8 ms·

>> why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best syste

>> why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best system there is. For example; There exists a system where basic health issues can bankrupt you, where the police are above the law, where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns, where the courts are setup to protect the rich and powerful, where politicians can lie without consequence, that separates immigrant children (babies) from parents (and then has no way to reunite them), that has jailed over 1% of its population. Where people get no paid sick or holiday leave. Why would people feel happy about living under this oppressive system? Now you probably had some strong reactions to the question. And therein lies your answer. People everywhere, regardless of the system, believe what they are taught to belive, and they are taught that their existing way is the best.

refurb 5y ago
where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns Sounds kinda awesome to be honest.
- vkou 5y ago
  And Soviet corruption sounded pretty awesome for my grand-uncle, and his children, grand-children, and various hangers-on. He had an incredibly lucrative career over his life, floating from one bit of graft to another (He continued to be quite successful at it long after the fall of communism, with his career peaking during an 'obscure' international sporting event that took place in Sochi in 2014). I'm sure it sounded less awesome to the people he hurt, but hey, it's all relative to where you stand, what you personally value, and how concerned about externalities.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Who are the people who own machine guns hurting?
    - vkou 5y ago
      An argument can easily be made that normalizing gun fetishism, and the prevalence of public carry leads to a society that, during tense situations is often a trigger pull away from escalating to immediately lethal violence. It's rare for people to get shot and killed at a, say, a political protest in a society without such norms. It's rarer yet for the killer to be found to have been in the right. You don't see teenagers in Canada think that it's a swell idea to drive across the country so that they could LARP Call of Duty at a protest with an AR-15. The two cultures' outlook on guns is different, and one very actively discourages that kind of behaviour... While the other one seems to encourage it.
      - refurb 5y ago
        No, that's not a valid argument at all. Most people aren't even aware you can buy machine guns. And what does owning machine guns have to do with public carry? I asked about machine gun ownership. And what does a teenager driving over state lines have to do with machine gun ownership? You're really stretching to answer my question.
        vkou 5y ago
        > And what does owning machine guns have to do with public carry? I asked about machine gun ownership. 'I don't like a society where people can and do buy machine guns' is a pretty obvious shorthand for 'I don't like American gun culture'. And a lot of people feel very strongly, in both directions, about the consequences of American gun culture.
        uwagar 5y ago
        i cant understand why would anyone other than military (even that for a deterrent maybe) would want a machine gun where every bullet can kill and u can fire so many bullets every second.
        ganzuul 5y ago
wiseowise 5y ago
> Why would people feel happy about living under this oppressive system? Because you read too much media.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  Or you are or know one of the victims living on the wrong side of this arrangement.
seibelj 5y ago
Also, there exists a system that so many people are trying to enter, that it has to pass laws to prevent ~70% of the earth from immediately emmigrating there. One that has made more immigrant 1st-generation wealthy than any other. One that directly or indirectly defends the entirely western world with their military, and receives very little monetary payment for doing so. One that has 4% of the global population but 55% of corporate valuation. It also went to the moon first, as it was inventing all the technologies to enable it.
- gumby 5y ago
  > prevent ~70% of the earth from immediately emmigrating there Quite an unrealistic percentage and I speak as someone who did move to that place.
- fer 5y ago
  > It also went to the moon first, as it was inventing all the technologies to enable it. USSR: first satellite, first animal in space, first animal returning from space, first human in space, first woman in space, first object orbiting the Sun, first hard lunar landing, first pictures of the dark side of the moon, first space station, first spacewalk, first soft landing on he moon, first probe to another planet, first landing on another planet, first satellite on another planet. USA: first communications satellite, first weather satellite, first man of the moon (and conveniently the space race ends here).
  - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
    The real prize from the space race was the ICBM.
  - iends 5y ago
    Interesting comment. Do you think the only country that has been to the moon somehow lost the space race at some point if you choose to continue the space race til today?
    - fer 5y ago
bliming 5y ago
[dead]
- uzakov 5y ago
  Good comment that provides good links! Too often people on HN give absolutely misleading information without even any links
- holoduke 5y ago
  What are you trying to proof? We all know that the US is a very broken society. But nevertheless better than any other large society (China, russian etc)
  - picsao 5y ago
  - bliming 5y ago
    > What are you trying to proof? We all know that the US is a very broken society. How do you figure? Do you have proof? Also I don't understand what the original commenter is trying to prove either. It seems there's a recent concerted effort to spread misinformation about the US on social media sites like Reddit and HN. And yet, in the real world, it's pretty great here.
- nmfisher 5y ago
