September 09, 2025
Well.....
( Checks newsfeeds to find out what the hell is actually going on in Nepal.)
That escalated quickly.
A few observations:
Things must be very chaotic on the ground. The Kathmandu Post (first link) appears to have just gone offline, as I proofread this.
What I've been able to glean is that the government responded to accusations of corruption and authoritarianism by banning news items that contained what they determined was disinformation, before banning social media sites. This did NOT reassure the public.
The most disturbing thing from a purely domestic point of view (well, local hemisphere at least) about this is the number of folks in Tommy Robinson's feed pointing to this and admonishing him for his peaceful flag protests claiming that the Nepalese are handling the situation more correctly than he is.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
11:46 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 535 kb.
1
I have some vague recollections that imply, if unchanged, that the government in Nepal was fucking communists. (Specific faction I recall is Maoists.) IE, maybe not enough soft power institutions left intact for a non-shooting way out. UK's lunatics are maybe only university-tards, and there is some room there in between what may have been the case for Nepal, and where we are in the US where we basically won, without shooting, and knew some time back that we might win without shooting. The US problem is basically keeping up the pursuit, so that the crazy faction of academics does not regroup and counter attack later when we are weaker. I don't find the UK situation one I can easily understand in full. But unless Labour has filled some mass graves, I figure that their hold on power is weak enough that they can lose power without trying to shoot their way out.
Posted by: PatBuckman at Tue Sep 9 15:15:29 2025 (rcPLc)
2
Anyway, I sometimes assume that my audience is very alien to me, so that I cannot effectively appeal to good and evil, but can maybe still appeal to pragmatism. The pragmatic case against regulating and coercing speech, is the information that it costs you. Social media is a method of surveilance, so just shutting it down blinds your internal surveilance, and it blinds regime opponents. It thus creates some freedom of action for movements that might initialize a preference cascade, if one is possible. The idjits that figure they merely need a heavier hand of stopping criticism can sabotage their own hold on power in other ways as well.
Posted by: PatBuckman at Tue Sep 9 15:52:30 2025 (rcPLc)
567kb generated in CPU 0.0809, elapsed 0.2345 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.2102 seconds, 378 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
71 queries taking 0.2102 seconds, 378 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
