4 ms·
Technical nihilism is all the rage but... can you really not tell the difference between be the U.S. and China on human rights? Of course, you could reply to t
by CoreSet 8y ago
Technical nihilism is all the rage but... can you really not tell the difference between be the U.S. and China on human rights?
Of course, you could reply to this comment with some gross injustice, and I could counter. But I'm generally curious. And if you do believe that that U.S. and China are the same, I guess my next question, because arguments seem to lead this way - how do you feel about what-aboutism?
- thesagan 8y agoThey're not the same. For example, it's the U.S. that has the world's largest prison population and the world's most expensive healthcare, etc. China has different issues.
- CoreSet 8y agoYou're right that they have different issues, different problems, different strengths. But what irks me is the "what-aboutism." If Texas executes handicap people, that's awful. But it makes China harvesting organs OK? The U.S. has a horrible track record in Latin America and (frankly) around the world, so China gets some "slack" in how many human rights activists or lawyers it jails each year? I understand I'm responding to a larger idea and not your comment specifically but... your exact line of argument is used to justify basically everything China (and Russia, and a lot of people incidentally) does that is condemned by the international community "So-and-so does it? Wake up you fucking sheep" is basically the locked-and-loaded phrase you can use to sound important and win any argument anytime, anywhere, and I think the tendency to fall back on that idea on HN hurts the community.
- rangibaby 8y agoI guess it boils down to: if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones
- CoreSet 8y agoThat's what I'm getting at though - you should throw stones! China being bad doesn't excuse the U.S, the U.S. being bad doesn't excuse China. But somehow, somewhere, in the rhetoric of HN (and let's face it, the internet) there's this idea that only the morally unimpeachable can criticize something. But in reality that just gives the worst actors carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't break some record or set a new standard for terribleness. We're in a moral race to the bottom, and it doesn't help to say "because so-and-so did it." That just digs us deeper
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoJust be sure that, when throwing stones, you also throw them at the appropriate issues on your own side. Sure, criticize China, and criticize the US, as appropriate. That doesn't mean moral equivalence (they aren't equivalent), but it does mean not sweeping your own issues under the rug.
- SturgeonsLaw 8y agoIt's not good when the USA behaves like that, and it's not good when China behaves like that. Hopefully, as America's hegemony declines relative to other actors, the resulting multipolar world is fairer for more people. Monopolies aren't a good thing in the commercial sphere, and they aren't a good thing in the political sphere, both lend themselves to abusive practices by those who can go unchallenged.
- CoreSet 8y agoThis is a great comment - thank you for the contribution. I sort of go back and forth on the point though. I also think monopolies enable and contribute to abuse - but I worry that the multipolar order would just breed new battle grounds for the various contenders to establish supremacy. On the one hand, you can get the space race (woo, the moon!), on the other hand, you can get the arms race (boo and/or complicated yay, nuclear weapons!).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wav-part 8y agoUS bombs. China builds.
- hk-mars 8y agoYes, it does. Just be careful of the international community party :)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]