I don't really have an opinion on TikTok, but maybe more on the social harmony part. But just an observation as I'm getting older. Restricting your choices in life, can often lead to good outcomes. Like what you eat, drink, who you socialize with, what you watch, who you sleep with, what you read...it's a long list.
Choice is great, but can be overwhelming.
Not that I'm for minimalism. But I'm guessing Nepal has a religious government...Buddhist? And like many other religions, part of it is restricting the behaviour of the adherents. Which like I mentioned before, is not always bad.
If the majority of the country feels this way, why should you push your Western Values on them.
> If the majority of the country feels this way, why should you push your Western Values on them.
While social permissiveness is distinctly a phenomenon of the west, I wouldn’t characterize “western values” by that single phase. For most of the history of the American Republic, it was taken for granted the government could regulate morality as an aspect of the public welfare. Regulation of businesses believed to be morally harmful, such as strip clubs and pornographic magazines, was deemed within the scope of government power into the mid-20th century, until anti-democratic Supreme Court decisions interpreted constitutional provisions in ways that would have shocked the people who wrote them.
While social permissiveness is distinctly a phenomenon of the west
How about Japan or Taiwan? Reminder: Taiwan legalised gay marriage in 2019!
I don't like to use the term "Western" too much. It's more clear to say "modern". Example: Japan is not at all Westernized, nor Taiwan, nor South Korea, but they are definitely modern.
-- Edit --
As a counterpoint, I would say that India (in my limited experience on-the-ground) is way more social conservative than Sri Lanka. I was genuinely surprised by the social permissiveness in Sri Lanka. It was a world apart from India. Thus, I would say Sri Lanka is on-the-cusp of being considered modern (in my eyes).
Everybody in the entire world alive today is in the present. Nobody is more modern than anybody else. An Amish farmer is no less of a modern man than a San Francisco web developer. You are crossing your wires, using temporal language to pass subjective judgment against other ways of life. People who don't live live styles similar to your own aren't living in the past, they are in the present with everybody else.
You're essentially calling everybody else backwards. That's judgemental and subjective, not objective. It's a mentality of cultural imperialism, only one step away from calling for people to be "brought up to speed", e.g. forced into your way of life.
I think we're talking about culturally Western here, not geopolitically Western. I can't see even a (sane) cynic call these 3 countries culturally Western unless you think being a liberal democracy automatically makes you culturally Western. And Japan is one of the countries said to have "Westernized"!
The world is being westernized thanks to the influence of western media and culture. So in that sense, it can seem like “westernization” and “modernity” are the same thing. But the Japanese and Taiwanese also wear western-style business suits, wear jeans, drink coffee, etc. We wouldn’t say that jeans are “modern” rather than being a western influence. Moreover, in other parts of the world you have a resurgent, fundamentalist Islam. In the 1950s, Egyptian women didn’t wear headscarves. Today, most do. That’s also “modern.”
Same-sex marriage also isn’t a good example to gauge whether a culture is socially permissive, because sexual orientation is biologically determined. The scientific fact of that has been critical in acceptance of that in the East: http://olivia.thechiongs.com/2015/03/28/a-purely-practical-v.... It’s more of a social accommodation for a biologically defined group, rather than permissiveness as to individual behavior. That makes it quite distinct from western liberal culture, which I think would say that it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s a choice or not.
Indeed, as the classical and Christian notions of freedom, as opposed to the liberal variety, entails self-discipline, self-denial, and the restraint, disciplining, and purification of the appetites through things like fasting and abstinence.
Would a native Hawaiian, consider themselves free, that they live under Western Laws. They have western freedoms, and democracy, and all the shiny trinkets. But now also lack autonomy, and the real control over their native land. Democracy is kind of useless to a Native Hawaiian, when they'll be outvoted by outsiders every time.
I think plenty of them would just want their land back. And Westerners can shove it.
I think "contemporary western values" is just a feel good saying, a pretty wrapper, on economic expansionist policy ... globalism.
