4 ms·

First of all, let me offer a sincere, hearty and belated thanks for all the hard work you do to keep HN’s quality up. That being said, I hope you don’t mind a

First of all, let me offer a sincere, hearty and belated thanks for all the hard work you do to keep HN’s quality up. That being said, I hope you don’t mind a bit of input here. The parent comment didn’t seem snarky at all, and while his language about “war” might not have been exactly literal, that doesn’t make it exaggerated. China has been extremely aggressive about acquiring Western technology and IP. Furthermore, Chinese students have been a significant avenue of this theft. These facts are not in dispute (except perhaps by Chinese’s government spokespeople). Not only has this been in the news repeatedly, but I have specific professional experiences to this effect. All that being the case, it’s difficult to understand why you would have described the parent poster’s quite accurate description of the current state of affairs as “nationalistic flame bait.” To be honest, this is the one time I’ve witnessed where your contribution lowered the discourse instead of raising it.

dang 7y ago
I called it snarky because "people on HN react like some grand conspiracy theory was unveiled while it takes 15 seconds on google" is typical internet snark, complete with supercilious posturing over the rest of the community. I called it inflammatory because "China has been at war with us for quite a while" is a gross rhetorical escalation. Even your comment does a bit of that: being "extremely aggressive about acquiring Western technology and IP" is, however true, not being at war. (Actually, your comment is otherwise so reasonable that I doubt you'd have put it that way if you weren't specifically defending the GP's phrasing.) Do these gradations matter? Yes they do. War is not a place from which people find it easy to climb down, find common ground, or do anything but destroy each other. That's true in internet threads too. And I called it nationalistic because the comment depicted the situation only as a conflict between nations in which one is the aggrieved and the other the aggriever. Of course those are merely my interpretations. Maybe I'm wrong, though seeing the commenter post later that every Chinese person should be seen as an enemy makes me pretty sure I wasn't wrong. Either way though, this call wasn't particularly different than the others we make, and I didn't make it because I secretly favor the opposite side of the argument, however much it may feel that way to passionate readers. And I'm certainly not denying your or anyone else's professional experience.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  "people on HN react like some grand conspiracy theory was unveiled while it takes 15 seconds on google" is garden-variety internet snark Such a factual situation is often the subject of such snark. In this age of search bubbles and personalized (read algorithm distorted) views of information the observation is often true. Such reactions are exhibited by one group even to factual information. This results in frustration on both sides of the statement, creating the state of "War," which, "is not a place from which people find it easy to climb down." This is particularly bad because such information is particularly valuable. It's precisely such mental model breaking information which is the most valuable. It's very easy to see how a group like, the Flat Earthers, or Anti-vaxxers have such model-breaking information blindness. Throughout history, we've seen that it's particularly hard for privileged knowledge workers -- who have been validated by society through high pay and social status -- to see the model-breaking information. (Witness the struggle to get germ theory recognized by gentleman doctors.) In short, we tech folks need to acknowledge that there are factors acting to make us the most blind. In 2019, we all have it. We've always all had it. The question is how do we communicate this without being in the mental state of "war."
- luckydata 7y ago
  It descends logically from my position: if we are at war with China, Chinese nationals are the enemy. Not every war is fought with guns, not all the time. We are in a period that's equivalent to an asymmetric version of the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War Would you refute that the United States has been at war for decades with the Soviet Union? You seem to have an issue with my ideas, not with my language. I welcome the debate about those ideas, but it doesn't seem appropriate to throw the weight of your status as moderator to win an argument against ideas you don't like. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the spirit of HN is?
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    Dang is trying to cool your jets. I think America is an idea where most countries are based on genetics and history. I get where you are on this, but it should be realized illiberal people will take advantage of liberal people. It's a price worth paying if you stick with it to the end.

dang 7y ago

I called it snarky because "people on HN react like some grand conspiracy theory was unveiled while it takes 15 seconds on google" is typical internet snark, complete with supercilious posturing over the rest of the community. I called it inflammatory because "China has been at war with us for quite a while" is a gross rhetorical escalation. Even your comment does a bit of that: being "extremely aggressive about acquiring Western technology and IP" is, however true, not being at war. (Actually, your comment is otherwise so reasonable that I doubt you'd have put it that way if you weren't specifically defending the GP's phrasing.) Do these gradations matter? Yes they do. War is not a place from which people find it easy to climb down, find common ground, or do anything but destroy each other. That's true in internet threads too. And I called it nationalistic because the comment depicted the situation only as a conflict between nations in which one is the aggrieved and the other the aggriever. Of course those are merely my interpretations. Maybe I'm wrong, though seeing the commenter post later that every Chinese person should be seen as an enemy makes me pretty sure I wasn't wrong. Either way though, this call wasn't particularly different than the others we make, and I didn't make it because I secretly favor the opposite side of the argument, however much it may feel that way to passionate readers. And I'm certainly not denying your or anyone else's professional experience.

stcredzero 7y ago
"people on HN react like some grand conspiracy theory was unveiled while it takes 15 seconds on google" is garden-variety internet snark Such a factual situation is often the subject of such snark. In this age of search bubbles and personalized (read algorithm distorted) views of information the observation is often true. Such reactions are exhibited by one group even to factual information. This results in frustration on both sides of the statement, creating the state of "War," which, "is not a place from which people find it easy to climb down." This is particularly bad because such information is particularly valuable. It's precisely such mental model breaking information which is the most valuable. It's very easy to see how a group like, the Flat Earthers, or Anti-vaxxers have such model-breaking information blindness. Throughout history, we've seen that it's particularly hard for privileged knowledge workers -- who have been validated by society through high pay and social status -- to see the model-breaking information. (Witness the struggle to get germ theory recognized by gentleman doctors.) In short, we tech folks need to acknowledge that there are factors acting to make us the most blind. In 2019, we all have it. We've always all had it. The question is how do we communicate this without being in the mental state of "war."
luckydata 7y ago
It descends logically from my position: if we are at war with China, Chinese nationals are the enemy. Not every war is fought with guns, not all the time. We are in a period that's equivalent to an asymmetric version of the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War Would you refute that the United States has been at war for decades with the Soviet Union? You seem to have an issue with my ideas, not with my language. I welcome the debate about those ideas, but it doesn't seem appropriate to throw the weight of your status as moderator to win an argument against ideas you don't like. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the spirit of HN is?
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  Dang is trying to cool your jets. I think America is an idea where most countries are based on genetics and history. I get where you are on this, but it should be realized illiberal people will take advantage of liberal people. It's a price worth paying if you stick with it to the end.