they moved on to Facebook.
Uber didn't change much, and so won't Facebook, because the media will eventually pick another target (I wonder which, I'm guessing Google) which makes people click their links. They don't really care about reporting or about making things right, they just need a dead horse to beat.
I am happy the power of the media dwindles year after year, they should have no right to do something like this against certain people or companies they don't like. They are bullies, that's all they are.
Facebook has had a long period of time where they were boring to the media. Letting them make many mistakes, mostly SV style move fast deal with the consequences later style.
Then they got caught doing (or not) interesting things. Meaning any competent reporter will find LOTS if SV style mistakes when researching the original story.
This is just what happens to anyone/thing that leaves a trail of interesting-ness after they appear in the media the first time. Do you really expect reporters to not report on things they find, or maybe you're asking reporters to be worse at research.
Uber has seen huge changes - they lost their CEO and shut down their self driving truck division - also the head of the lidar technology from the otto acquisition was fired. there are probably many more things i cant think of
Google seemed to have some trouble recently when they didnt show up to congress... but then it just disappeared. Facebook seems to have tried to own up to it, and its backfiring... Google must have just paid off everyone with their lobbying powerhouse to make it go quiet.
