| |
| ▲ | Aerroon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think it's that. I think the EU, as a political structure, obfuscates what's going on from the citizens sufficiently, that it's uncommon for citizens to hear about what's actually happening. Some third party has to basically start ringing alarm bells for even a minority of citizens to hear about an issue, let alone a majority. If I were to ask what my relatives think of Chat Control I'm certain that an overwhelming majority would not have even heard about it. Hard to oppose something if you don't know about it. But even if they did oppose it - does the average European even know how to figure out how their chosen politician voted on the issue? Probably not. Maybe it's a lack of journalism, I'm unsure, but I don't see any other reason for it. I also think that this is the factor in euroskepticism. | |
| ▲ | dariosalvi78 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I live in Sweden and I am not a Swede, so I read this country with from an outsider prospective but I am no historian either. From my observations and from I have been reading, Sweden has always had small, low density population living in a harsh environment. A centralised government was an effective way to gain efficiency, and it has historically had much less friction than in other places where other forms of power were more solidified. Socialist Sweden in the 30s and 40s was pretty much as totalitarian as other countries in Europe, but as they did not participate in the war, they have always seen themselves as the "good guys". No point of rupture, as it happened in Germany for example, very little self-criticism. To these days Swedes have very little discussion about what does not work in their country, they just assume that they live in the best place ever and that someone will take care of the problems. They have complete trust in authorities, which is good for many reasons, but it's also often blind and lenient even in front of quite obvious inefficiencies or abuses of power. For reference of discussion in Sweden see https://chatcontrol.se/ (in Swedish). Social democrats and Christian democrats are the ones who seem to be more supportive of this law. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It is important to note that Sweden has never had serfdom or in other ways oppressed its people to a high degree like most other countries did, so it makes sense the culture doesn't hate its government as much. People there have had their freedom since the viking ages and probably earlier, it was never taken from them and therefore never scarred the culture. In other countries where peasants had to fight for their freedom their culture reflects that, but Swedes never had to do that. So after millennia of governments letting its people be free why start distrusting the government today? | | |
| ▲ | dariosalvi78 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | well, the statare would probably disagree with your statement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statare). It's true that in Sweden most peasants were, at least on paper, more free than in other places, but their conditions were no fun either. I think that trust in government comes from a mix of things, oppression was probably not a necessity, and centralised control was beneficial to most classes, but I see that there is also a very strong cultural element. Trust in authorities is taught in schools in very early ages, I see this with my children and I can compare to other systems (contrary to most Swedes). The folkhemmet ideology is still very strong in this country, it's almost a matter of national pride. To this add the tendency to conformism (jantelagen) and the avoidance of conflicts at all costs, which makes criticising others very badly seen. Regardless where it comes from, I find that the uncritic, often blind trust in authorities in Sweden problematic because it hinders plurality and a sane discussion in society, like in the case of the Chatcontrol law. But individualism is also on the rise, very much so in fact, and the society is changing fast, and with it also trust. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Media and conversations in a small population with a unique native languages lacks the population for diversity of opinions and often results of blind trust in local government, power structures and group thought influenced by those in power. Who can be critical in this type of society? Ignorance can be bliss. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In other words: In countries where the government represent the people well those people trust the government a lot more and give it more power since the government does what the people want. | | |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I doubt your friends are a representative sample. And they probably think they wouldn't be the first ones to be oppressed by this. |
|
| Scandinavia and in particular Sweden has historically been very oppressive, bordering on theocracy. The state ideology has changed and priests have been exchanged for social democrat ideologues, but the spirit of the people is still very much subjugated. I think this is a fundamental difference between the countries that have fought for freedom (like England, France, USA), and the countries where the powers that be saw what happened and made minimal concessions to try to avoid unrest. |