  92% of Americans having health insurance doesn’t disprove the assertion that basic health issues can bankrupt you. Last I checked, medical bills were still the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA. That’s without mentioning the problems with insurance being tied to your employer. My definition of a “free country” includes being able to quit your job and not worrying about losing everything you own because you get sick. I’m not saying your definition has to be the same. I’m just trying to explain one of the big reasons why I decided not to try to emigrate to the USA (and I’d wager it’s this exact sticking point for a lot of other people, too).
  - 5y ago
andy17231 5y ago
You should try living under the Soviet system to get a proper answer for yourself.
pvg 5y ago
Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best system there is. People in the late Soviet Union were quite aware they were not living under the best system there is and most of them did not particularly believe being told things to that effect repeatedly any more than people in western societies believe ads.
- bruce511 5y ago
  The soviet Union collapsed because Russia under Gorbachev stopped subsidising all the other countries, which were dependant on Russia for money to buy basic things like food from the west. It becomes harder to convince people of your position while they are starving. So yeah people stopped believing. But there's a Long time from 1917 to 1990. And for the bulk of that time people believed enough for the status quo to be maintained. And plenty of people in Western societies belive adds, and the evidence for this is that companies and parties keep making them...
  - pvg 5y ago
    Your theory of Soviet collapse runs very much against recorded facts that you can easily look up, though. The Soviet union wasn't made up of 'other countries' and Soviet satellite states were not dependent on the Soviet Union for food and no Warsaw Pact country or Soviet republic had starving people in 1989. They were not utterly oblivious to the outside world and accepting of the government and party line from 1917 to 1990. The last one already sounds completely implausible it should give you pause - that would make generations of Soviet people utter naifs. They weren't.
    - bruce511 5y ago
      A comment in a forum seems inadequate to cover the root causes of the soviet breakup, but it ultimately did come down to food and money. Firstly, the soviet Union was made up of a number of separate countries (as the original article notes things were quite different in Russia, Lithuania and East Germany. While all lead by communist parties, all operated in fear of Russian occupation (as happened in Hungary in 1956 and czechoslovakia in 1968). Soviet block countries were dependent on Russia for aid, and military support. In the late 80's Russia was unwilling, and unable, to spend the necessary money to cover all the needs, so states prioritised food (on the basis that starving people are seldom compliment). Necessary maintaince of (for example) the border fence between Hungary and Austria is not paid for (by Russia) leading to the first domino falling and a route being opened to the west. In Poland and Berlin popular movements progress quickly, and in both cases Gorbachev refuses to use the Russian military to prop up those govts. These are but the broadest strokes though - obviously there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of different populations in play. But money is at the root of it all, and Warsaw pact countries needed money to import food from the west.
qaq 5y ago
The simplest way is to look ay net migration between EU and US to realize if things are as horrible as you think they are.
- uzakov 5y ago
  In summary, the emigration of EU citizens to the US is not characterized by overcrowded flights and waiting times. It is, rather, a small and steady flow. Nevertheless, this small flow possesses exceptional skill and education levels. Behind the deceivingly low numbers is a huge potential for wealth creation that is permanently migrating to the US. The effects of this migration can be significant for many countries, especially the UK and France. Therefore, it is important that we know more about why these exceptionally talented Europeans move to the US [1] [1] https://www.bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-where-is-it-coming-from-and-is-brain-drain-real/ https://www.bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-whe...
  - uzakov 5y ago
    Can someone explain why you downvoted the comment? Unless for personal reasons you didn't like the data I supplied
mc32 5y ago
And despite this apparently a million people legally and illegally enter this place despite these issues apparently worse than the Soviet Union. Why, instead, don’t these million plus seek a life in China or Cuba, if that system is, apparently better than the North American system? In addition, Americans are actually free to leave but very few do, especially those affected by your examples of suffering from the system. We know people of very few means can emigrate, so given poor Americans have more purchasing power than poor who move here from elsewhere, if it were repressive we’d see an exodus of Americans to greener freer pastures.
- bruce511 5y ago
  Do you understand that your reply proves my point? There are 200 odd countries in the world, but you belive your country is the best, well, because some number from over there want to come here. You want to belive your country is the best, your whole life you've been told by your authorities that it is the best, that everyone wants to come live here, and you've heard this as so often you've come to believe it. This is fine - you are not alone, most people in most countries are perfectly happy with their system. Most people don't want to immigrate - whatever they have, wherever they are, is the home they know. Unfortunately believing we are the best prevents us from being better. We cannot fix it unless we admit it is broken (whatever It is) and if we start from a position of "we are the best" then it's hard to admit some stuff is broken.

