6 ms·

You obviously haven't read the article of this thread and do not know about the so-called Unequal Treaties China was subjected to in the 19th and early 20th cen

You obviously haven't read the article of this thread and do not know about the so-called Unequal Treaties China was subjected to in the 19th and early 20th century...

kolanos 7y ago
Because the U.S. doesn't have a similar history with the British Empire?
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  No... That isn't even remotely similar. That's also completely irrelevant here. Are people really that clueless about history? Or is it just bad faith?
  - kolanos 7y ago
    Please point out the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking [0] that are materially worse than terms the U.S. colonies were subject to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      See my previous questions. This is sad to see such behaviour on HN...
      - kolanos 7y ago
        Please familiarize yourself on colonial mercantilism [0] and then get back to me on how "irrelevant" U.S. history is... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
        dang 7y ago
        Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We're here for thoughtful conversation and to learn together. Don't comment in the spirit of defeating enemies—that subtly destroys curiosity, which is the spirit of the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        kolanos 7y ago
        Asking another poster to familiarize themselves with history of which they may not be aware is in that style? Strange.
        dang 7y ago
        That modest version leaves out the bits I was responding to. It's the combination of snark and low-information. The comment comes across as trying to show up the other person as ignorant, while positioning yourself as the smarter and correct one. That is an internet status game, not substantive conversation. Does it matter, or add anything interesting, who wins the kolanos vs. NotPaidToPost match in a subthread? Something similar appeared in your earlier comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931917. You're referencing things without teaching the reader why they matter and what they show, sort of like weapons in a cross examination. Cross examination in an HN discussion is boring, and a step towards being mean. If you actually do know more, a much better thing to do is share some of what you know so we can all learn. Instead of trying to defeat one user, share information with all of us. Alternatively, it's always fine not to post anything.
      - yorwba 7y ago
        I think there are some things you could do to receive better responses to your comments in the future. First of all, there's a reason the HN guidelines explicitly prohibit complaining that someone hasn't read an article. Not everyone has the same background knowledge, so even if they read the article, they may not have paid attention to the same details, failing to realize their significance. If you think some part is relevant to a point you want to make, just refer to it, e.g. "The article mentions that..." Second, the same differences in background knowledge also mean that not everyone will draw the same conclusions from the same facts. If you think you know something that contradicts or enhances the comment you're replying to, you'll be understood more easily if you explicitly state which part you're referring to. E.g. when you bring up the unequal treaties, it is unclear why you think that someone who knows about them would not write a comment like m0zg's. Third, as HN is a community built around intellectual curiosity, a good comment usually contains some novel information. This very comment of yours I'm replying to contains none. Fourth, while letting off some steam by accusing others of bad behavior can make you feel better, it's not really interesting for other commenters, so you could just as well not respond at all. I happen to agree that US colonial history is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, but saying so is equally irrelevant. Fifth, my comment is of course also totally irrelevant. Feel free to ignore it if you don't find it helpful.
        NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        There is a difference between different opinions and idiotic replies that are tantamount to trolling. I am fine with the former but not the latter, which is at best noise but usually simply poisons any thoughtful discussion as we see here: My comments were hijacked and poisoned.
        kolanos 7y ago
        Obviously the poster you initially replied to was trolling. My posts on the other hand were trying to highlight what I believe to be obvious historical parallels. If you still believe that to be "irrelevant", you certainly haven't made a case one way or the other. I'm going to move on, but try not to lump everyone into the troll bucket next time?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      China had it so easy under that treaty. If the US colonies had been given terms like that we'd probably still be British subjects.
    - ivalm 7y ago
      How is this relevant? US colonies were a product of the British Empire, populated by British subjects. China was an independent country with people who were not British subjects.
      - kolanos 7y ago
        Like China, the U.S. has a history of being victims of "unequal treaties" imposed by the British Empire. In fact, the Treaty of Nanking had a provision to ban Americans from the opium trade, which China helped the British to enforce.
      - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        Absolutely. This is obvious but...
  - burfog 7y ago
    I'd say neither. Americans just want to put America first. It's not bad faith to want that. If that means something that looks like Unequal Treaties, so what? Americans have no reason to care. China can be bitter about that forever, or forget it, or decide that Unequal Treaties are awesome. It really doesn't matter to the USA. It is clear that the Chinese want to put China first. That is their right, and is to be expected. Americans putting America first is no different.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post name-calling or flamewar comments to HN. If other people are ignorant, and you know more, the thing to do is to teach them, so we can all learn something. Lashing out with labels only makes this place worse, as well as making your own position seem weaker. I completely understand how frustrating these discussions can be and how posting a reply like that gives a certain temporary relief, but it's not worth the damage it causes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thatoneuser 7y ago
You seem to also be skirting over the latter 20th and 21st centuries where China has been stealing ip and violating human rights.
- moorhosj 7y ago
  ==violating human rights== Kind of hard to take this stance when we are palling around with Saudi Arabia and Israel and potentially committing our own abuses at the southern border (and definitely droning civilians in other countries).
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    ...yeah those places need work too. Idk what abuses we have at the southern border. People illegally cross and they are detained. This is very typical border policy.
    - moorhosj 7y ago
      Taking children who are apprehended with their parents and then separating them for detention isn’t typical and hasn’t been done by other administrations.

