10 ms·

> First, stop moving the goal posts and the whataboutism. Now you are bringing things like political assassinations Can you tell me who wrote this and brought

> First, stop moving the goal posts and the whataboutism. Now you are bringing things like political assassinations Can you tell me who wrote this and brought up political assassination? Because I'm sure it wasn't me. > Have you ever considered the possibility that China has "less people in prison" because their government just kills any dissident and "troublemaker" without any semblance of due judicial process? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25316054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25316054 > Take just the million Uighur in "re-education centers" You mean like the Mexican kids kept in cages while their parents were being deported for the simple fact of being Mexicans? How many people suffered because of this thing I will link here for the nth time? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... And that's only one of many What about this? > effects of the Gulf War and over a decade of economic sanctions have resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children due to malnutrition, diarrhea, and other preventable diseases. (The gulf war was started on a lie, fabricated by the US government)

rglullis 6y ago
I ask to stop with the whataboutism and you respond with more of it. I get it, you don't like the US State. Me neither. You don't like Facebook. Guess what? Neither do I. The point of our disagreement is that you seem to believe that people do only bad things because Big Bad American companies are manipulating them. And your solution is to destroy them by executive order and give all this power to... the US State! The cognitive dissonance is so strong you simply refuse to acknowledge this point every time I mentioned, and you prefer to distill more diatribes against the US. I am not interested in more diatribes against the US government. I dislike it and distrust it already to know that I don't want it to have more power. What I want to understand is what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias.
- notreallytrue2 6y ago
  > I ask to stop with the whataboutism and you respond with more of it. Whataboutism is not what you think it is If you ask, you might not like the answer. Get over it. > The cognitive dissonance is so strong you simply refuse to acknowledge this point every time I mentioned, and you prefer to distill more diatribes against the US. Only because they did wrong, repeatedly. Would you hire a pedophile as a kid educator? > What I want to understand is what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias. Isn't the US government using the same measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias? Assange, Mannings, Snowden and the poor Aaron Swartz are victims of which government? For the simple fact that they exposed what the US government did. Aaron Swartz only released public material to the public... You can argue about solutions once you address the problem. But what would you do to address the problem? Keep bombing other countries? Or ban people for saying out loud what's evident? Freedom of speech But not on HN Because freedom of speech is valued only when they agree with you? What's the difference between silencing what you don't like and totalitarian dystopias?
- notreallytrue3 6y ago
  > what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias Funny This website has rules about what you can say and what you can't say. Nobody thinks it hinders the freedom of speech But if someone says that it's not different from what totalitarian dystopias do, their karma goes below the level allowed to post anymore So, I ask you, is freedom of speech an absolute value or is it not? Who decides which rule enable better debates or it's censorship? What does it mean whataboutism when someone addresses the elephant in the room: some country acted in a criminal way, exactly like other countries did, in a different way, but unilaterally deciding whatis good and what isn't anyway? Am I allowed or not to exercise my freedom of speech right here on HM or am I not? Why the fact that HN doesn't allow freedom of speech in a broad way makes it different from actors that deny the same right to others? If I can't say what I want and are punished when I do it, what makes USA better than China in this regards? Wouldn't it be better if it was the US State to protect the freedom of the people to express their opinions instead of some private company? If you think about it China doesn't want people to talk about politics in the same way HN don't. Where I come from challenging the status quo is a virtue, not a defect. And that's probably how much different we are and the reason why you will never understand freedom, which is not granted, it's something you must fight for. Bombing other countries it's not fighting for their freedom, it's imposing your own single point of view. To answer your question: what I would do? I would never put the public speech under private companies control. Because that's what totalitarian dystopias do. I live in a democracy and believe that being scared of the State that incarnates the democracy (what people chose to govern them) is no better than dictatorships.

rglullis 6y ago

I ask to stop with the whataboutism and you respond with more of it. I get it, you don't like the US State. Me neither. You don't like Facebook. Guess what? Neither do I. The point of our disagreement is that you seem to believe that people do only bad things because Big Bad American companies are manipulating them. And your solution is to destroy them by executive order and give all this power to... the US State! The cognitive dissonance is so strong you simply refuse to acknowledge this point every time I mentioned, and you prefer to distill more diatribes against the US. I am not interested in more diatribes against the US government. I dislike it and distrust it already to know that I don't want it to have more power. What I want to understand is what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias.

notreallytrue2 6y ago
> I ask to stop with the whataboutism and you respond with more of it. Whataboutism is not what you think it is If you ask, you might not like the answer. Get over it. > The cognitive dissonance is so strong you simply refuse to acknowledge this point every time I mentioned, and you prefer to distill more diatribes against the US. Only because they did wrong, repeatedly. Would you hire a pedophile as a kid educator? > What I want to understand is what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias. Isn't the US government using the same measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias? Assange, Mannings, Snowden and the poor Aaron Swartz are victims of which government? For the simple fact that they exposed what the US government did. Aaron Swartz only released public material to the public... You can argue about solutions once you address the problem. But what would you do to address the problem? Keep bombing other countries? Or ban people for saying out loud what's evident? Freedom of speech But not on HN Because freedom of speech is valued only when they agree with you? What's the difference between silencing what you don't like and totalitarian dystopias?
notreallytrue3 6y ago
> what do you propose besides measures only seen in totalitarian dystopias Funny This website has rules about what you can say and what you can't say. Nobody thinks it hinders the freedom of speech But if someone says that it's not different from what totalitarian dystopias do, their karma goes below the level allowed to post anymore So, I ask you, is freedom of speech an absolute value or is it not? Who decides which rule enable better debates or it's censorship? What does it mean whataboutism when someone addresses the elephant in the room: some country acted in a criminal way, exactly like other countries did, in a different way, but unilaterally deciding whatis good and what isn't anyway? Am I allowed or not to exercise my freedom of speech right here on HM or am I not? Why the fact that HN doesn't allow freedom of speech in a broad way makes it different from actors that deny the same right to others? If I can't say what I want and are punished when I do it, what makes USA better than China in this regards? Wouldn't it be better if it was the US State to protect the freedom of the people to express their opinions instead of some private company? If you think about it China doesn't want people to talk about politics in the same way HN don't. Where I come from challenging the status quo is a virtue, not a defect. And that's probably how much different we are and the reason why you will never understand freedom, which is not granted, it's something you must fight for. Bombing other countries it's not fighting for their freedom, it's imposing your own single point of view. To answer your question: what I would do? I would never put the public speech under private companies control. Because that's what totalitarian dystopias do. I live in a democracy and believe that being scared of the State that incarnates the democracy (what people chose to govern them) is no better than dictatorships.