5 ms·

What does "moral ground" mean? You mean, if I (a person that lives in the US) sees someone lose a human right, I should shut up, because some other guy who also

What does "moral ground" mean? You mean, if I (a person that lives in the US) sees someone lose a human right, I should shut up, because some other guy who also lives in the US, who I've never met did something that I never approved of or endorsed? Like we should all be ok with an individual being victimized because anyone who wants to say something is guilty of something else by association... I guess the victims should accept that no one should help them. How sad. The truth is I think people who trot out this line should ask themselves who they're helping. The sides aren't the US vs China... the sides are those on the side of human rights and liberty and those that seek to deprive others of their rights. And when you stand up with your words to help those on the side of anti-human rights, you are the one on the wrong side... and no one on the human rights side gives a damn what you think is hypocritical because those actions were never from our side.

pqs 6y ago
Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? We should separate the justification for meddling in another country's affairs with the root cause of the meddling.
- rgbrenner 6y ago
  Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? Thats not what I said. Re-read it? I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > The sides aren't the US vs China... the sides are those on the side of human rights and liberty and those that seek to deprive others of their rights.
    - rgbrenner 6y ago
      What's the difficulty in separating those two things? I'm not talking about entities or countries... I'm talking about human beings with names. On one side there are people that deprive others of their rights. For example: That includes Xi Jinping. It also includes every person that helped overthrow Iran's democracy. It includes US citizens that attempt to deprive others of their voting rights. On the other side you have those that advocate for human rights. That includes MLK Jr; Gandhi standing against the british; Tutu against apartheid; the Hong Kong protestors; etc. It also includes everyday people in China that work and advocate for human rights.
      - enriquto 6y ago
        I agree 100% with everything that you say, but the list of examples that you give seems a bit biased... Would you add Bush and Obama to the first list? Would you add Snowden and Manning to the second?
- thesteamboat 6y ago
  You are substituting "the West" for rgbrenner's "those on the side of human rights", and in doing so are missing the point of his argument. "The West" as a term is very broad and sufficiently undefined[0] that it makes a great rhetorical cudgel (both for people who support it and those against it). Unfortunately that same slipperiness makes it challenging for people trying to speak clearly. While "the West" has often been loosely aligned with human rights (some defending/embracing them, some merely claiming them as magic words) they certainly have their problems. Your argument seems to be do the following: substitute an inferior term into rgbrenner's argument, and then complaining that your chosen term is inferior. rgbrenner:> The sides aren't US and China, they're X and anti-X you:> You say the sides are Y and anti-X, but Y isn't X [0]: Do we mean America? America + Western Europe? Are we including Canada? How about Mexico? All colonial powers? Does Eastern Europe count? How about Australia? Or even Japan? You might have a particular definition in mind, but it's likely other people have different understandings.
enriquto 6y ago
> You mean, if I (a person that lives in the US) sees someone lose a human right, I should shut up, because some other guy who also lives in the US, who I've never met did something that I never approved of or endorsed? No, of course! I agree with you: individual citizens should have the right to talk about anything, there's free speech after all. What I mean is that if you are too focused on the (truly horrible) injustices perpetrated by other countries while you consistently turn a blind eye to the injustices perpetrated by your own, then you are not being very useful. For example, in your case, the last three US administrations have been outrageously war-mongering zealots, starting wars all over the globe, participating in the violent overthrow of several governments for petty economic interests, and routinely engaging in extra-judicial killings abroad. While you can talk about whatever you find interesting, your critiques of China are not really going anywhere, but you could be somewhat effective in opposing the violent policies of your own democratic country. Call your representatives! Make them know that you don't approve of U.S. warmongering international politics!
- esperent 6y ago
  Can you please for just a minute stop trying to make everything about the US? It's exhausting. Every single discussion on the internet, no matter what country we're talking about, there's always some American guy (usually several) that comes in and tries to change the topic to focus on the US. Other countries exist, and deserve to be discussed and criticised on their own merits. It's not always about you Americans.
  - thesteamboat 6y ago
    I think you're out of luck simply because Americans dominate the English speaking internet. According to loosely eyeballed data [0], Americans account for over 20% of English speakers (a commanding plurality) and over 60% of native speakers. It might not be fair, and there are plenty of valid reasons to want to talk about other countries and other perspectives, but it's going to remain the default perspective of the English speaking internet unless demographics substantially shift. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...