You obviously haven't read the article of this thread and do not know about the so-called Unequal Treaties China was subjected to in the 19th and early 20th century...

kolanos 7y ago

Because the U.S. doesn't have a similar history with the British Empire?

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
No... That isn't even remotely similar. That's also completely irrelevant here. Are people really that clueless about history? Or is it just bad faith?
- kolanos 7y ago
  Please point out the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking [0] that are materially worse than terms the U.S. colonies were subject to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    See my previous questions. This is sad to see such behaviour on HN...
    - kolanos 7y ago
      Please familiarize yourself on colonial mercantilism [0] and then get back to me on how "irrelevant" U.S. history is... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We're here for thoughtful conversation and to learn together. Don't comment in the spirit of defeating enemies—that subtly destroys curiosity, which is the spirit of the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        kolanos 7y ago
        Asking another poster to familiarize themselves with history of which they may not be aware is in that style? Strange.
        dang 7y ago
        That modest version leaves out the bits I was responding to. It's the combination of snark and low-information. The comment comes across as trying to show up the other person as ignorant, while positioning yourself as the smarter and correct one. That is an internet status game, not substantive conversation. Does it matter, or add anything interesting, who wins the kolanos vs. NotPaidToPost match in a subthread? Something similar appeared in your earlier comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19931917. You're referencing things without teaching the reader why they matter and what they show, sort of like weapons in a cross examination. Cross examination in an HN discussion is boring, and a step towards being mean. If you actually do know more, a much better thing to do is share some of what you know so we can all learn. Instead of trying to defeat one user, share information with all of us. Alternatively, it's always fine not to post anything.
    - yorwba 7y ago
      I think there are some things you could do to receive better responses to your comments in the future. First of all, there's a reason the HN guidelines explicitly prohibit complaining that someone hasn't read an article. Not everyone has the same background knowledge, so even if they read the article, they may not have paid attention to the same details, failing to realize their significance. If you think some part is relevant to a point you want to make, just refer to it, e.g. "The article mentions that..." Second, the same differences in background knowledge also mean that not everyone will draw the same conclusions from the same facts. If you think you know something that contradicts or enhances the comment you're replying to, you'll be understood more easily if you explicitly state which part you're referring to. E.g. when you bring up the unequal treaties, it is unclear why you think that someone who knows about them would not write a comment like m0zg's. Third, as HN is a community built around intellectual curiosity, a good comment usually contains some novel information. This very comment of yours I'm replying to contains none. Fourth, while letting off some steam by accusing others of bad behavior can make you feel better, it's not really interesting for other commenters, so you could just as well not respond at all. I happen to agree that US colonial history is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, but saying so is equally irrelevant. Fifth, my comment is of course also totally irrelevant. Feel free to ignore it if you don't find it helpful.
      - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        There is a difference between different opinions and idiotic replies that are tantamount to trolling. I am fine with the former but not the latter, which is at best noise but usually simply poisons any thoughtful discussion as we see here: My comments were hijacked and poisoned.
        kolanos 7y ago
        Obviously the poster you initially replied to was trolling. My posts on the other hand were trying to highlight what I believe to be obvious historical parallels. If you still believe that to be "irrelevant", you certainly haven't made a case one way or the other. I'm going to move on, but try not to lump everyone into the troll bucket next time?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    China had it so easy under that treaty. If the US colonies had been given terms like that we'd probably still be British subjects.
  - ivalm 7y ago
    How is this relevant? US colonies were a product of the British Empire, populated by British subjects. China was an independent country with people who were not British subjects.
    - kolanos 7y ago
      Like China, the U.S. has a history of being victims of "unequal treaties" imposed by the British Empire. In fact, the Treaty of Nanking had a provision to ban Americans from the opium trade, which China helped the British to enforce.
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      Absolutely. This is obvious but...
- burfog 7y ago
  I'd say neither. Americans just want to put America first. It's not bad faith to want that. If that means something that looks like Unequal Treaties, so what? Americans have no reason to care. China can be bitter about that forever, or forget it, or decide that Unequal Treaties are awesome. It really doesn't matter to the USA. It is clear that the Chinese want to put China first. That is their right, and is to be expected. Americans putting America first is no different.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post name-calling or flamewar comments to HN. If other people are ignorant, and you know more, the thing to do is to teach them, so we can all learn something. Lashing out with labels only makes this place worse, as well as making your own position seem weaker. I completely understand how frustrating these discussions can be and how posting a reply like that gives a certain temporary relief, but it's not worth the damage it causes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thatoneuser 7y ago

You seem to also be skirting over the latter 20th and 21st centuries where China has been stealing ip and violating human rights.

moorhosj 7y ago
==violating human rights== Kind of hard to take this stance when we are palling around with Saudi Arabia and Israel and potentially committing our own abuses at the southern border (and definitely droning civilians in other countries).
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  ...yeah those places need work too. Idk what abuses we have at the southern border. People illegally cross and they are detained. This is very typical border policy.
  - moorhosj 7y ago
    Taking children who are apprehended with their parents and then separating them for detention isn’t typical and hasn’t been done by other administrations.