And there are plenty of taboo topics in the West too, and it's enforced as well. Celebrities have handlers, FBI goes around planting informants and extorting dissenters for political gain. People get canceled, fired from jobs for saying dissenting opinions. And its done in the name of "social harmony" and greater good here as well.
"Contemporary western values" is not a statement that means everyone in the west has the same values, nor it is an endorsement. It is referring to the generally predominant mainstream consensus.
I agree. This is a virtually meaningless term. Just look at New York State or Washington State (in US). The largest city (NYC and Seattle) are extremely liberal. However, the country side is much more conservative. Do they share the same "contemporary western values"? Hmmm...
I do believe what they do share is "contemporary Western values". I think both sides would agree with at least some form of the rule of law, freedom of religion, gender equality and support for liberal democracy. Don't you think they would look at most any form of governance pre-1850 and agree it's bad?
I suppose they could console themselves with knowledge that it was never their land. The monarch of the island, and later islands, or local chief had control over it. The very concept of people, or citizens, controlling their land is a concept that was imported.
I'd argue only some alcohol control laws exist for religious reasons. Some of those old puritanical laws are still on the books, but stick around today because they are useful for regulatory capture.
I think in this case (liquor stores being closed exclusively on Sunday morning in Texas), you'd need extraordinary evidence to assume that it's not because of the facade of puritanical ideals.
Perhaps that's not the case in Northern New Jersey (which, crazily, also has similar rules) though.
I was thinking along the lines of alcohol control laws which limit licensing, distribution, sales, etc. Those groups with preferential treatment have become special interest groups in many places that want to perpetuate those limits because it prevents competitors. Somewhere around a quarter of states have mandated some form of monopoly in regards to alcohol, and others have limited licensing schemes that are highly politicized.
If there’s a majority who support this then they should just self-regulate and go on their merry way.
This is always about imposing one’s beliefs on others. “Social harmony” is intentionally vague. Everyone will imagine their own meaning of that and be inclined to think, “yeah that’s something I’m on board with.”
That’s just libertarianism applied to social issues, and has the same problems as libertarianism as applied to economic issues. People need social support to help them understand what decisions are good, and make good decisions.
How many overweight and obese doctors and nurses are there? They’re only slightly healthier than the general population: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/why-don-t-doctor.... Smart, educated Americans can’t force themselves to limit their eating. But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim.
Humans didn’t evolve to be libertarian sovereign individuals. They’re members of communities and their welfare can be increased by allowing community reinforcement of good behaviors and decisions.
> But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim.
Does it help people stay slim with fewer overall negative effects then if people didn't stay slim? Eating disorders and mental health do come into the equation. There's many ways to keep people slim that doesn't result in a healthier society.
You're generalising that small sample too much. Even their findings suggest healthcare professionals exercise more, and smoke less.
As for "living in a community", I would trust more the kindness and humanity in general, than the same of a select group.
By this I mean, alignment of good behaviour comes naturally from one's experience. And I guess I agree with you to an extent. But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm. But, that in no way is a harm to others.
> But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm.
Yes, I do think western society has become too individualist, to its detriment. I also agree that collectivist societies can be non-inclusive. But the flip side of that is that it can be better for the people in the middle 80%. I think your average person, especially your average young person, needs more social guidance than contemporary, highly individualist western society is willing to provide. It also makes it difficult to achieve anything that requires solidarity and social coordination.
I dunno… I apply this sentiment to Christian Republicanism and it concerns me greatly. They also have a lot to say about what disrupts social harmony. And of course, it’s what they’ve decided “social harmony” means to them.
From an “evolutionary” standpoint mid-20th century western liberalism seems to be a dead end, as its adherents are literally dying off and being replaced by people from more robust cultures.
You can certainly try to shame people into adopting your rigid ideology, religion, and culture. People have tried time and time again. That doesn’t make it right.
> Restricting your choices in life, can often lead to good outcomes.
The article isn't about somebody restricting their own choices in life, but about the Nepalese government restricting others' choices in life, which is an entirely different thing.
