16 ms·

If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have to break it to you that you have been played. Brainwashed by years and years of medi

• nhaliday 10y ago
  People complain about US govt surveillance all the time. It doesn't always lead to change but there's a healthy degree of dissent.
  • ekianjo 10y ago
    > healthy degree of dissent Hardly, to be honest. Most folks dont care about surveillance at all, and ask for more state powers.
    • striking 10y ago
      With the media (and gov't, and everyone else) bombarding non-tech Americans about how dangerous cyberterrorism could be, with the ISIS social media accounts ready to snatch up your children... I'm entirely unsurprised there are many people who would be willing to give up their privacy for "safety." If only there were a way we could inform Americans that they aren't actually doomed.
  • educar 10y ago
    TBH, it is really only in HN threads I hear about any dissent. Snowden hasn't been pardoned and most of US appears against what he did. But China is universally seen as a repressive regime (which it probably is).
• bpodgursky 10y ago
  > The U.S routinely bombs other sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity There's a lot of nuance here, because there isn't really a (current) clear-cut case of the US bombing a sovereign nation where the government has not given the US permission. Of the current active campaigns: - Afghanistan - Iraq - Pakistan Each of these countries has a functioning government, even mostly democratically elected, and all US military involvement is with the permission of the host -- if Pakistan told the US to stop using their airbases, it would happen. - Syria There's less explicit permission here, but the US is bombing a current enemy of the Syrian federal government, so there's no real complaining. - Somalia - Yemen - Libya It's completely ambiguous which government you consider to be the sovereign one (arguably, there really isn't one). Either way, at least the publicly backed government is OK with US airstrikes.
  • packetized 10y ago
    'current', for small values of current.
    • bpodgursky 10y ago
      I can only think of one contrary example within the last decade -- Libya, where Gaddafi was still in power when we started bombing. It was complicated, and I think in the end it was a poor decision, but I don't think it's fair to consider it wrong or evil. Looking farther back you find Iraq and Afghanistan on the list with similar disclaimers. In any case, neither was a "lob a few missiles from the stratosphere and peace out" strikes the parent comment implies. Let me know if I'm forgetting something.
      • packetized 10y ago
        Philippines, possibly - depending on who you talk to. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/deadly-drone-strike-on-muslims-in-the-southern-philippines/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/deadly-drone-strike-on-mu...
        • 10y ago
• andrei_says_ 10y ago
  The older I get the more interesting and sensible Chomsky gets. Until a few years ago I was perceiving him as boring and monotone and now I am seeing a fierce warrior of truth* holding language as his weapon. This 9 min. excerpt on propaganda terms in the Media is especially appropriate. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc *I don't mean some objective truth out there but a viewpoint which is rooted in his very well informed worldview and his obvious commitment to integrity.
  • fsloth 10y ago
    I wonder what aspect of Chomsky makes him uninteresting. Maybe it's that his message - trying to point out the human flaws of his governmemt - goes so much against the grain of hollywood aided propaganda that people presume it's either minute details or just wrong?
    • lazaroclapp 10y ago
      In my experience, the only country in which Chomsky is seen as uninteresting or nitpicking is in the U.S. That's not to say there are no complexities to whether or not a Pax Americana is better than the alternative (based on previous U.S. govts.), or that all governments records are equivalent when it comes to propaganda or human rights (for their own citizens). But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". A few see it as "the less-bad guys", but plenty of countries in Latin America saw the U.S.S.R. as "the less-bad guys" by comparison too.
      • saiya-jin 10y ago
        > But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". well you would have to be a complete ignorant to last 60 years of history and present to consider US the good guys. Economically strong police state with more innocent blood on their hands for last 20 years than any other state in this world. Axis of evil my ass
        • 10y ago
• csallen 10y ago
  > If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have to break it to you that you have been played. People don't know the half of it, and in my experience, they don't want to know. It's comforting to feel like the good guys. The media is complicit, in that it intentionally leaves out relevant facts that might make us look bad. For example, take Iran. In 1953, we overthrew their democratically-elected government in favor of the opposition, because their citizens didn't want BP to have control of their oil. We bribed politicians, street thugs, and demonstrators; incited deadly riots; bombed houses; etc. BP actually contributed funds to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace. 290 fatalities, including women and children. 8th deadliest disaster in aviation history, nary a peep in the US media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655. But they are the reckless terrorists to watch out for. And it gets worse, much much worse. Look into our activities in South America, especially Guatemala. Our terrorist activities in Cuba. Our "defense" of Vietnam. Our thinly-justified and roundly-condemned embargoes. (Quite common to see UN votes that are 190-1, everyone vs the US. Or the US and Israel.) We've killed hundreds of thousands, millions of people in many cases. Often explicitly for US business interests. Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read this stuff.
