9 ms·

> Just make one rule for all. This is the correct solution of winning the moral high ground. What Russia has been doing for several decades (see Yuri Bezmenov

> Just make one rule for all. This is the correct solution of winning the moral high ground. What Russia has been doing for several decades (see Yuri Bezmenov [1]) is leveraging the "west's" inner discontent. Every time a Watergate or Snowden happens it's a gift to them. It exposes our 'hypocrisy', and failure to live up to our own democratic standards. That fuels the narrative of the western nations as corrupt. We're in a bind because the kind of medicine that would fight the even more sophisticated Chinese tactics now would also hurt our own corporations and agencies. But we must take it. Targeted advertising and domestic surveillance must go if our values are to survive in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov

eunos 4y ago
It's easy to avoid the Bezmenov's "trap" (for a lack of better words). Avoid moralizing issues especially if it doesnt directly affect your core interests. Also acknowledge that indeed all nations do have skeleton in their cupboards, let's keep them hidden.
fxtentacle 4y ago
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Everything you say is true. But it's not an argument. Failing to live up to all your stated values in past is not a reason to give up on then for all time.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    I think the argument is that there is not so much difference in result at the end, even though the projected image appears opposite.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    It's not about giving up on them. It's about being willing to accept that you haven't lived up to those values and make the changes necessary to uphold them. While still in the wrong, how seriously should China or Russia take the country that lead the invasion and occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 odd years when it offers it's condemnation of their own ambitions? To be frank, how can we expect anyone to take our condemnation seriously when we are currently doing the same things or have let the same things go unpunished in recent memory. We refuse to hold our own torturers and war criminals to proper account.
    - gopher_space 4y ago
      Do you feel at all represented by your elected officials? Did you vote for them? If not, why would you accept the burden of guilt for their actions? A relative handful of people made all the torture decisions for us. I don't think I want them hiding behind the flag, or me.
      - Jochim 4y ago
        > Do you feel at all represented by your elected officials? Did you vote for them? If not, why would you accept the burden of guilt for their actions? Personally it varies depending on the official. I think at some level we do bear some responsibility for those who represent us, I don't necessarily believe that crosses into guilt as much it does a call to action. The corrupt and unethical rely on a combination of apathy and normalisation in order to get away with their actions. > A relative handful of people made all the torture decisions for us. I don't think I want them hiding behind the flag, or me. I want them pushed out from behind the flag and into a jail cell.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Russia and China also have lists of noble values that they don't live up to. That's not a distinction.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  > Maybe we didn't punish contrary opinions quite as badly as China / Russia Understatement of the year. We also currently don’t outlaw homosexuality or religion or engage in genocide and we elect our leaders democratically among other things.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    You should probably check your facts. All but the first one is false. They have engaged in genocide: see Native Americans; trail of tears. The USA is a republic, not a democracy.
    - causi 4y ago
      I believe he means currently, not ever in its history.
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        Then why even bother having the conversation? No one is free of guilt here, which was my point.
        zamfi 4y ago
        Guilt is not a binary. When one group is actively trying to absolve its sins of the past, and the other doesn’t even recognize them while doubling-down, the claim that “everyone has sins” an abdication of the idea that behavior matters.
        causi 4y ago
        Because you can't resurrect people who died hundreds of years ago but you can potentially stop a genocide that's ongoing.
    - afiori 4y ago
      Republic and democracy refer to two different axis. Republic is about how the vertex of government is structured. Democracy is about where the executive/legislative power comes from. The US is both, you could argue that Canada is not a republic as they have a recognized queen, but it would be a stretch as she has essentially zero power there.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  The irony here of doing exactly what was outlined
- gruez 4y ago
  >Nestle Pure Life? According to google "Nestlé Pure Life is a brand of bottled water". What's so morally bankrupt about selling bottled water?
  - wellthisisgreat 4y ago
    add “controversy” to search string - depletion of waterways etc https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-explained/ https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-expl...
