Well ideally they should peacefully replace the government with one that aligns with the people's alleged views.
Failing that, I don't know. I guess they'll have to figure it out as they go. All I'm saying is it's their country, their responsibility. And for example in the case of Russia there's clearly widespread support for Putin and his war so I'm not really expecting nor calling for them to do anything about it. I'm just saying I hold them responsible and I think the rest of the world should too. A leader is nothing without followers.
> And for example in the case of Russia there's clearly widespread support for Putin and his war so I'm not really expecting nor calling for them to do anything about it. I'm just saying I hold them responsible
Yes, there is widespread support for Putin and his war - but by this very reason, how can Russians who do not support Putin and his war can be held responsible for it? What do you expect this minority to do, exactly? You can't hold people responsible for not doing something if you can't even articulate what that something is is.
Your entire argument is premised on the notion that there's a coherent "them". But that is virtually never the case, even in popular dictatorships.
The coherent them is the entire population. Sure some of them are for and some are against, that's how it works. Just because you didn't vote for Trump doesn't make you immune to the negative effects of electing Trump.
These things affect everyone, that's why we all have a responsibility.
You're clearly not being very charitable in your interpretation of things I say so I'm just going to end the conversation here because I'm not interested in endlessly clarifying basic things like what I mean when I say "Ideally".
Obviously I'm not suggesting that it's easy or even possible. Though I also don't think we can completely rule out the possibility of a peaceful revolution. Stranger things have happened. And it certainly would be better than a violent one.
> You're clearly not being very charitable in your interpretation of things I say so I'm just going to end the conversation here because I'm not interested in endlessly clarifying basic things like what I mean when I say "Ideally".
I agree that the person you're replying to is getting a bit testy, but I think it's a bit justified, as you're being a bit obtuse here.
"Ideally" is irrelevant. We're not talking about ideal cases in these threads, so to bring up that word feels disingenuous. Yes, ideally people in a country where their government is doing bad things can peacefully replace their government with another one that won't do bad things.
But in practice, where in the world does that actually exist? Basically nowhere? So what's the point in bringing it up?
> Though I also don't think we can completely rule out the possibility of a peaceful revolution.
That's a bunch of weasel-word language. Sure, you can't "completely" rule out anything. But for most (all?) of the places under discussion, there's something like a 0.001% chance of that happening, which is far below the threshold of not even bothering to bring up the possibility.
I'm just answering a question. At the end of the day none of this is my problem. I'm not here to suggest a solution I'm just saying these people are responsible for their own actions.
Failing that, I don't know. I guess they'll have to figure it out as they go. All I'm saying is it's their country, their responsibility. And for example in the case of Russia there's clearly widespread support for Putin and his war so I'm not really expecting nor calling for them to do anything about it. I'm just saying I hold them responsible and I think the rest of the world should too. A leader is nothing without followers.