  • 3131s 10y ago
    > Our "defense" of Vietnam. And most people only think of Vietnam itself regarding that conflict, yet Cambodia and Laos were absolutely decimated too. The US dropped more tons of bombs on Laos and Cambodia individually than the combined amount dropped by the allied forces in WWII. There are still 80 million unexploded bombs in the Laos countryside. Landmines sold by the US and China to the Lon Nol government and the Khmer Rouge respectively were up until recently killing 1000+ Cambodians a year. If you've seen these places and met the people there, it's hard to imagine.
    • jahnu 10y ago
• avar 10y ago
  Here's a thought experiment you can use to clarify the difference between good & evil: What would each side in a conflict do if they had overwhelming power? We have plenty of evidence to see what the US would do. When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners. What do you think ISIS would do with exclusive use of nuclear weapons? How about Iraq under Saddam etc? Do you think Hamas would be equally deterred by Israelis using their children as human shields as Israelis are by Hamas using theirs for that purpose? Of course good & evil isn't black and white, the western world does a lot of bad stuff. But it's just as brainwashed to think that just because all sides cause some civilian casualties to think that everyone's morally equal, as it is to think that the US is some altruistic knight in shining armor that can do no wrong.
  • watbot69 10y ago
    Do you think the US is not using it's "overwhelming power" because of moral high ground or because it would spur a united retaliation as well as internal resistance?
  • skriticos2 10y ago
    The US actions after WWII in the peace negotiations weren't as altruistic as you are trying to make out. In fact it was a reaction to the disastrous result of the peace negotiations after WWI, which greatly contributed to WWII, and with the USSR being what it was and everyone building nukes they probably thought WWIII was not in their interest. Building up western Europe was a strong force against the USSR and a convenient buffer zone.
    • js8 10y ago
      Are you saying that if altruism (helping others) is a rational thing to do, then it's not really altruism? I find that argument a little strange.
      • maxvu 10y ago
• wallace_f 10y ago
  Try to tell people why Eisenhower said "there was no reason to use that awful thing" (the atomic bomb) and that the greatest threat to America was the Military Industrial Complex. You could stay close to the facts, but still they'd think of you like some kind of conspiracy theorist because you don't agree with what they've been taught to believe. It is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities that our national elections are a complete farce: https://i.imgjar.co/jar/jz_ITKGNR0StdBBIoT8dyw.gif https://i.imgjar.co/jar/jz_ITKGNR0StdBBIoT8dyw.gif Part of becoming an adult is realizing how terribly awful people can be. But part of that is also realizing that there are many good people out there. I hope the good people take back control, somehow.
  • tboyd47 10y ago
    Very well put. Some people are really, truly evil, and will never change, but you still have to go out and look for the good people anyway or you'll go insane. This is why sanity is so challenging.
  • sjy 10y ago
    > It is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities that our national elections are a complete farce Most ballots are not cast by direct electronic voting: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-day-most-voters-use-electronic-or-optical-scan-ballots/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-... US presidential elections are "fundamentally local," meaning that an overwhelming number of officials would have to be corrupted to rig them: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rigging-presidential-election/ https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rig... Electronic voting has its problems, but it is not plausible to suggest that the national elections are a complete farce.
• ivanhoe 10y ago
  >One man's terrorist is another man's hero. That "another man" is brainwashed too. Everyone's brainwashed by their local media and not just that, but we all are deeply biased because, at a personal level, we all look at our own interests first. Countries do the same. And since the planet is only this big, those interests quickly come in conflict with other side's plans and then countries do nasty things justifying them with "national interests". That's just how the world works...
  • musha68k 10y ago
    >That's just how the world works... Maybe the world needs to change then :)
    • ivanhoe 10y ago
      By all means, but problem is to what? If everyone's biased, who's right and who's wrong? So far people were "changing the World" usually just to make it closer to their own point of view, imposing those views on everyone else.
      • musha68k 10y ago
        Let's hear as many point of views as possible then and accordingly pick and sync eventually. I have to think of Conway's Law – extrapolating from there to the whole internet, maybe we're all currently in the process of doing this already..
