←back to thread

14 Killed in anti-government protests in Nepal

(www.tribuneindia.com)
560 points whatsupdog | 3 comments | 08 Sep 25 11:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.748s | source
Show context
lionturtle ◴[08 Sep 25 11:52 UTC] No.45167176[source]▶
It was absolutely not just social media ban, it was mostly youth protesting against the corrupt government and unfairness, social media ban was one element that was against the freedom of speech, but it was right around the time where everyone was documenting the rich politicians, their business connections and their families that have been living lavishly and just inheriting the election seats from generation to generation and spinning beurocracy to their sides.

I was there a few hours ago. It was a class struggle, but it was bound to be spun up as "kids don't get facebook and throw tantrum".

replies(16): >>45167316 #>>45167350 #>>45167377 #>>45167421 #>>45167463 #>>45167698 #>>45167863 #>>45168071 #>>45168108 #>>45168248 #>>45168256 #>>45168663 #>>45169106 #>>45169494 #>>45170110 #>>45171907 #
bhickey ◴[08 Sep 25 12:14 UTC] No.45167350[source]▶
The corruption is simply incredible. About fifteen years ago I found myself in Kathmandu after getting altitude sickness. The team's fixer brought me to lunch with some government officials. The topic of discussion? How to steal from a hydroelectric project. One of his guests outright asked, "should we be talking about this in front of this guy?" The fixer shrugged it off saying "he's a Westerner, what is he going to do about it?" And, well, he was right. It wasn't like I could go report it to the police.

Years later the fixer was finally jailed for gold smuggling. https://english.khabarhub.com/2022/16/232667/

Edit: add link

replies(7): >>45167426 #>>45167817 #>>45168337 #>>45168354 #>>45170576 #>>45173671 #>>45182598 #
Quarrelsome ◴[08 Sep 25 13:57 UTC] No.45168337[source]▶
I think its quite something that we all waste our time over divisions like left/right, capitalism/socialism, woke/not-woke when in practice; this is the only division that matters. Those who are trying to follow the rules and make the nation better, and those that are only active for their self-interest.
replies(10): >>45168368 #>>45168765 #>>45169014 #>>45169080 #>>45169300 #>>45169353 #>>45169605 #>>45170570 #>>45170696 #>>45172680 #
uncircle ◴[08 Sep 25 14:48 UTC] No.45169014[source]▶
Yes, because all rules have been created for your own good, so you must follow without ever questioning them. The world is more nuanced than your silly black-and-white duality, unless it's a Twitter argument and it's all about dividing the world in convenient us-vs-them boxes.
replies(2): >>45169105 #>>45169239 #
Quarrelsome ◴[08 Sep 25 14:54 UTC] No.45169105[source]▶
I think you're misunderstanding my point. Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't. The story specifically speaks of people high up within that society that do not believe in it and are using their position to undermine that society in order to benefit themselves.. That, for me, is the #1 problematic archetype of person.

Its not just about the rules and if you follow them or not, its about the belief in turn-taking, in other people having the same rights as you, a belief that in society; everyone is important, everyone is mostly equal and that the society should be fair. Perhaps my phrasing could be improved? For the most part I am simply trying to define the difference between people being selfish and not.

replies(1): >>45169318 #
1. darkwater ◴[08 Sep 25 15:11 UTC] No.45169318[source]▶
> Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't.

This makes GP even more correct. One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.

replies(1): >>45169658 #
2. Quarrelsome ◴[08 Sep 25 15:38 UTC] No.45169658[source]▶
GP?

> One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.

Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".

replies(1): >>45199403 #
3. darkwater ◴[10 Sep 25 15:45 UTC] No.45199403[source]▶
> GP?

Grand parent, the person you were responding to

> Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".

There are much more nuances and rules in (today's?) society. Just a quick examples of things that can be considered good but are actually controversial if you stir it a bit: there are concepts considered "rights" almost everywhere, yet you have to pay money to actually enjoy them, and if you don't have money, you lose the "right" (i.e. home). You can be in favor of the right but not of the implementation.