ITT is alot of people that don't seem to understand Stoicism.
For the people making weird claims that its a philosophy specifically for conservatives, its not. Try checkout stoics like Ryan Holiday or Cato if your interested in seeing the emphasis on justice and being good to others as a virtue.
Yes, if your interested checkout Ryan Holiday, he writes pretty extensively about this.
Cato is a good example of a stoic who stood for justice, he sacrificed his life leading a resistance against the tyranny of Caesar and fighting injustice.
This is sad because its thats not what Stoicism is actually about. The most prominent Stoic author today is Ryan Holiday and the guy is a staunch liberal. He's worth checking out if you want to see a sincere modern day interpretation of stoicism.
They despised material wealth and comfort. They also talked alot about Justice and doing what is inside your control to correct injustice was seen as a high virtue.
> Do you have real examples of western governments taking down independent journalists using free speech to speak truth to power? Because that would do a lot to win me over.
Belarus:
"Freedom of the press in Belarus remains extremely restricted. State-owned media are subordinated to the president and harassment and censorship of independent media are routine. The government subjects both independent and foreign media to systematic political intimidation, especially for reporting on the deteriorating economy and human rights abuses. Journalists are harassed and detained"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Belarus
Turkey(which is mix of eastern and western but is part of the EU so I think counts):
I would not say Russia is the west and Belarus is clearly more Russian than European. Nobody could say "Russian free speech" with a straight face. At best Belarus is a Russian vassal.
Turkey is more complicated. Given it's religious demographics, location, and politics, I have a hard time calling it west. I agree that as part of the EU and its political relevancy, turkey merits some consideration. I would be surprised if turkey could get a .com taken down or get an American extradited to them, but I'm open to being wrong about that.
I don't think OP is asking about being critical of Turkey. I think OP is asking about UK/AU/NZ/US/FR/DE/CA.
Assange and wikileaks seems like the only thing I can think of that might be relevant, and I am pretty on the fence about it. I would probably agree with someone who called wikileaks pro-fascist, yet at the same time the idea of wikileaks is liberal and respectable. Whistle-blowing is good, but whistle-blowing selectively to manipulate who is in power is definitely bad.
Russia and Turkey are not part of the West because they have distinct cultural and historical legacies that have shaped their societies in different ways. Russia has been influenced by Eastern Orthodoxy and communism, which emphasizes communal identity and submission to authority, and has a long history of autocratic rule. This has led to a political culture that values obedience to the state over individual rights and freedoms. Similarly, Turkey has been shaped by its Islamic heritage and its Ottoman past, which has fostered a collectivist and authoritarian ethos that is at odds with the individualistic and democratic values of the West.
The Belarusian state is very much not Western by any political cultural definition. Lukashenko rigged the shit out of his election and then had to beg Putin to send some ОМАН forces to help put down nationwide protests.
> It is widely thought that SCOTUS decides based on ideology and politics
Citation needed. Judges have differing judicial philosophies and those philosophies may run contrary to a political parties aims but it does not mean they are servants of political parties.
It is likely that the people who think their decisions are purely politically biased are the ones whose politics are not aligned with whatever the court decided. Rarely do they dig into the justifications and expert analysis for a given decision.
Both liberal and conservative leaning justices have ruled against things that the parties which helped appoint them wanted.
They don't vote with their ideology with 100% reliability, but they do so far more often than not. They don't need to dig into the justifications to know that there are (frequently) four Supreme Court members who disagree with it. Those court members produce equally reasoned, scholarly arguments -- and are nearly always precisely the people nominated by the other party.
Differing judicial philosophies will end up with different decisions.
Not reading there justifications for why they made a decision just because the judge does not align with ones political view is ignorance, plain and simple.
Only reading the critical analysis of any viewpoint or decision without reviewing their legal justifications will lead to massive derangement in ones perspective.
Law and high level court decisions will have some form of logic to them which is worth examining before dismissing them as partisan.
I don't believe they're on a payroll. They don't need to be. They were carefully courted as true believers in their ideological cause. They believe in the votes they cast.
And that's actually much more reliable than paying them. People who can be bought can be out-bid. True believers will do it for nothing except the right to make their ideology the law of the land.
For the people making weird claims that its a philosophy specifically for conservatives, its not. Try checkout stoics like Ryan Holiday or Cato if your interested in seeing the emphasis on justice and being good to others as a virtue.