    - gruez 4y ago
      >They say that by extracting ground water to sell, bottled water companies are actually draining natural waterways. Okay but people have to drink somehow right? It's not like if nestle stopped operating that the demand for water would evaporate. It'll just cause another waterway to be depleted instead. The other point raised in the article seems to be that nestle is taking water, which it pays little to nothing for, and charging $1/bottle or whatever. This sounds outrageous on the surface, until you realize that water in a well or whatever isn't really useful. You still need to bottle and transport it, which is where most of the value-add is. If people only needed water they'd get it from their tap, not buying $1 bottles. When they are buying bottles, they're paying for the convenience of water being available right then and there.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    It’s not quite to the level of geopolitic but selling bottled water is entirely unnecessary in majority of the US. It’s extremely bad for the environment, both for the plastic but of course the transport. When it’s often the same damn thing you get in your sink. But no idea what’s specifically bad about this brand in particular.
    - tayo42 4y ago
      I've yet to visit a country that didn't sell bottled water though. That doesn't seem US specific
- partiallypro 4y ago
  This is like saying the US had segregation and internment camps in the 40s, so it had no moral standing on the USSR and Nazi Germany committing genocide. Which would be complete nonsense.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    This seems like a mischaracterization of the parent comment and some self serving logic.
  - 8note 4y ago
    if youre going to make that comparison, its worth noting that the nazis did draw their inspiration from America. For a long drawn out analysis: https://youtu.be/R1gcipAvplY https://youtu.be/R1gcipAvplY
account42 4y ago
You don't need a "narrative" to describe western nations as corrupt. All you need to do is look at wealth inequality over time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wealth_inequality_panel_-_v1.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wealth_i...
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Well, okay corrupt, but still capable of self-repair. meanwhile others have the corruption build into the very system of thiefdoms handed out to nobles. Also there are quite alot of ideals at work, for example when it comes to free trade. Anybody can sell his product and ideas in the us, meanwhile alot of beligerents, have walled of their societies from free discours and sabotage any external market contenders.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Why do you think wealth inequality is an inherent sign of corruption?
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Because wealth can be turned into power. Because when power is unevenly distributed a few people can make boneheaded decisions that create misery for the many. To point to the Russian experience the Tsar made the bad decision to take an odyssey the long way around Asia (and Africa for some ships) to attack Japan and they got their asses handed to them in a few hours. That was the first time Lenin and company tried a revolution and ultimately they made this feature film about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin A few months back we had the spectacle of Elon Musk possibly buying Twitter (maybe he was in the running for asshole-in-chief) but I think he got some sense scared into him and he is keeping his head down these days.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      Btw, you still didn't answer the question.
okasaki 4y ago
> It exposes our 'hypocrisy', and failure to live up to our own democratic standards. That fuels the narrative of the western nations as corrupt. I don't know why though. It should be clear by now that nobody in the west cares about hypocrisy, democracy, standards or corruption.
- adrianN 4y ago
  I care.
  - bigfudge 4y ago
    I do too, but statistically we are "nobody".
    - carschno 4y ago
      Given the lack of data, you might as well assume that you are not so special, and hence part of a statistically significant group. I see the claim that nobody cares about democracy as another piece of right-wing propaganda.
      - ROTMetro 4y ago
        This! It is propaganda designed to give you apathy. Ironically it only works because you are aware enough to know you want a better world.
- hn_version_0023 4y ago
  A great many of us care, but are powerless in the face of the hypocrisy and corruption. Where is it that you live that you fought and won the good fight so handily that you’re able to criticize us from afar?
