> I'm quite sure there will not be a coherent counter-argument provided by anyone who disagrees and who also claims to oppose things like the Iraq war. Your wh

> I'm quite sure there will not be a coherent counter-argument provided by anyone who disagrees and who also claims to oppose things like the Iraq war. Your whole point is because party A wants something, anyone else who may ageee to any of their arguments (even those who don't even "agree" but came up with the same thing from first principles in a clean lab environment), wants that thing party A wants, too. You're using one gang of villains to excuse another, that doesn't even stand on its own, it collapses before any counter-argument can reach it. It's like pointing out the Mafia drinks water and then claiming everybody who thinks water is necessary is aligned with the Mafia. > The idea that the will of the Chinese people does not matter OR is not being reflected by the Chinese government's policy. > Then the conclusion from this that the Chinese people are victims of their government, or dupes. Dissidents have been murdered for decades. People who have family in China simply cannot openly speak. When they post on HN, it always ends with stuff like "I didn't fully read the article" or "I don't understand". I can't blame them, but I also can't pretend that's not going on. So, what's wrong with that idea and the conclusion? I mean, I think you want to imply there's something wrong with it, but it's hard to tell, since both those two "sentences" don't even have a verb. > This is the view of Saddam Hussein's government that was used to sell the Iraq war. The idea that destroying a lot of infrastructure and removing him from power was actually doing the will of the Iraqi people. No, Colin Powell made a presentation in front of the UN, sweating very much IIRC, talking about trailers and chemical weapons and nukes. If you're going to claim it was ever mainly about the Iraqi people, I'll need citations. I wasn't just against the Iraq war, it's the reason I can write somewhat coherent English. For me, that war was "Hitler attacking Poland", I tried to stop it before it started by arguing on the interwebs to the point of exhaustion. Even today, several times a year I bring up the idea that an arrest warrant against Bush and Blair would be the beginning of a move back into civilization. I think it's disgusting that Trump rehabilitated Bush, that him slipping Michelle Obama some candy during McCain's memorial service is now "cute". I think Americas obsession with empty language and "leadership" is one of the examples of how George Carlin was right when he said "Germany lost WW2, fascism won it". etc. So? Doesn't make me excuse concentration camps or pretend totalitarianism isn't totalitarianism. Read "Origins of Totalitarianism". Actually do visit concentrations, and actually live in cities where you know Jews have been dragged from their homes, as the neighbours looked away. But spare me your assumptions about what "the people concerned about Dragonfly" are or want. > [..] so that it is as if everybody melted together into giant being of enormous proportions. This too does the for a totalitarian environment so well prepared vernacular express in its own way when it no longer speaks of "the" Russians or "the" French, but tells us what "the" Russian or "the" Frenchman wants. -- Hannah Arendt, "origins of Totalitarianism" > I suspect that the people concerned about Dragonfly are the same people who would have protested a Google decision to launch in Iraq on the basis of various social policies that existed there under Baath party rule. What kind of argument is this? You suspect something you can't prove and nobody can disprove, because it takes place in some alternative universe? > This is pretty much the definition of neoconservatism. You mean that thing going on in that alternative universe? And you actually think that's an argument that requires a counter-argument? So basically, because you claim to know (well, you just "suspect", but that's just the plausible deniablity variant, just like the "I'm not sure I agree" and other phrases HN is full of) what someone would have done 15 years ago in a situation that never was, you can now call everyone who is critical of Dragonfly or Chinese totalitarianism neo-conservative? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18513113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18513113 > Basically, HN is run like Singapore. It’s very tidy but there is an authoritarian dimension that is unsettling. I came to this comment from that comment, and now I'm confused to put it mildly. How can the same person who wrote that have written what I just responded to? How can you object to manipulation on a private website, but imply totalitarianism represents the people under its heel? Why not simply say "the average HN users is reflected by this policy" and that's that?