refurb 5y ago

where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns Sounds kinda awesome to be honest.

vkou 5y ago
And Soviet corruption sounded pretty awesome for my grand-uncle, and his children, grand-children, and various hangers-on. He had an incredibly lucrative career over his life, floating from one bit of graft to another (He continued to be quite successful at it long after the fall of communism, with his career peaking during an 'obscure' international sporting event that took place in Sochi in 2014). I'm sure it sounded less awesome to the people he hurt, but hey, it's all relative to where you stand, what you personally value, and how concerned about externalities.
- refurb 5y ago
  Who are the people who own machine guns hurting?
  - vkou 5y ago
    An argument can easily be made that normalizing gun fetishism, and the prevalence of public carry leads to a society that, during tense situations is often a trigger pull away from escalating to immediately lethal violence. It's rare for people to get shot and killed at a, say, a political protest in a society without such norms. It's rarer yet for the killer to be found to have been in the right. You don't see teenagers in Canada think that it's a swell idea to drive across the country so that they could LARP Call of Duty at a protest with an AR-15. The two cultures' outlook on guns is different, and one very actively discourages that kind of behaviour... While the other one seems to encourage it.
    - refurb 5y ago
      No, that's not a valid argument at all. Most people aren't even aware you can buy machine guns. And what does owning machine guns have to do with public carry? I asked about machine gun ownership. And what does a teenager driving over state lines have to do with machine gun ownership? You're really stretching to answer my question.
      - vkou 5y ago
        > And what does owning machine guns have to do with public carry? I asked about machine gun ownership. 'I don't like a society where people can and do buy machine guns' is a pretty obvious shorthand for 'I don't like American gun culture'. And a lot of people feel very strongly, in both directions, about the consequences of American gun culture.
        uwagar 5y ago
        i cant understand why would anyone other than military (even that for a deterrent maybe) would want a machine gun where every bullet can kill and u can fire so many bullets every second.
        ganzuul 5y ago

wiseowise 5y ago

> Why would people feel happy about living under this oppressive system? Because you read too much media.

nebula8804 5y ago
Or you are or know one of the victims living on the wrong side of this arrangement.

seibelj 5y ago

Also, there exists a system that so many people are trying to enter, that it has to pass laws to prevent ~70% of the earth from immediately emmigrating there. One that has made more immigrant 1st-generation wealthy than any other. One that directly or indirectly defends the entirely western world with their military, and receives very little monetary payment for doing so. One that has 4% of the global population but 55% of corporate valuation. It also went to the moon first, as it was inventing all the technologies to enable it.

gumby 5y ago
> prevent ~70% of the earth from immediately emmigrating there Quite an unrealistic percentage and I speak as someone who did move to that place.
fer 5y ago
> It also went to the moon first, as it was inventing all the technologies to enable it. USSR: first satellite, first animal in space, first animal returning from space, first human in space, first woman in space, first object orbiting the Sun, first hard lunar landing, first pictures of the dark side of the moon, first space station, first spacewalk, first soft landing on he moon, first probe to another planet, first landing on another planet, first satellite on another planet. USA: first communications satellite, first weather satellite, first man of the moon (and conveniently the space race ends here).
- karmakurtisaani 5y ago
  The real prize from the space race was the ICBM.
- iends 5y ago
  Interesting comment. Do you think the only country that has been to the moon somehow lost the space race at some point if you choose to continue the space race til today?
  - fer 5y ago

bliming 5y ago

[dead]

uzakov 5y ago
Good comment that provides good links! Too often people on HN give absolutely misleading information without even any links
holoduke 5y ago
What are you trying to proof? We all know that the US is a very broken society. But nevertheless better than any other large society (China, russian etc)
- picsao 5y ago
- bliming 5y ago
  > What are you trying to proof? We all know that the US is a very broken society. How do you figure? Do you have proof? Also I don't understand what the original commenter is trying to prove either. It seems there's a recent concerted effort to spread misinformation about the US on social media sites like Reddit and HN. And yet, in the real world, it's pretty great here.
nmfisher 5y ago
92% of Americans having health insurance doesn’t disprove the assertion that basic health issues can bankrupt you. Last I checked, medical bills were still the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA. That’s without mentioning the problems with insurance being tied to your employer. My definition of a “free country” includes being able to quit your job and not worrying about losing everything you own because you get sick. I’m not saying your definition has to be the same. I’m just trying to explain one of the big reasons why I decided not to try to emigrate to the USA (and I’d wager it’s this exact sticking point for a lot of other people, too).
- 5y ago

andy17231 5y ago

You should try living under the Soviet system to get a proper answer for yourself.