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Remember kids, propaganda doesn't need to convince you of anything to be successful, only to get you to believe in nothing. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” . The intention of 'what aboutism' is to get you to do nothing, especially to not speak up in support if you aren't sure. 'Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'. Don't let doom posters like this one suck you into their world of apathy and hate. If someone says something that's goal appears to be negativity, hate, or apathy, they are toxic, do not rent them space in your head. After action reports, critical evaluation with a goal towards improvement, great. Apathy, the world sucks, give up? F that. In the 90s the USA had the developed world's worst infant mortality rates. But if you look at the way we gather our statistics, it is different from all other countries. Why? Because unlike others we didn't manipulate the metrics because it was more important to us to have actual data to help save/improve lives. So who sucks? Who is failing kids? The country who is willing to make itself look bad with the worst metrics so that it can change things, or those not honest enough to be willing to look bad or make self examination? Yeah, America sucks, but it's 10x better than it was when I was a kid in the 70-80s, or most places I have traveled. I would rather have public suck that can be addressed than the general apathy that this poster has.
xtian 4y ago
How do you know that pointing out the ‘hypocrisy’ is the propaganda rather than the idea that these values as commonly understood have any basis in reality in the first place?
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I think that's a fair objection. I don't know. But my lived experience in a family who have sacrificed a lot on the alter of democratic values leaves me with a strong bias for which I make no apologies.
  - xtian 4y ago
    People in my family have sacrificed meaningfully for these values as well, but I think it’s important to evaluate objectively whether those sacrifices are honored by the people who wield power or taken for granted. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...: > But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all. > […] > When both interest groups and affluent Americans oppose a policy it has an even lower likelihood of being adopted (these proposed policies consist primarily of tax increases). At the other extreme, high levels of support among both interest groups and affluent Americans increases the probability of adopting a policy change, but a strong status quo bias remains evident.
puppymaster 4y ago
while many struggles with the mental gymnastic, for me it has always been clear-cut. Government might be bad, and if they did bad, can we criticize it? Did any harm come to Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Adam Driver for portraying real life events depicting US government in lesser light? Can the same be said to Fan Bing Bing if she is to portray Li Wenliang in a movie? Or Viktor Bychkov playing Navalny in some sort of biopic produced by Russian production house?
- cylon13 4y ago
  I want more freedoms than just the ability to complain about not having freedom though.
- kn0where 4y ago
  America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even matter?
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Yes of course it matters. Is it sufficient? Probably not. But it’s a substantial improvement over not being able to e.g. protest the government. Anyway, our government isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting, which despite all its flaws does shift inertia.
    - krageon 4y ago
      > voting You cannot meaningfully vote in the US, you have two options that have similar fascist views of the rest of the world and are unlikely to change anything. That is a false choice, meant to lull the chooser into a false sense of agency.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Yep it’s an imperfect system. It’s dramatically better than a lot of others that have existed through history (including today) though. It is simply wildly untrue to imply that the two major parties don’t hold opposing views on at least a few important topics or that voting doesn’t help determine which party holds the power to realize their worldview. There’s a lot of overlap and a lot of ineffectiveness but this does not make them the same.
boomchinolo78 4y ago
It's more than a narrative for sure.
bioemerl 4y ago
Seems insane to me to undercut our own companies because a hostile foreign state is operating in our nation. Kick out the hostile state. That's not hypocrisy.
- hef19898 4y ago
  That is only a problem if value profits of a few companies, that don't even pay that much of taxes, over your citizens. Unless, of course, FB and Co. are doing for the letter agencies what TikTok is doing for the Chinese. In which cade it never really was about the companies in the first place.
- kevinschumacher 4y ago
  The comment chain you’re replying to is advocating for reigning in “our own” companies, regardless Kicking out the hostile state solves the immediate threat from China. But what about threats from our own (current and/or future) government?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    We can handle our own companies with regulations that reflect the fact they aren't owned by a hostile state. We need to be much much more restrictive with china and also restrict our companies ability to work with them when it comes to data and technology sales
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    I find it fascinating how China is described as an hostile state when it's manufacturing the vast majority of our goods.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Are these two things inherently contradictory? They're currently flying missiles and threatening one of our allies. Can you interpret that as not a hostile enemy?
- makeitdouble 4y ago

