4 ms·
This is so incredibly obvious it’s amazing that anyone would think otherwise. Say what you want about western government but I’d much rather anger the US gover
by seibelj 5y ago
This is so incredibly obvious it’s amazing that anyone would think otherwise.
Say what you want about western government but I’d much rather anger the US government as a US citizen than anger the Chinese government as a Chinese citizen. In China I’d be extremely concerned about my family arrested, arbitrary trials, forced medication with debilitating drugs, bullet in my head, etc.
In America we may let the Sacklers buy their way out of prison but I prefer this to the fear, violence, illegitimacy, and madness of communism. You don’t appreciate the rule of law and equal justice until you are on the wrong side of power.
- phyrex 5y agoTell that to Snowden and the other whistle blowers
- seibelj 5y agoIn America we have people like Snowden, and other political prisoners like Ross Ulbricht. However reasonable people can debate about what they did. I would say both deserve to be free. In China the rule is Snowden. Everyone becomes Snowden if you speak any truth whatsoever to power.
- fidesomnes 5y agoRoss Ulbricht is not a political prisoner and he would have been deleted by the Chinese by now.
- jim-jim-jim 5y agoDoes that distinction speak for the liberal charity of Western governments, or the utter uselessness of most dissent? Maybe the feds are chill with our social media posts and placard waggling because they know nothing will come out of it. But see how quickly they move when they're compelled to.
- seibelj 5y agoSaying stuff on social media is not relevant to society. The only things relevant to society are groups of people. If you have millions of Twitter followers then saying something online matters because you can influence a large group. If your ideas start a movement and those people vote, then politicians will listen. You could also hire lobbyists and use financial resources to influence. The point is ideas without influence might as well never have existed. In China however they police and censor even individual social media posts, let alone allow influencers to gain millions of followers if they disagree with government policy. This is a deeply paranoid and illegitimate government that uses fear and violence to get its way. Very different from western democracy.
- rosege 5y agoYes I was thinking Assange might disagree. He's probably a better example since he was only a publisher of US war crimes.
- piiswrong 5y agoEpstein would be a better comparison
- cybernautique 5y agoAnd thankfully we can! Is this to imply that an Edward Snowden, similar in all the relevant aspects but for being a Chinese national, would fare better under their sinofascist regime? I'd much rather get the opinion of the Hong Kong journalists that were detained by the CCP, or any of the millions in detainment camps- whose "crime" was religious or ethnic affiliation!
- yuy910616 5y agoWell, at least you wouldn't get shot for saying Snowden.
- sydthrowaway 5y agoYou will never have a Chinese Snowden. The loyalty to the regime is too high.
- systemvoltage 5y agoWhy do you think loyalty is too high? I would have guessed just from the sheer number of people working in gov, there are probably dozens of resentful people of not hundreds/thousands.
- sydthrowaway 5y agoBecause China practices kin punishment. Do you want to see your entire family killed/purged just because of your ideology?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- systemvoltage 5y agoThe amount of anti-US things I can say as a US citizen is astounding. News and media has pretty much no fear of criticizing the US gov.
- frogcoder 5y agoAre the families, friends and supporters of Snowden constantly harassed or threatened by the US government?
- FpUser 5y agoThis is what totally amazes me. Sure you are unlikely to get bullet in the head if you piss off US Government or one of their agencies. But many other options are open. Government can completely ruin your life if they want to, especially if you are not rich and well connected. Why instead of being concerned with what is wrong in your own backyard would you console yourself that it is worse in China. You just play to the politicians who want to take your attention away from their own fuck ups by feeding you stories about what is happening elsewhere. Personally I am way more concerned about totally fucked up things in my own country. For example things Civil Forfeiture laws (I am Canadian but when US sneezes we catch the cold). Or when Canada champions human rights by being about the only western democratic country in the world that allows indefinite detention of a person in max security prison without said person having committed or charged with any crime. Or our so called justice system in general when those who have money can have bail and decent defense while poor often lavish in detention and have to take plea deals. etc. etc.
- seibelj 5y agoI agree with all those things. I am a libertarian and am deeply concerned about a lot of things. But at the core, western democracy is about freedom and it can be reformed. We have base principles that can be applied logically and appealed to rhetorically. In China there is no logic, just corruption, power, and great men who tell those beneath them what to do unquestioningly. Many countries are like this - most countries - but only one authoritarian country is a superpower that could perhaps rival the US.
- gruez 5y ago>In America we may let the Sacklers buy their way out of prison Did they actually do that, or were that just sufficiently careful so that they can't be held criminally responsible? AFAIK the company itself was convicted. While it sucks in the public eye that they weren't convicted, I'm not sure whether holding kangaroo court and/or bill of attainer to punish them (ie. "we can't really technically convict them but we can all agree they're baddies so it's okay to punish them anyways") is any better.
- seibelj 5y agoI was simplifying a very complex process. One way to look at it is the Sacklers had a $15 billion fortune and they threatened to burn all of it fighting for decades in court. Alternatively they offered $5 billion to settle and prevent civil lawsuits, retaining 2/3 of their fortune. The calculus for politicians is to take the quick win and the cash, or let someone else 30 years later get the victory while potentially taking heat now. Whatever happened I still prefer this system to the “you said something that made me angry, 20 years hard labor followed by execution for you!” style of justice.