pvg 5y ago

Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best system there is. People in the late Soviet Union were quite aware they were not living under the best system there is and most of them did not particularly believe being told things to that effect repeatedly any more than people in western societies believe ads.

bruce511 5y ago
The soviet Union collapsed because Russia under Gorbachev stopped subsidising all the other countries, which were dependant on Russia for money to buy basic things like food from the west. It becomes harder to convince people of your position while they are starving. So yeah people stopped believing. But there's a Long time from 1917 to 1990. And for the bulk of that time people believed enough for the status quo to be maintained. And plenty of people in Western societies belive adds, and the evidence for this is that companies and parties keep making them...
- pvg 5y ago
  Your theory of Soviet collapse runs very much against recorded facts that you can easily look up, though. The Soviet union wasn't made up of 'other countries' and Soviet satellite states were not dependent on the Soviet Union for food and no Warsaw Pact country or Soviet republic had starving people in 1989. They were not utterly oblivious to the outside world and accepting of the government and party line from 1917 to 1990. The last one already sounds completely implausible it should give you pause - that would make generations of Soviet people utter naifs. They weren't.
  - bruce511 5y ago
    A comment in a forum seems inadequate to cover the root causes of the soviet breakup, but it ultimately did come down to food and money. Firstly, the soviet Union was made up of a number of separate countries (as the original article notes things were quite different in Russia, Lithuania and East Germany. While all lead by communist parties, all operated in fear of Russian occupation (as happened in Hungary in 1956 and czechoslovakia in 1968). Soviet block countries were dependent on Russia for aid, and military support. In the late 80's Russia was unwilling, and unable, to spend the necessary money to cover all the needs, so states prioritised food (on the basis that starving people are seldom compliment). Necessary maintaince of (for example) the border fence between Hungary and Austria is not paid for (by Russia) leading to the first domino falling and a route being opened to the west. In Poland and Berlin popular movements progress quickly, and in both cases Gorbachev refuses to use the Russian military to prop up those govts. These are but the broadest strokes though - obviously there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of different populations in play. But money is at the root of it all, and Warsaw pact countries needed money to import food from the west.

qaq 5y ago

The simplest way is to look ay net migration between EU and US to realize if things are as horrible as you think they are.

uzakov 5y ago
In summary, the emigration of EU citizens to the US is not characterized by overcrowded flights and waiting times. It is, rather, a small and steady flow. Nevertheless, this small flow possesses exceptional skill and education levels. Behind the deceivingly low numbers is a huge potential for wealth creation that is permanently migrating to the US. The effects of this migration can be significant for many countries, especially the UK and France. Therefore, it is important that we know more about why these exceptionally talented Europeans move to the US [1] [1] https://www.bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-where-is-it-coming-from-and-is-brain-drain-real/ https://www.bruegel.org/2015/09/eu-immigration-to-the-us-whe...
- uzakov 5y ago
  Can someone explain why you downvoted the comment? Unless for personal reasons you didn't like the data I supplied

mc32 5y ago

And despite this apparently a million people legally and illegally enter this place despite these issues apparently worse than the Soviet Union. Why, instead, don’t these million plus seek a life in China or Cuba, if that system is, apparently better than the North American system? In addition, Americans are actually free to leave but very few do, especially those affected by your examples of suffering from the system. We know people of very few means can emigrate, so given poor Americans have more purchasing power than poor who move here from elsewhere, if it were repressive we’d see an exodus of Americans to greener freer pastures.

bruce511 5y ago
Do you understand that your reply proves my point? There are 200 odd countries in the world, but you belive your country is the best, well, because some number from over there want to come here. You want to belive your country is the best, your whole life you've been told by your authorities that it is the best, that everyone wants to come live here, and you've heard this as so often you've come to believe it. This is fine - you are not alone, most people in most countries are perfectly happy with their system. Most people don't want to immigrate - whatever they have, wherever they are, is the home they know. Unfortunately believing we are the best prevents us from being better. We cannot fix it unless we admit it is broken (whatever It is) and if we start from a position of "we are the best" then it's hard to admit some stuff is broken.