pqs 6y ago

Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? We should separate the justification for meddling in another country's affairs with the root cause of the meddling.

rgbrenner 6y ago
Are you sure the West has always been defending human rights in its interventions in other countries? Thats not what I said. Re-read it? I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > The sides aren't the US vs China... the sides are those on the side of human rights and liberty and those that seek to deprive others of their rights.
  - rgbrenner 6y ago
    What's the difficulty in separating those two things? I'm not talking about entities or countries... I'm talking about human beings with names. On one side there are people that deprive others of their rights. For example: That includes Xi Jinping. It also includes every person that helped overthrow Iran's democracy. It includes US citizens that attempt to deprive others of their voting rights. On the other side you have those that advocate for human rights. That includes MLK Jr; Gandhi standing against the british; Tutu against apartheid; the Hong Kong protestors; etc. It also includes everyday people in China that work and advocate for human rights.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      I agree 100% with everything that you say, but the list of examples that you give seems a bit biased... Would you add Bush and Obama to the first list? Would you add Snowden and Manning to the second?
thesteamboat 6y ago
You are substituting "the West" for rgbrenner's "those on the side of human rights", and in doing so are missing the point of his argument. "The West" as a term is very broad and sufficiently undefined[0] that it makes a great rhetorical cudgel (both for people who support it and those against it). Unfortunately that same slipperiness makes it challenging for people trying to speak clearly. While "the West" has often been loosely aligned with human rights (some defending/embracing them, some merely claiming them as magic words) they certainly have their problems. Your argument seems to be do the following: substitute an inferior term into rgbrenner's argument, and then complaining that your chosen term is inferior. rgbrenner:> The sides aren't US and China, they're X and anti-X you:> You say the sides are Y and anti-X, but Y isn't X [0]: Do we mean America? America + Western Europe? Are we including Canada? How about Mexico? All colonial powers? Does Eastern Europe count? How about Australia? Or even Japan? You might have a particular definition in mind, but it's likely other people have different understandings.

enriquto 6y ago

> You mean, if I (a person that lives in the US) sees someone lose a human right, I should shut up, because some other guy who also lives in the US, who I've never met did something that I never approved of or endorsed? No, of course! I agree with you: individual citizens should have the right to talk about anything, there's free speech after all. What I mean is that if you are too focused on the (truly horrible) injustices perpetrated by other countries while you consistently turn a blind eye to the injustices perpetrated by your own, then you are not being very useful. For example, in your case, the last three US administrations have been outrageously war-mongering zealots, starting wars all over the globe, participating in the violent overthrow of several governments for petty economic interests, and routinely engaging in extra-judicial killings abroad. While you can talk about whatever you find interesting, your critiques of China are not really going anywhere, but you could be somewhat effective in opposing the violent policies of your own democratic country. Call your representatives! Make them know that you don't approve of U.S. warmongering international politics!

esperent 6y ago
Can you please for just a minute stop trying to make everything about the US? It's exhausting. Every single discussion on the internet, no matter what country we're talking about, there's always some American guy (usually several) that comes in and tries to change the topic to focus on the US. Other countries exist, and deserve to be discussed and criticised on their own merits. It's not always about you Americans.
- thesteamboat 6y ago
  I think you're out of luck simply because Americans dominate the English speaking internet. According to loosely eyeballed data [0], Americans account for over 20% of English speakers (a commanding plurality) and over 60% of native speakers. It might not be fair, and there are plenty of valid reasons to want to talk about other countries and other perspectives, but it's going to remain the default perspective of the English speaking internet unless demographics substantially shift. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...