5 ms·

The source of that quote, which adds a little explanation of his reasoning and thought process: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/liu-cixins-war-of-

The source of that quote, which adds a little explanation of his reasoning and thought process: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/liu-cixins-war-of-the-worlds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/06/24/liu-cixins-war...

beebmam 5y ago
This source makes that quote even more damning. The same logic Liu uses here is the same argument slave societies used to justify themselves; that: "If China were to transform into a democracy, it would be hell on earth," is exactly the same logic that Slave Owners used to justify the permanent enslavement of millions of people. These are some profoundly shameful words. I'm genuinely shocked that anyone on Hacker News would consider Liu a decent human being.
- istorical 5y ago
  I would suggest examining this question of 'what level of state intervention to create public safety and public order is just' without framing one's own perspective or the cultural norm of one's own place and time as the obvious 'correct' answer. One from the future or some utopian free-love society could argue that 21st century western neoliberal capitalist states with police and criminal justice systems as they are and economic systems as they are are themselves permanent enslavement of millions of people. And if you'd argue 'well, I believe in abolishing the police, ending the drug war, and UBI for all' I'm sure they could still find parts of your worldview that would be pretty much just enslavement. Maybe the idea of pet ownership, of forced education of what we currently call 'children', maybe some taboo around sex or love. In which case, that future person could say that they're genuinely shocked that anyone on Hacker News could consider _you_ a decent human being. My point is simply, there's no simple 'obvious' answer when it comes an ethical / moral / economic question as large as this. It's a question of trade-offs and optimizing for different goals / values / metrics.
  - beebmam 5y ago
    You're making an even more extreme argument than Liu is making: that there's no obvious answer to virtually any ethically questionable act. This is such a perfect example of how delusional one's ideology can make them.
- steve_adams_86 5y ago
  I wouldn't rush to condemn someone entirely over a statement. Liu is far more than those few words, whether we agree with him or not. Without knowing him properly I don't see the benefit of condemnation.
- darkerside 5y ago
  I agree with you that his perspective is flawed. I don't agree that this takes away gotta decency as a human being. We are all brainwashed to some extent, typically Chinese in a different way than Americans. Liu is simply demonstrating that by speaking his mind here. If anything, speaking it provides an opportunity to enlighten. It shouldn't be used to shame. Let him react poorly to your sharing of a different perspective before you denigrate his character. This is just a fish not recognizing the water.

beebmam 5y ago

This source makes that quote even more damning. The same logic Liu uses here is the same argument slave societies used to justify themselves; that: "If China were to transform into a democracy, it would be hell on earth," is exactly the same logic that Slave Owners used to justify the permanent enslavement of millions of people. These are some profoundly shameful words. I'm genuinely shocked that anyone on Hacker News would consider Liu a decent human being.

istorical 5y ago
I would suggest examining this question of 'what level of state intervention to create public safety and public order is just' without framing one's own perspective or the cultural norm of one's own place and time as the obvious 'correct' answer. One from the future or some utopian free-love society could argue that 21st century western neoliberal capitalist states with police and criminal justice systems as they are and economic systems as they are are themselves permanent enslavement of millions of people. And if you'd argue 'well, I believe in abolishing the police, ending the drug war, and UBI for all' I'm sure they could still find parts of your worldview that would be pretty much just enslavement. Maybe the idea of pet ownership, of forced education of what we currently call 'children', maybe some taboo around sex or love. In which case, that future person could say that they're genuinely shocked that anyone on Hacker News could consider _you_ a decent human being. My point is simply, there's no simple 'obvious' answer when it comes an ethical / moral / economic question as large as this. It's a question of trade-offs and optimizing for different goals / values / metrics.
- beebmam 5y ago
  You're making an even more extreme argument than Liu is making: that there's no obvious answer to virtually any ethically questionable act. This is such a perfect example of how delusional one's ideology can make them.
steve_adams_86 5y ago
I wouldn't rush to condemn someone entirely over a statement. Liu is far more than those few words, whether we agree with him or not. Without knowing him properly I don't see the benefit of condemnation.
darkerside 5y ago
I agree with you that his perspective is flawed. I don't agree that this takes away gotta decency as a human being. We are all brainwashed to some extent, typically Chinese in a different way than Americans. Liu is simply demonstrating that by speaking his mind here. If anything, speaking it provides an opportunity to enlighten. It shouldn't be used to shame. Let him react poorly to your sharing of a different perspective before you denigrate his character. This is just a fish not recognizing the water.