eunos 4y ago

It's easy to avoid the Bezmenov's "trap" (for a lack of better words). Avoid moralizing issues especially if it doesnt directly affect your core interests. Also acknowledge that indeed all nations do have skeleton in their cupboards, let's keep them hidden.

fxtentacle 4y ago

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Everything you say is true. But it's not an argument. Failing to live up to all your stated values in past is not a reason to give up on then for all time.
- headsoup 4y ago
  I think the argument is that there is not so much difference in result at the end, even though the projected image appears opposite.
- Jochim 4y ago
  It's not about giving up on them. It's about being willing to accept that you haven't lived up to those values and make the changes necessary to uphold them. While still in the wrong, how seriously should China or Russia take the country that lead the invasion and occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 odd years when it offers it's condemnation of their own ambitions? To be frank, how can we expect anyone to take our condemnation seriously when we are currently doing the same things or have let the same things go unpunished in recent memory. We refuse to hold our own torturers and war criminals to proper account.
  - gopher_space 4y ago
    Do you feel at all represented by your elected officials? Did you vote for them? If not, why would you accept the burden of guilt for their actions? A relative handful of people made all the torture decisions for us. I don't think I want them hiding behind the flag, or me.
    - Jochim 4y ago
      > Do you feel at all represented by your elected officials? Did you vote for them? If not, why would you accept the burden of guilt for their actions? Personally it varies depending on the official. I think at some level we do bear some responsibility for those who represent us, I don't necessarily believe that crosses into guilt as much it does a call to action. The corrupt and unethical rely on a combination of apathy and normalisation in order to get away with their actions. > A relative handful of people made all the torture decisions for us. I don't think I want them hiding behind the flag, or me. I want them pushed out from behind the flag and into a jail cell.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Russia and China also have lists of noble values that they don't live up to. That's not a distinction.
towaway15463 4y ago
> Maybe we didn't punish contrary opinions quite as badly as China / Russia Understatement of the year. We also currently don’t outlaw homosexuality or religion or engage in genocide and we elect our leaders democratically among other things.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  You should probably check your facts. All but the first one is false. They have engaged in genocide: see Native Americans; trail of tears. The USA is a republic, not a democracy.
  - causi 4y ago
    I believe he means currently, not ever in its history.
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      Then why even bother having the conversation? No one is free of guilt here, which was my point.
      - zamfi 4y ago
        Guilt is not a binary. When one group is actively trying to absolve its sins of the past, and the other doesn’t even recognize them while doubling-down, the claim that “everyone has sins” an abdication of the idea that behavior matters.
      - causi 4y ago
        Because you can't resurrect people who died hundreds of years ago but you can potentially stop a genocide that's ongoing.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Republic and democracy refer to two different axis. Republic is about how the vertex of government is structured. Democracy is about where the executive/legislative power comes from. The US is both, you could argue that Canada is not a republic as they have a recognized queen, but it would be a stretch as she has essentially zero power there.
oneoff786 4y ago
The irony here of doing exactly what was outlined
gruez 4y ago
>Nestle Pure Life? According to google "Nestlé Pure Life is a brand of bottled water". What's so morally bankrupt about selling bottled water?
- wellthisisgreat 4y ago
  add “controversy” to search string - depletion of waterways etc https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-explained/ https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-expl...
  - gruez 4y ago
    >They say that by extracting ground water to sell, bottled water companies are actually draining natural waterways. Okay but people have to drink somehow right? It's not like if nestle stopped operating that the demand for water would evaporate. It'll just cause another waterway to be depleted instead. The other point raised in the article seems to be that nestle is taking water, which it pays little to nothing for, and charging $1/bottle or whatever. This sounds outrageous on the surface, until you realize that water in a well or whatever isn't really useful. You still need to bottle and transport it, which is where most of the value-add is. If people only needed water they'd get it from their tap, not buying $1 bottles. When they are buying bottles, they're paying for the convenience of water being available right then and there.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jeromegv 4y ago
  It’s not quite to the level of geopolitic but selling bottled water is entirely unnecessary in majority of the US. It’s extremely bad for the environment, both for the plastic but of course the transport. When it’s often the same damn thing you get in your sink. But no idea what’s specifically bad about this brand in particular.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    I've yet to visit a country that didn't sell bottled water though. That doesn't seem US specific
partiallypro 4y ago
This is like saying the US had segregation and internment camps in the 40s, so it had no moral standing on the USSR and Nazi Germany committing genocide. Which would be complete nonsense.
- mistermann 4y ago
  This seems like a mischaracterization of the parent comment and some self serving logic.
- 8note 4y ago
  if youre going to make that comparison, its worth noting that the nazis did draw their inspiration from America. For a long drawn out analysis: https://youtu.be/R1gcipAvplY https://youtu.be/R1gcipAvplY

account42 4y ago

You don't need a "narrative" to describe western nations as corrupt. All you need to do is look at wealth inequality over time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wealth_inequality_panel_-_v1.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wealth_i...

