3 ms·

I like the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow is endangered by Apple or Google deciding to make business decisions that pertain to Saudi Arabia. I'm also

I like the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow is endangered by Apple or Google deciding to make business decisions that pertain to Saudi Arabia. I'm also enjoying your Total Commitment to this principle, extending to guarded support for the hypothetical "Apartheid Black Management App". The fact that you're talking in hushed tones of reverence about the glorious principle of sovereignty in a discussion of Saudi Arabia is really just the icing on the cake.

wongarsu 8y ago
You didn't provide any actual arguments, instead just dismissing what I said out of hand (in a needlessly snarky way).
- glangdale 8y ago
  I would imagine that you could have read between the lines here, but since you apparently can't.... How about - 1 - the Peace of Westphalia has nothing to do with the behavior of private companies or 'influence' within other countries, which has been rampant ever since, and 2 - Saudi Arabia has been one of the top offenders in both dodgy 'influence' in other countries and outright intervention (including things that actually violate the principles you set out) ever since it has been around. So it's pretty funny to imagine that KSA should be handled with kid gloves in this situation, especially when we're talking about the behavior of private companies.
pvg 8y ago
Maybe it's a LaRouche-ist.
xkapastel 8y ago
What exactly are you trying to say? This post is nothing but empty snark. For example, are you trying to say that Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign nation?
- glangdale 8y ago
  Both you and GP are overly in love with HN's prohibition of snark, to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky. Frankly, I think HN's official stance on snark is regrettable - the net effect is that, no matter how absurd or obnoxious the proposition, we need to shift the Overton Window by acting as if the proposition is worthy of Serious Discussion. I think we've crossed that line a while ago, when GP asserted that we'd just have to go ahead with Apple and Google having "Kaffir Manager" on the app store because that would have been OK with South Africa at one point - these being companies that regularly exercise judgement way beyond the strict letter of local law (e.g. banning adult content that would be legal with age-verification in most countries). In this case, it (the prospect that the Peace of Westphalia needs to be invoked to explain app store approvals) is not really worthy of serious discussion. Anyone who has, I dunno, read a newspaper semi-regularly at any time would find the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow applies to 'influence' within other countries absurd on the face of it (such influence has been incredibly common since WWII) and to particularly apply this starchy and ahistoric interpretation to Saudi Arabia - not exactly noted for its own policies of non-interference, to say the least - is doubly absurd. You and GP may have noticed at some point that the discussion was about Apple and Google choosing to allow an app, not whether the USA should invade the KSA and free the women, but apparently bringing the Peace of Westphalia and a discussion of sovereignty into it was a temptation that was overwhelming.
  - pvg 8y ago
    you don't seem to be able to read any meaning The GP comment (about the Peace of Westphalia) is bananas and the dementors might be a little uptight when it comes 'snark' but you're way past snark - 'lol, reading comprehension much' is not snark it's just crappy namecalling. You should edit it out.
    - glangdale 8y ago
      I am not overly convinced that paraphasing what I said to be way snarkier than it is, then referring to it as "crappy namecalling" is entirely valid. You have even truncated my original quote to make it seem snarkier: "to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky" -> "you don't seem to be able to read any meaning" What I find tiresome is the overuse of the word 'snark' on HN to mean 'you disagreed with me but didn't show my arguments the hushed reverence of the drawing room'. As a result, every conversation at HN rapidly silts up with people straight-facedly raising disingenuous absurdities. We didn't quite make it to the Nazis, but seriously? "Apartheid-era South Africa should have been left alone because something something Westphalia." You are exactly right: the comment is bananas. It is past due that it should be allowed to call a comment 'bananas' on HN without people crying out for teacher to come Save Them From The Snark.

wongarsu 8y ago

You didn't provide any actual arguments, instead just dismissing what I said out of hand (in a needlessly snarky way).

glangdale 8y ago
I would imagine that you could have read between the lines here, but since you apparently can't.... How about - 1 - the Peace of Westphalia has nothing to do with the behavior of private companies or 'influence' within other countries, which has been rampant ever since, and 2 - Saudi Arabia has been one of the top offenders in both dodgy 'influence' in other countries and outright intervention (including things that actually violate the principles you set out) ever since it has been around. So it's pretty funny to imagine that KSA should be handled with kid gloves in this situation, especially when we're talking about the behavior of private companies.

pvg 8y ago

Maybe it's a LaRouche-ist.

xkapastel 8y ago

What exactly are you trying to say? This post is nothing but empty snark. For example, are you trying to say that Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign nation?

glangdale 8y ago
Both you and GP are overly in love with HN's prohibition of snark, to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky. Frankly, I think HN's official stance on snark is regrettable - the net effect is that, no matter how absurd or obnoxious the proposition, we need to shift the Overton Window by acting as if the proposition is worthy of Serious Discussion. I think we've crossed that line a while ago, when GP asserted that we'd just have to go ahead with Apple and Google having "Kaffir Manager" on the app store because that would have been OK with South Africa at one point - these being companies that regularly exercise judgement way beyond the strict letter of local law (e.g. banning adult content that would be legal with age-verification in most countries). In this case, it (the prospect that the Peace of Westphalia needs to be invoked to explain app store approvals) is not really worthy of serious discussion. Anyone who has, I dunno, read a newspaper semi-regularly at any time would find the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow applies to 'influence' within other countries absurd on the face of it (such influence has been incredibly common since WWII) and to particularly apply this starchy and ahistoric interpretation to Saudi Arabia - not exactly noted for its own policies of non-interference, to say the least - is doubly absurd. You and GP may have noticed at some point that the discussion was about Apple and Google choosing to allow an app, not whether the USA should invade the KSA and free the women, but apparently bringing the Peace of Westphalia and a discussion of sovereignty into it was a temptation that was overwhelming.
- pvg 8y ago
  you don't seem to be able to read any meaning The GP comment (about the Peace of Westphalia) is bananas and the dementors might be a little uptight when it comes 'snark' but you're way past snark - 'lol, reading comprehension much' is not snark it's just crappy namecalling. You should edit it out.
  - glangdale 8y ago
    I am not overly convinced that paraphasing what I said to be way snarkier than it is, then referring to it as "crappy namecalling" is entirely valid. You have even truncated my original quote to make it seem snarkier: "to the point that you don't seem to be able to read any meaning into anything that seems a little snarky" -> "you don't seem to be able to read any meaning" What I find tiresome is the overuse of the word 'snark' on HN to mean 'you disagreed with me but didn't show my arguments the hushed reverence of the drawing room'. As a result, every conversation at HN rapidly silts up with people straight-facedly raising disingenuous absurdities. We didn't quite make it to the Nazis, but seriously? "Apartheid-era South Africa should have been left alone because something something Westphalia." You are exactly right: the comment is bananas. It is past due that it should be allowed to call a comment 'bananas' on HN without people crying out for teacher to come Save Them From The Snark.