7 ms·

I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship an

I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a public forum. And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.
- seletz 10y ago
  Oh, I think Mr. Snowden would disagree on the "nobody has done it before." And he wasn't the first.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    no matter how i admire mr snowden, I didn't catch any news mentioning someone from US agencies/government being bought before judge because of his revelations. Did I miss something?
  - the_af 10y ago
    I don't know that Snowden is a good example: he had to flee his country in a hurry. There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether he would have a fair trial in the US, a country where many are calling him a traitor.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      That's seletz's point. It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.
      - the_af 10y ago
        Oh, if that was seletz's point, then I agree with it. I thought he was claiming in the US it was possible to be a dissident without censorship or repression. My mistake!
        seletz 10y ago
        Well -- I think it's a bit more subtle than that. And maybe a bit more scary. While one would believe that there can be "dissidents" in the US w/o repression based on what one reads on the net -- e.g. the the "US" representing the "free world" yadda yadda ... -- the repressions and censorships are more subtle in general. Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also believe this is true for most other European countries. My original point was that the statement: > And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before. Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more, like the huge leak of the panama papers.
        fixermark 10y ago
        > I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. Just don't say "The Nazis are great and I really wish they were back in power." That'll get you straight-up jailed under section 86a of Strafgesetzbuch, if I understand correctly. Everything else is on the table. ;) http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- westiseast 10y ago
  They (Chinese people) don't have the freedom to denounce US imperialism though, because that implies a choice - if they were equally able to rejoice and accept western values as they were to reject them (like you can in the USA incidentally), then your statement would be right.
- xixi77 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that there is some sort of equivalence between people refusing to listen to your stuff, and getting sent to jail for your words/beliefs?
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    I said what I said. Why repeat it? Your question sounds like I couldn't be possibly serious. Assume I am serious.
- AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
  Examples of western war criminals who haven't been charged? Or is this just your political stance against anything the US/west does?
- tripzilch 10y ago
  > nobody (who matters) will listen to you I do like freedom of speech just about as far as I have the freedom to not have to listen to it (or, Goddess forbid, take it seriously).
Hondor 10y ago
Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die for any noble purpose, they just fight other soldiers and eventually somebody wins. Nobody knows if the winner will end up good or bad, free or oppressive. It doesn't matter if people got themselves killed because they happened to choose the winning side in a historic war. Those soldiers certainly didn't know what the consequences were going to be. They just followed their naive emotions and/or threats of violence from their governments.
- toss1 10y ago
  Wow, you really think that Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? That our democracy, as flawed as it is, is not better than China's one-party, censorship, mobile execution vans? Why have you not moved there yet? Yes, there are are sometimes, even many senseless wars, but that does not mean that all are so. And it certainly does not mean that people who volunteered to fight that war, and those who paid the ultimate price and died in it, don't deserve some honor (and no, honoring them does not mean that we cannot question or adjust belief structures later). The ignorance expressed in your statement is so profound that it is truly frightening, and if many hold it, then our society will not last. Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance). Or if you don't want to learn history, just examine some current societies that don't have the trust and stability in which you were obviously raised and take for granted.
  - JupiterMoon 10y ago
    > Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?
    - toss1 10y ago
      Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.
fixermark 10y ago
Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they have. In international issues, it's important to not lose sight of the possibility that there are multiple correct ways to solve political problems.
- okc 10y ago
  but those who don't enjoy it, can't say so. thats not a correct way to solve a problem. its a useless sacrifice.
- riprowan 10y ago
  Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they do not yet have. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_1651097c.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_...
kbenson 10y ago
Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? That's the problem with using something as vague and over-encompassing as "freedom", it's only a step removed from "evil" in how vague it can be. Additionally, all freedoms are not created equal. Is my right to due process as important as my right to bear arms? Are some of my views on my rights colored by the culture I live in, or are they all universal? I think China is lacking in some important rights, but I think being vague about them to the degree that we say they have "less freedom" only muddies the problem, and allows people to use the rights they do have as a counter-argument. Being clear that China's suppression of free speech allows them to shape discourse, suppress ideas they don't like, and propagandize their citizens easily makes the dangers clear. It does also open up the discussion for how the west attempts to accomplish the same things through the media, but that's not necessarily a bad thing have have brought up.
- acbabis 10y ago
  > Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? No, there's a fundamental difference between living in a country where you have recourse against the government and living in one where you don't. In the US, I am not allowed to say things that are considered slanderous, but I am allowed to say that I should be allowed to say things that are slanderous. This makes it at least possible to change the status quo. The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.
  - tremon 10y ago
    The same is not true in countries without free speech protections. I'm not convinced. I've seen plenty of (presumably) US citizens complain here that Europe doesn't have free speech, because we have laws to curb hate speech. Still, we are very much free to discuss and organize against our government.
    - acbabis 10y ago

