[ufmace]

The trouble with this - I can sympathize with the frustration of watching atrocities happening in your homeland and not being able to get people in another country far away to care. But I can also sympathize with the ordinary people in these countries far away wanting to live their lives and not wallow in every tragedy that happens around the world.

Because there's quite a lot of things happening all the time, even now, that at least the people involved would consider terrible atrocities. Have you even read about what the Burmese have been doing to the Rohingya? How about the new Chinese "Re-Education Camps" for Muslims there? Or what ISIS-associated factions are doing in Syria?

[benwerd]

Yes to all, and I think it’s our responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of them. What’s the point of having the right to vote and having people represent us if we’re not aware of what they should be dealing with wrt foreign policy, say? If everyone buries their head in the sand or only considers domestic issues, we don’t really have democracy. It becomes a charade that helps us feel reassured that we have freedom. Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace. We can’t and shouldn’t look away from atrocities at home or abroad. It’s a global world, and we need to be able to direct the politicians who work for us.

[balfirevic]

That just seems to be redefining the word "democracy" so that it produces the outcomes you desire. I don't think that's helpful. It is important to realize that democratic process and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.

[PavlovsCat]

Insofar those unjust outcomes undermine democracy itself, they're opposed to democracy. Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process", and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly?

As opposed to non-democracies, or to citizens who don't care about atrocities elsewhere? Those also "can lead to bad outcomes", and when you have something on both sides of the equation it's usually helpful to ignore it, and focus on the bits that aren't on both sides -- instead of ignoring anything but what is on both sides.

> As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and spectator, is at stake.

-- Hannah Arendt

[balfirevic]

> Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process"

Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.

There, doesn't make a difference.

> and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...]

I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me on democracy, I'm already sold. You also don't have to sell me on caring about people elsewhere, I'm sold there too.

But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical as that is simply useless for discussion.

[PavlovsCat]

The responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of atrocities elsewhere, because the polticians we elect deal with foreign countries in which they take place, isn't cherry picking a definition. That's directly related to what democracy is. They also said

> Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace

Would you disagree with that? If not, would you agree that part of being educated and aware is being not myopic and navel gazing, and caring about genocide elsewhere? If so, what are you even arguing?

If not, how can one be educated and aware, yet so shortsighted and selfish? Do you know an example of a person you would consider educated and aware, who shrugs off atrocities elsewhere?

> But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical

Who did though? Someone said "real democracy" and you don't even ask them what they mean with that. While I don't know what they meant with "real democracy", if I had used those words in that context, I would have meant that you can't really have values such as free speech, freedom of assembly, right to due process -- in spirit, in daily practice, in the socialization and character of people, not just on paper -- and then just turn them off when people outside of your jurisdiction get brutalized, and not care at all. It's like I would say "a real feminist" doesn't just care about their own jurisdiction, but also about the plight of women in third world countries, and so on.

With democracy especially, this kind of half-assedness then comes back to bite us, too. I don't want to derail, but I'll just say "arms exports, allies who are kind of assholes, or in turn allied with assholes, refugee crisis".... not to mention global warming and the projected hundreds of millions of refugees that warming oceans could, probably will lead to. Caring about that stuff and about democracy elsewhere does benefit me, too, "in a globalized world". Just like helping another person can help me in my own life, since that life takes place in a world wherein that other person lives as well.

> If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?

-- Hillel the Elder

That guy probably didn't have "democracy" in mind, but still. If I believe in democratic ideals, human rights, and all that, I might be cool with, say, a monarchy that's not a tyranny, if people elsewhere want that, fine... but I MUST be against people just being murdered. I certainly must be against my own government being in bed with murderers. Otherwise, I'm not a "real" democrat, I'm not "really" for the human rights I myself enjoy, but just paying lip service.

[peterashford]

I have nothing great to add, other than I found that post excellent and meritorious. I wish more people felt and thought like you do

[peterashford]

Democracy presupposes an informed populace.

[wybiral]

That's an interesting contrast to the increasingly non-interventionism sentiment around here, but I agree.

[dotancohen]

> What’s the point of having the right to vote and having people represent us if we’re not aware of what they should be dealing with wrt foreign policy, say?

The corollary would be to ask, if the common citizen must keep abreast of all events anyway, then why have representatives at all? Why not a direct democracy?

Ostensibly the purpose of a representative democracy is that the elected official would become an expert on the subjects for which he dictates policy. If he isn't doing that, then no matter if the populace is educated or not, policy will suffer.

[tomjen3]

I have learned, painfully, over the years that no matter if you are aware or not, atrocities continue and that there is very little you can do about them.

Theoretically you may be able to do more, if you are able to vote in US elections, but in practice those seem to be won by the candidate most voters would prefer a beer with, or who looks best on television, etc.

[briantakita]

The Holodomor, The Armenian Genocide, The Yazidi Genocide, "The Great Leap Forward"...

Some Genocides get far more attention than others. Perhaps it's also our duty to proactively research all genocidal activity & research the political causes.

[ufmace]

> If everyone buries their head in the sand or only considers domestic issues, we don’t really have democracy.

Much of your post I at least kind of agree with, but that's the real sticking point. Democracy means that the people have the policies that they want, whether or not it agrees with what you or I think would be a good thing. If you don't agree with them, you can try to convince them otherwise, but you don't get to say that it isn't a "real Democracy" if they don't go your way.

It's all well and good to say that any genocide of anybody anywhere is bad, and we always oppose it, but what's to be done? Grandstanding about it in international bodies may feel good, but is often ineffective. Economic sanctions sometimes work, but are often costly and can push nations into the arms of our rivals. Military action works, in a sense, but is massively expensive in money and lives and often makes the situation worse in a different way.

It's a dark thought, but I sometimes think the Nazi's real mistake was to do a genocide and a massive war of aggression at the same time. The world has collectively said "meh" at quite a few genocides, as long as the country involved wasn't actively trying to conquer everything they could touch at the same time. It also led to the seemingly absurd situation in the main post here - when a country you're actively at war with is doing these things, there's not much you can do to stop them besides win the conventional war as quickly as possible, which you're already trying to do. It makes you wonder if publicizing it at the time is worth the effort. Maybe it would get a few neutral countries to swing further your way, but who's still neutral at that point?

[TomMckenny]

In addition, it's short sighted to imagine that genocide is not part of a countries' dangerous break down that will have serious impacts beyond its borders. Indeed, the mere flow of refugees alone destabilizes other nations immediately and obviously.

Not to be machiavellian, but it is a practical as well as moral issue.

[lkrubner]

"But I can also sympathize with the ordinary people in these countries far away wanting to live their lives"

Are you sure that "sympathize" is the correct word? I agree that it happens a great deal, but is this behavior something you regard as moral? Because the way people fail to engage with atrocities around the world meets most of the ordinary definitions of immoral. Their apathy is what enables evil.