8 ms·

Of course not, but that's never how Americans act. The commenter didn't say "I don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China", the

Of course not, but that's never how Americans act. The commenter didn't say "I don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China", they ONLY called out China. It's a small difference, but important. Especially because that person is far more likely to be responsible (voting) for and profiting from USAs bad stuff.

hirako2000 5mo ago
In fact, unless the comment is from someone living in China: understands the politics, it would only be fair to critique the authoritarian aspects of the government they actually know. The issue is propagandists are typically brainwashed already.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
  Do you believe only Americans should be allowed to critique the American government? I'm an American and I don't believe that.
  - hirako2000 5mo ago
    No I don't mean one needs to be American. The reciprocal isn't valid. I talked about China. Given the misinformation the "western emisphere" has been subject to, I would find it dubious to get the echoes of what mainstream media portrays it as, even though there are elements of truth in what most people believe. The U.S politics are easier to understand from the outside. For one it's a democracy, a more transparent process despite a lot is happening behind curtains. I have no idea what North Koreans are able to make of the U.S scene, I know for sure people in U.S and Europe are hardly able to comment on N.K. tldr: I'm with you non Americans (and Americans) are perfectly able to critique the U.S with some valuable accuracy.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
      Why do you assume that the information non-Americans believe about the US is accurate? It seems to me that there is a fair amount of misinformation which gets spread about the US. For example, many non-Americans seem to believe that school shootings are a significant cause of death here. Furthermore, your proposed scheme creates an incentive to be non-transparent and thus not vulnerable to critique. By closing off information about your country, you can say to any critic: "Your critique is incorrect, because you lack information." Thus creating a reputational advantage for countries which successfully clamp down on the flow of information. Is that your desired outcome? You want a world where criticizing the US can no longer be done as soon as Trump kicks out all of the foreign journalists and stops the information flow?
      - hirako2000 5mo ago
        I'm not advocating for less transparency. My argument is that with less transparent public affairs, it is much harder from the outside to understand what may be going on. One can note the effects of certain measures without cherishing the schemes. For that matter I'm personally convinced more transparency is overall a net benefit. It helps the public at large appreciate situations. But my preference, and the detrimental vs beneficial aspects of a system are irrelevant to the argument I made.
      - wat10000 5mo ago
        The information believed by Americans isn't any better, anyway. We're closer to the source of information, but we're also closer to the source of misinformation. It's very difficult to discuss anything remotely political with people (I want to say "these days" but I'm not confident this is a new thing) because there's little agreement about basic facts.
  - Matl 5mo ago
    The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' With China, you can say 'yeah, this is good, but they eat babies for fun' and it would mostly pass with people nodding along.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
      >The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' Hard to think of any critique of the US I've seen on HN recently which acknowledges the possibility that we might mean well. Even during the Biden administration, right after we allocated billions of dollars to Ukraine, huge numbers of Europeans expressed an unfavorable view of the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u... They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Now they say they want to be buddies with China which has been actively helping Russia with arms. I don't think there is any point in the US trying to please Europe. And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US.
      - Matl 5mo ago
        > They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously arguing about being called warmongers considering what your government started in Iran? (and btw screwed the global energy market) This lack of self awareness is what turns people away.
        8note 5mo ago
        the US dodnt want help after 9/11 NATO insisted on helping