PavlovsCat 10y ago

> I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.

seletz 10y ago
Oh, I think Mr. Snowden would disagree on the "nobody has done it before." And he wasn't the first.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  no matter how i admire mr snowden, I didn't catch any news mentioning someone from US agencies/government being bought before judge because of his revelations. Did I miss something?
- the_af 10y ago
  I don't know that Snowden is a good example: he had to flee his country in a hurry. There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether he would have a fair trial in the US, a country where many are calling him a traitor.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    That's seletz's point. It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.
    - the_af 10y ago
      Oh, if that was seletz's point, then I agree with it. I thought he was claiming in the US it was possible to be a dissident without censorship or repression. My mistake!
      - seletz 10y ago
        Well -- I think it's a bit more subtle than that. And maybe a bit more scary. While one would believe that there can be "dissidents" in the US w/o repression based on what one reads on the net -- e.g. the the "US" representing the "free world" yadda yadda ... -- the repressions and censorships are more subtle in general. Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also believe this is true for most other European countries. My original point was that the statement: > And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before. Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more, like the huge leak of the panama papers.
        fixermark 10y ago
        > I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. Just don't say "The Nazis are great and I really wish they were back in power." That'll get you straight-up jailed under section 86a of Strafgesetzbuch, if I understand correctly. Everything else is on the table. ;) http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
westiseast 10y ago
They (Chinese people) don't have the freedom to denounce US imperialism though, because that implies a choice - if they were equally able to rejoice and accept western values as they were to reject them (like you can in the USA incidentally), then your statement would be right.
xixi77 10y ago
Are you suggesting that there is some sort of equivalence between people refusing to listen to your stuff, and getting sent to jail for your words/beliefs?
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  I said what I said. Why repeat it? Your question sounds like I couldn't be possibly serious. Assume I am serious.
AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
Examples of western war criminals who haven't been charged? Or is this just your political stance against anything the US/west does?
tripzilch 10y ago
> nobody (who matters) will listen to you I do like freedom of speech just about as far as I have the freedom to not have to listen to it (or, Goddess forbid, take it seriously).

Hondor 10y ago

Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die for any noble purpose, they just fight other soldiers and eventually somebody wins. Nobody knows if the winner will end up good or bad, free or oppressive. It doesn't matter if people got themselves killed because they happened to choose the winning side in a historic war. Those soldiers certainly didn't know what the consequences were going to be. They just followed their naive emotions and/or threats of violence from their governments.

toss1 10y ago
Wow, you really think that Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? That our democracy, as flawed as it is, is not better than China's one-party, censorship, mobile execution vans? Why have you not moved there yet? Yes, there are are sometimes, even many senseless wars, but that does not mean that all are so. And it certainly does not mean that people who volunteered to fight that war, and those who paid the ultimate price and died in it, don't deserve some honor (and no, honoring them does not mean that we cannot question or adjust belief structures later). The ignorance expressed in your statement is so profound that it is truly frightening, and if many hold it, then our society will not last. Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance). Or if you don't want to learn history, just examine some current societies that don't have the trust and stability in which you were obviously raised and take for granted.
- JupiterMoon 10y ago
  > Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?
  - toss1 10y ago
    Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.

fixermark 10y ago

Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they have. In international issues, it's important to not lose sight of the possibility that there are multiple correct ways to solve political problems.

okc 10y ago
but those who don't enjoy it, can't say so. thats not a correct way to solve a problem. its a useless sacrifice.
riprowan 10y ago
Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they do not yet have. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_1651097c.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_...

kbenson 10y ago

Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? That's the problem with using something as vague and over-encompassing as "freedom", it's only a step removed from "evil" in how vague it can be. Additionally, all freedoms are not created equal. Is my right to due process as important as my right to bear arms? Are some of my views on my rights colored by the culture I live in, or are they all universal? I think China is lacking in some important rights, but I think being vague about them to the degree that we say they have "less freedom" only muddies the problem, and allows people to use the rights they do have as a counter-argument. Being clear that China's suppression of free speech allows them to shape discourse, suppress ideas they don't like, and propagandize their citizens easily makes the dangers clear. It does also open up the discussion for how the west attempts to accomplish the same things through the media, but that's not necessarily a bad thing have have brought up.

acbabis 10y ago
> Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? No, there's a fundamental difference between living in a country where you have recourse against the government and living in one where you don't. In the US, I am not allowed to say things that are considered slanderous, but I am allowed to say that I should be allowed to say things that are slanderous. This makes it at least possible to change the status quo. The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.
- tremon 10y ago
  The same is not true in countries without free speech protections. I'm not convinced. I've seen plenty of (presumably) US citizens complain here that Europe doesn't have free speech, because we have laws to curb hate speech. Still, we are very much free to discuss and organize against our government.
  - acbabis 10y ago