3 ms·

Yup, I'm not about to be censored by people downvoting my comments without explanation. I think the downvoting mechanic on HN is stupid. Of course what I said

Yup, I'm not about to be censored by people downvoting my comments without explanation. I think the downvoting mechanic on HN is stupid. Of course what I said is an oversimplification. It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions, and your own oversimplifications. The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly, and this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there. Perhaps something is missing from your own US-centric legalist analysis?

PavlovsCat 7y ago
Fair enough, FWIW I didn't even downvote you, I also prefer discussion. > It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions "Deep underlying" being code for being made up by you on the spot? > The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly The last time 1949? So, not since modern, industrialized totalitarianism took hold. That's like talking about cancer by describing the life of a person before contracting cancer. > this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. Mercedes Benz apologized three times for even quoting the Dalai Lama, just an inspirational quote. For me, that's three times too many. And just like I'm not over the Iraq war being a war of aggression, I will not forget or forgive this, either. You do you. > your own US-centric legalist analysis? Again you assumptions about my assumptions. If anything, being German, my "analysis" (of which you quote nothing, don't engage with at all) is Nazi-based.
- infinity0 7y ago
  > They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. This isn't on the same scale as "enforce their will on the world", and nowhere near US-levels of "enforce their will". (Not justifying this sort of action however.) My point is you and the earlier poster are happy to extrapolate small events into big ones in a way that doesn't match the historical record. The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion, which is generally more principled that you (and other US-centric "analysers") give them credit for, being too focused on the laws and ignoring many "facts on the ground". (Not implying rule-of-law is a bad thing.) > being German, Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. There are differences and also similarities.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion Mercedes Benz apologized profusely. If the CCP will have their way, their murders will never have happened. The same is not true for the US, not even remotely. If that was the case, Noam Chomsky and others would have been murdered in the 70s or something. But here he is, one of the most prolific intellectuals. He gets smeared a lot, but there is still a giant difference. That vimeo video you don't seem to be able to comment on directly is evidence of a very principled public opinion indeed, principled by fear, as a result of torture and murder. > Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. More importantly, "saying your analysis is US-centric" means nothing. It's not a concrete criticism of anything I said. Your whole argument seems to be the US is worse, so how am I the US-centric one? All I'm hearing is, you're using one set of tyrants and murderers, US aggression and world influence, to justify another sets of tyrants and murderers, while saying "not justifying it however".

PavlovsCat 7y ago

Fair enough, FWIW I didn't even downvote you, I also prefer discussion. > It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions "Deep underlying" being code for being made up by you on the spot? > The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly The last time 1949? So, not since modern, industrialized totalitarianism took hold. That's like talking about cancer by describing the life of a person before contracting cancer. > this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. Mercedes Benz apologized three times for even quoting the Dalai Lama, just an inspirational quote. For me, that's three times too many. And just like I'm not over the Iraq war being a war of aggression, I will not forget or forgive this, either. You do you. > your own US-centric legalist analysis? Again you assumptions about my assumptions. If anything, being German, my "analysis" (of which you quote nothing, don't engage with at all) is Nazi-based.

infinity0 7y ago
> They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. This isn't on the same scale as "enforce their will on the world", and nowhere near US-levels of "enforce their will". (Not justifying this sort of action however.) My point is you and the earlier poster are happy to extrapolate small events into big ones in a way that doesn't match the historical record. The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion, which is generally more principled that you (and other US-centric "analysers") give them credit for, being too focused on the laws and ignoring many "facts on the ground". (Not implying rule-of-law is a bad thing.) > being German, Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. There are differences and also similarities.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion Mercedes Benz apologized profusely. If the CCP will have their way, their murders will never have happened. The same is not true for the US, not even remotely. If that was the case, Noam Chomsky and others would have been murdered in the 70s or something. But here he is, one of the most prolific intellectuals. He gets smeared a lot, but there is still a giant difference. That vimeo video you don't seem to be able to comment on directly is evidence of a very principled public opinion indeed, principled by fear, as a result of torture and murder. > Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. More importantly, "saying your analysis is US-centric" means nothing. It's not a concrete criticism of anything I said. Your whole argument seems to be the US is worse, so how am I the US-centric one? All I'm hearing is, you're using one set of tyrants and murderers, US aggression and world influence, to justify another sets of tyrants and murderers, while saying "not justifying it however".