        pelorat 5mo ago
  - FooBarWidget 5mo ago
    I find western obsession with "being able to critique X" very weird because it stops at just that. There's very little attention paid to whether the critique produces useful outcomes. While cost of living, energy scarcity, employment, education, wars, etc are all getting worse, people focus on being able to insult the president as the ultimate freedom, even when that achieves nothing. Meanwhile in China, you can't change the ruling party but you can change policies. They restrict media and speech freedom, but they also work tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of the people. If the west chooses the value empty talk over outcomes, fine, you have the right to choose that. But no need to force that value on other societies. China and Chinese society at large has the right value unity and livelihood over speech. They have the right to prefer what westerners call an "authoritarian" government that delivers on those values, without getting demonized. They're not forcing their way on you, no need for you to force your way on them.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
      Agreed.
    - kelnos 5mo ago
      > they also work tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of the people. They work to improve the livelihood of people with the same background and ideology, you mean.
      - FooBarWidget 5mo ago
        Go travel to lower tier cities and rural places in China. The development those places have gotten in the past decade are huge. Go talk to regular people ask them to compare 10 years ago with now.
        MiiMe19 5mo ago
        Just like how they harvest the organs of people with a different religion. So progressive!!
- amunozo 5mo ago
  Plenty of people around the world know about the authoritarian aspects of the US way better than the Americans, as they suffer their consequences.
  - broken-kebab 5mo ago
    Which ones do you like to mention?
    - jerojero 5mo ago
      Hyper presidentialist state that allows one administration (and realistically one person) to start a war against another nation without having authorization from congress. This happened a few weeks ago, actually.
      - broken-kebab 5mo ago
        Actually, I'm in favor parliamentary republic with proportional representation, but words have meanings, and "authoritarian" is impossible to apply to a country with electorally changeable power by definition. Or a one with working separation of powers. And plenty of other attributes present in the US.
    - amunozo 5mo ago
      Iran, Gaza, Cuba, Irak, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon... These people do not only suffer their tyrannical governments, but they must suffer also the war actions of the US and its allies.
      - andriy_koval 5mo ago
        Its two step system: tyrannical government committed war actions against US and allies, US and allies responded, people suffer.
      - Petersipoi 5mo ago
        The fact that you just rattled off a list of terror states like it was nothing is so damn funny to me
strangegecko 5mo ago
He said "At the very least you can be sure noone is in this for the good of the people anymore. This is about who will dominate the world of tomorrow.". I.e. he doesn't see the US as "the good guys" either. Pointing out the war threat from China isn't hypocritical just because you don't list all the war threats from the US at the same time.
wat10000 5mo ago
They didn't say those exact words, but "I guess it's better than leaving everything to the US alone" is directly aimed at the US. They did say they don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China, they just used slightly different words.
jgwil2 5mo ago
> The commenter didn't say "I don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China" That's literally what the comment said: > Still not sure how I feel about China of all places to control the only alternative AI stack, but I guess it's better than leaving everything to the US alone. I.e. it would be preferable if, for example, Europe was in control of the alternative, but having China and the US is better than just the US.
glenstein 5mo ago
>The commenter didn't say "I don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China", they ONLY called out China What? They explicitly called out China in comparative terms with the US while also criticizing the US. Also, they're the other obvious major global power so it's not a question of singling out.
throw10920 5mo ago
> Of course not, but that's never how Americans act. This is just false. I know many Americans and have never observed any of them acting like this, so categorical statements like this are false. Your claims would be more credible if you didn't lead with something so obviously untrue.