Its a different thing, but not entirely. Having your choices restricted, by a government of all things, is something most Western people especially Americans find obscene. But it can also lead to good outcomes at considerable less effort.
In a sense every government does this. It restricts the ability of its citizens to violently harm each other for example. Or of companies to poison the land. Or even of drivers to not wear seat belts, something which doesn't even harm others. All those are relatively uncontroversial restrictions on personal liberty.
TikTok is full of Asian content that it promotes: there is still so much Chinese, Korean, Japanese, even some Indian content on tiktok even in an average westerner's feed. Some of this is straight taken form Douyin (by content creators in those country who want to earn money on tiktok).
> Some of this is straight taken form Douyin (by content creators in those country who want to earn money on tiktok).
Having helped a Chinese friend taking down a couple of impersonating/infringing TikTok accounts, I believe the overwhelming majority of the content taken straight from Douyin is unauthorized, by people who think the original creators won’t notice and/or won’t do anything about it. It’s not like you can easily earn a meaningful amount from TikTok’s Creator Fund, so better focus on streaming or getting sponsorship deals for the Douyin market which is a lot larger and culturally aligned.
A lot of the cultural movement on TikTok is Korean driven, or multi cultural, like the popularity of that Vietnamese See Tinh in Korea via a TikTok remix. TikTok is incredibly Asian, and gets lots of air from non-PRC Chinese communities (like mainland Douyin content on TikTok with traditional Chinese comments).
India had a military exchange with China and banned TikTok alongside several other Chinese apps in retaliation. Their official justification was "national security concerns". preciousoo is, charitably, just making things up for no reason.
I very much remember reading such an article around the time they banned TT, but maybe said article was fake news, as it's hard to find any mentions of it now.
The content is ~~designed~~curated to destroy the minds of the consumers. There have been quite a few articles showing how content differs between the West and China.
There is a religious angle to it . it comes from christian conversion , spread more rapid after earthquake and in the name of aid . Let's not forget the divisive angles that get exploited in the name of Caste System of Hinduism but Buddhists in far flung places are being converted as well as well as people of older,native cultures .
Tiktok made it easy to peddle a victimhood and prosecution complex to the masses . Deplore the current religion , festivals , cultural aspects etc . Send direct hate against a certain group , caste of people who are supposed to be more privileged and outsider.
As per western values , things are mostly fine . LGBTQ is protected . Nepal ranks better in all Democratic and Human rights aspects . Freedom of press and so on .Leads in women rights and labors . Gay marriage is allowed but has fell short on bureaucratic paperworks related to it .
There's plenty of choice of media in the West. But its like having 50 different flavours of Chips in a supper market. It's mostly the same few political ideas peddled with different wrapper. And what you think free, is actually pretty controlled and contrived.
Is that so? I find a lot of value in certain Fediverse instances. They don't seem contrived, just humane (I know some aren't, I don't intend to go to those).
My comment was about the mainstream media, with actual public reach and influence. I don't even know what Fediverse is and I'm a computer guy. Imagine the general population.
Perhaps ironically (given the somewhat corrupted attribution to Alexandra Kollontai of the flippant remark that "the satisfaction of one's sexual desires should be as simple as getting a glass of water"), Stalin reeled in some of the sexual excesses that characterized the early Soviet regime, because, as it turns out, sex is indeed dangerous and deserving of honor and respect, and sexual degeneracy is a sure way to propel a society toward self-destruction and chaos.
I think the key is to start with far less restriction then you think you need, and refine your approach over time until you hit upon a happy medium, that allows novel experiences while limiting irrecoverable consequences.
I care about the people in Nepal who don't want their government to restrict their access to the web. The people who want to be restricted in that way can exercise self-control.
It’s like smoking in public places. People who don’t want smoking in their faces can find non-smoker cafes! Once such cafe pops up, some people will complain that it’s messing with human rights to smoke.
I don't know what's going on with Nepal, but I noticed a sudden influx of specifically Nepalese migrant workers in East Europe. It's odd given how small that country is, and also because the area they visit for work is not that great itself. How bad can it be in Nepal then?!?