• pqs 10y ago
  However, there is objective evil. ISIS is objective evil, for example. Russia or the USA are in the gray zone, where some of they actions are evil, some others are simply stupid, and some other have sense. So, I understand your point, everything is complex, but we should avoid losing our moral compass. Some evil is really evil. Edited: typos.
  • ionised 10y ago
    Define objective evil
    • seppin 10y ago
      specifically targeting and killing innocents to accomplish your political goals. ISIS, Russia, Assad, AQ or any other terrorist group, etc.
    • pqs 10y ago
      I guess that all most religions and philosophies would agree in that causing unnecessary pain is bad, that to kill for pleasure is bad, etc. It is difficult to explain in words where the common denominator is, but this doesn't mean there isn't one.
• rimantas 10y ago
  Except bombs are dropped by the military and the victims of the terror attacks are civilians.
  • TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Let's not pretend that being an official military of an official, globally recognized government makes indiscriminate killing of civilians somehow better than doing the same as official military of an unofficial government...
• Ntrails 10y ago
  I saw a clip on the news recently of a reporter badgering Trump about his intent to create closer ties to Putin. "He's a murderer, he's killing innocent civillians", the reporter states as though this is particularly important. The President responded with something along the lines of "And we're so much better?". I'll freely acknowledge his flaws but by Gods it felt good to see someone acknowledge the tricks of perspective we use to justify our actions whilst condemning others.
  • jacobush 10y ago
    Yes, he doesn't give a shit and that is nice sometimes. The US had a Trump coming for some time, I think. The system was so corrupt, the only candidates to crystallise were unpopular ones. Let's just hope out of this mess comes something better. Takes a thief to catch one and all that. Problem is, what happens when the thief caught the other thieves? :-/
  • dcposch 10y ago
    He's not making a humble, leftish point about our moral failures in foreign policy! He was shrugging off the use of murder as a political tool. America may be in a bad place right now, and we've done a lot of awful things in other people's countries. But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists. Things can get a lot worse. Trump was expressing admiration for Putin. The reporter incredulously reminded him that Putin has personally had his opponents killed (Litvenenko, etc). Trump basically said "whatever, nbd, we do bad stuff too". I predict ugly surprises.
    • Ntrails 10y ago
      > He's not making a humble, leftish point about our moral failures in foreign policy! How is that point leftish in any way? The left are not defined by the idea that there is a moral good and a moral bad, and they want the moral good. Left good Right bad is one of the most infuriating assertions to see casually chucked into a sentence. You're right, of course, that he wasn't trying to suggest that America should pay for it's sins or change it's attitude/foreign policy. I happily acknowledge that you think it's worse to murder high profile people in your own country compared to, say, exploding nobodies in a foreign one. I'll at least argue that the president being honest about them both being murder is pretty refreshing
• ProAm 10y ago
  Good and evil is always relative to ones position. No one thinks they are the bad guy, ever.
• binarray2000 10y ago
  YES! But this bears question, why is that so? Why is the US empire (and the US oligarchy) so thirsty for war that it is willing (one could even argue: eager) to sacrifice lives, physical and psychical health of its people (soldiers)? Why is it not putting trillions into infrastructure, health, education instead of spending them to wage wars with nations which have not even thought to attack the US, let alone have done it? (And most of which don't have the resources to do it!) Well, yes, it is about oil: Syria: Another Pipeline War http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-188218053... But the issue is much deeper. So deep indeed, that I'll (again!) quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan) So, it is not only the oil (or any other resource to be taken from others). And is is not only about money to be made from bombs (and private contractors who fight, spy, prepare meals for soldiers, wash their uniforms, repair their trucks, build military installations etc.). It is the US economy at stake. And that's why you need the POTUS, the Senate, the Congress, intelligence agencies, millitary-intelligence-indutrial complex, the media - to all pull on the same string. And to "invent" enemies: Russia, China, Vietnam, Serbia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria... or "the Muslims". But the truth is hidden by the fourth estate from the US citizen with slogans such as "we bring democracy, human rights and freedom to the world", or with self-aggrandizing "American exceptionalism" (cringe!).
  • accountface 10y ago
    Because the US is doing it under the altruistic guise of individual freedom (probably an easier sell than collectivism) and also making small numbers of people large amounts of money.
  • qntty 10y ago
    "War is a racket" https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
  • 10y ago
• uighjughhh 10y ago
  Reminds me that our president said that we are no so innocent. We are also killers. That he was defending Putin may not be relevant.
• elastic_church 10y ago
  Every single State of the Union address has the US President saying the US is the moral authority of the world and an example of what is good