hirako2000 5mo ago

In fact, unless the comment is from someone living in China: understands the politics, it would only be fair to critique the authoritarian aspects of the government they actually know. The issue is propagandists are typically brainwashed already.

0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
Do you believe only Americans should be allowed to critique the American government? I'm an American and I don't believe that.
- hirako2000 5mo ago
  No I don't mean one needs to be American. The reciprocal isn't valid. I talked about China. Given the misinformation the "western emisphere" has been subject to, I would find it dubious to get the echoes of what mainstream media portrays it as, even though there are elements of truth in what most people believe. The U.S politics are easier to understand from the outside. For one it's a democracy, a more transparent process despite a lot is happening behind curtains. I have no idea what North Koreans are able to make of the U.S scene, I know for sure people in U.S and Europe are hardly able to comment on N.K. tldr: I'm with you non Americans (and Americans) are perfectly able to critique the U.S with some valuable accuracy.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    Why do you assume that the information non-Americans believe about the US is accurate? It seems to me that there is a fair amount of misinformation which gets spread about the US. For example, many non-Americans seem to believe that school shootings are a significant cause of death here. Furthermore, your proposed scheme creates an incentive to be non-transparent and thus not vulnerable to critique. By closing off information about your country, you can say to any critic: "Your critique is incorrect, because you lack information." Thus creating a reputational advantage for countries which successfully clamp down on the flow of information. Is that your desired outcome? You want a world where criticizing the US can no longer be done as soon as Trump kicks out all of the foreign journalists and stops the information flow?
    - hirako2000 5mo ago
      I'm not advocating for less transparency. My argument is that with less transparent public affairs, it is much harder from the outside to understand what may be going on. One can note the effects of certain measures without cherishing the schemes. For that matter I'm personally convinced more transparency is overall a net benefit. It helps the public at large appreciate situations. But my preference, and the detrimental vs beneficial aspects of a system are irrelevant to the argument I made.
    - wat10000 5mo ago
      The information believed by Americans isn't any better, anyway. We're closer to the source of information, but we're also closer to the source of misinformation. It's very difficult to discuss anything remotely political with people (I want to say "these days" but I'm not confident this is a new thing) because there's little agreement about basic facts.
- Matl 5mo ago
  The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' With China, you can say 'yeah, this is good, but they eat babies for fun' and it would mostly pass with people nodding along.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    >The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' Hard to think of any critique of the US I've seen on HN recently which acknowledges the possibility that we might mean well. Even during the Biden administration, right after we allocated billions of dollars to Ukraine, huge numbers of Europeans expressed an unfavorable view of the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u... They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Now they say they want to be buddies with China which has been actively helping Russia with arms. I don't think there is any point in the US trying to please Europe. And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US.
    - Matl 5mo ago
      > They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously arguing about being called warmongers considering what your government started in Iran? (and btw screwed the global energy market) This lack of self awareness is what turns people away.
      - 8note 5mo ago
        the US dodnt want help after 9/11 NATO insisted on helping
        pelorat 5mo ago
- FooBarWidget 5mo ago
  I find western obsession with "being able to critique X" very weird because it stops at just that. There's very little attention paid to whether the critique produces useful outcomes. While cost of living, energy scarcity, employment, education, wars, etc are all getting worse, people focus on being able to insult the president as the ultimate freedom, even when that achieves nothing. Meanwhile in China, you can't change the ruling party but you can change policies. They restrict media and speech freedom, but they also work tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of the people. If the west chooses the value empty talk over outcomes, fine, you have the right to choose that. But no need to force that value on other societies. China and Chinese society at large has the right value unity and livelihood over speech. They have the right to prefer what westerners call an "authoritarian" government that delivers on those values, without getting demonized. They're not forcing their way on you, no need for you to force your way on them.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 5mo ago
    Agreed.
  - kelnos 5mo ago
    > they also work tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of the people. They work to improve the livelihood of people with the same background and ideology, you mean.
    - FooBarWidget 5mo ago
      Go travel to lower tier cities and rural places in China. The development those places have gotten in the past decade are huge. Go talk to regular people ask them to compare 10 years ago with now.
      - MiiMe19 5mo ago
        Just like how they harvest the organs of people with a different religion. So progressive!!
amunozo 5mo ago
Plenty of people around the world know about the authoritarian aspects of the US way better than the Americans, as they suffer their consequences.
- broken-kebab 5mo ago
  Which ones do you like to mention?
  - jerojero 5mo ago
    Hyper presidentialist state that allows one administration (and realistically one person) to start a war against another nation without having authorization from congress. This happened a few weeks ago, actually.
    - broken-kebab 5mo ago
      Actually, I'm in favor parliamentary republic with proportional representation, but words have meanings, and "authoritarian" is impossible to apply to a country with electorally changeable power by definition. Or a one with working separation of powers. And plenty of other attributes present in the US.
  - amunozo 5mo ago
    Iran, Gaza, Cuba, Irak, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon... These people do not only suffer their tyrannical governments, but they must suffer also the war actions of the US and its allies.
    - andriy_koval 5mo ago
      Its two step system: tyrannical government committed war actions against US and allies, US and allies responded, people suffer.
    - Petersipoi 5mo ago
      The fact that you just rattled off a list of terror states like it was nothing is so damn funny to me

strangegecko 5mo ago

He said "At the very least you can be sure noone is in this for the good of the people anymore. This is about who will dominate the world of tomorrow.". I.e. he doesn't see the US as "the good guys" either. Pointing out the war threat from China isn't hypocritical just because you don't list all the war threats from the US at the same time.

wat10000 5mo ago

They didn't say those exact words, but "I guess it's better than leaving everything to the US alone" is directly aimed at the US. They did say they don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China, they just used slightly different words.

jgwil2 5mo ago

> The commenter didn't say "I don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China" That's literally what the comment said: > Still not sure how I feel about China of all places to control the only alternative AI stack, but I guess it's better than leaving everything to the US alone. I.e. it would be preferable if, for example, Europe was in control of the alternative, but having China and the US is better than just the US.

glenstein 5mo ago

>The commenter didn't say "I don't like that the only two serious competitors are from the USA and China", they ONLY called out China What? They explicitly called out China in comparative terms with the US while also criticizing the US. Also, they're the other obvious major global power so it's not a question of singling out.

throw10920 5mo ago

> Of course not, but that's never how Americans act. This is just false. I know many Americans and have never observed any of them acting like this, so categorical statements like this are false. Your claims would be more credible if you didn't lead with something so obviously untrue.