3 ms·

It was a means to highlight the double standards many people (on HN included) hold, as OP also pointed out. Deciding whether atrocities get a free pass or not d

It was a means to highlight the double standards many people (on HN included) hold, as OP also pointed out. Deciding whether atrocities get a free pass or not depending on the country doing it is just nationalism. Somehow considered those atrocities "necessary" due to some misguided Messiah complex is extremism. Others have done it in the past so we should know how to recognize it. You're judging nationalities instead of crimes, giving murder a free pass when you do it, punishing it when other nationalities do it. At some point you punish them simply because you already established they're bad. > we should still retaliate against China [...] we should definitely still stop China from doing bad things You can retaliate. Should implies an obligation. Since the narrative (yours included) is that you're punishing actions ("bad things") not nationality, not following up with retaliating against your own leadership for the same "bad things" or worse means having exactly that misguided Messiah complex (misguided because you don't understand the purpose of your own country's actions) as well as holding a healthy dose of double standards or hypocrisy. You live in a democracy, this is your will. The unspoken desire to enjoy and exert dominance, followed by the inevitable rationalization that gives it a morally acceptable varnish. As I said in my original comment on this thread: > If you cannot acknowledge this then you are certainly not prepared to have a discussion beyond "we're good, they're bad".

stale2002 6y ago
> Should implies an obligation. That is a weird phasing. By "should" I mean that it is a good thing to call out bad things that happen, such as in this case with these apps, and I am happy when the US retaliates against bad things, such as what is happening in this example. The reason being, that these apps are doing bad things that should be stopped. You have not contradicted this point. > established they're bad In this specific case though, regarding these app and the actions that they are taking, they are bad though! > You live in a democracy, this is your will. Ok. And bad things being punished in this specific example. Thats good. And misdirection to talk about something different does not overrule the fact that it is good in this specific example that these specific bad things are being punished/retaliated against. > gives it a morally acceptable varnish. Specifically in this example, it is morally accepted to punish these specific bad things that these apps are doing though. So there are no problem with retaliating against these apps and actions, because in this example they are indeed bad and should be retaliated against.

stale2002 6y ago

> Should implies an obligation. That is a weird phasing. By "should" I mean that it is a good thing to call out bad things that happen, such as in this case with these apps, and I am happy when the US retaliates against bad things, such as what is happening in this example. The reason being, that these apps are doing bad things that should be stopped. You have not contradicted this point. > established they're bad In this specific case though, regarding these app and the actions that they are taking, they are bad though! > You live in a democracy, this is your will. Ok. And bad things being punished in this specific example. Thats good. And misdirection to talk about something different does not overrule the fact that it is good in this specific example that these specific bad things are being punished/retaliated against. > gives it a morally acceptable varnish. Specifically in this example, it is morally accepted to punish these specific bad things that these apps are doing though. So there are no problem with retaliating against these apps and actions, because in this example they are indeed bad and should be retaliated against.