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Well, okay corrupt, but still capable of self-repair. meanwhile others have the corruption build into the very system of thiefdoms handed out to nobles. Also there are quite alot of ideals at work, for example when it comes to free trade. Anybody can sell his product and ideas in the us, meanwhile alot of beligerents, have walled of their societies from free discours and sabotage any external market contenders.
CodeSgt 4y ago
Why do you think wealth inequality is an inherent sign of corruption?
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Because wealth can be turned into power. Because when power is unevenly distributed a few people can make boneheaded decisions that create misery for the many. To point to the Russian experience the Tsar made the bad decision to take an odyssey the long way around Asia (and Africa for some ships) to attack Japan and they got their asses handed to them in a few hours. That was the first time Lenin and company tried a revolution and ultimately they made this feature film about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_Potemkin A few months back we had the spectacle of Elon Musk possibly buying Twitter (maybe he was in the running for asshole-in-chief) but I think he got some sense scared into him and he is keeping his head down these days.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Btw, you still didn't answer the question.

okasaki 4y ago

> It exposes our 'hypocrisy', and failure to live up to our own democratic standards. That fuels the narrative of the western nations as corrupt. I don't know why though. It should be clear by now that nobody in the west cares about hypocrisy, democracy, standards or corruption.

adrianN 4y ago
I care.
- bigfudge 4y ago
  I do too, but statistically we are "nobody".
  - carschno 4y ago
    Given the lack of data, you might as well assume that you are not so special, and hence part of a statistically significant group. I see the claim that nobody cares about democracy as another piece of right-wing propaganda.
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      This! It is propaganda designed to give you apathy. Ironically it only works because you are aware enough to know you want a better world.
hn_version_0023 4y ago
A great many of us care, but are powerless in the face of the hypocrisy and corruption. Where is it that you live that you fought and won the good fight so handily that you’re able to criticize us from afar?
ROTMetro 4y ago
Remember kids, propaganda doesn't need to convince you of anything to be successful, only to get you to believe in nothing. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” . The intention of 'what aboutism' is to get you to do nothing, especially to not speak up in support if you aren't sure. 'Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'. Don't let doom posters like this one suck you into their world of apathy and hate. If someone says something that's goal appears to be negativity, hate, or apathy, they are toxic, do not rent them space in your head. After action reports, critical evaluation with a goal towards improvement, great. Apathy, the world sucks, give up? F that. In the 90s the USA had the developed world's worst infant mortality rates. But if you look at the way we gather our statistics, it is different from all other countries. Why? Because unlike others we didn't manipulate the metrics because it was more important to us to have actual data to help save/improve lives. So who sucks? Who is failing kids? The country who is willing to make itself look bad with the worst metrics so that it can change things, or those not honest enough to be willing to look bad or make self examination? Yeah, America sucks, but it's 10x better than it was when I was a kid in the 70-80s, or most places I have traveled. I would rather have public suck that can be addressed than the general apathy that this poster has.

xtian 4y ago

How do you know that pointing out the ‘hypocrisy’ is the propaganda rather than the idea that these values as commonly understood have any basis in reality in the first place?

nonrandomstring 4y ago
I think that's a fair objection. I don't know. But my lived experience in a family who have sacrificed a lot on the alter of democratic values leaves me with a strong bias for which I make no apologies.
- xtian 4y ago
  People in my family have sacrificed meaningfully for these values as well, but I think it’s important to evaluate objectively whether those sacrifices are honored by the people who wield power or taken for granted. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...: > But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all. > […] > When both interest groups and affluent Americans oppose a policy it has an even lower likelihood of being adopted (these proposed policies consist primarily of tax increases). At the other extreme, high levels of support among both interest groups and affluent Americans increases the probability of adopting a policy change, but a strong status quo bias remains evident.

puppymaster 4y ago

while many struggles with the mental gymnastic, for me it has always been clear-cut. Government might be bad, and if they did bad, can we criticize it? Did any harm come to Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Adam Driver for portraying real life events depicting US government in lesser light? Can the same be said to Fan Bing Bing if she is to portray Li Wenliang in a movie? Or Viktor Bychkov playing Navalny in some sort of biopic produced by Russian production house?

cylon13 4y ago
I want more freedoms than just the ability to complain about not having freedom though.
kn0where 4y ago
America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even matter?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Yes of course it matters. Is it sufficient? Probably not. But it’s a substantial improvement over not being able to e.g. protest the government. Anyway, our government isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting, which despite all its flaws does shift inertia.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > voting You cannot meaningfully vote in the US, you have two options that have similar fascist views of the rest of the world and are unlikely to change anything. That is a false choice, meant to lull the chooser into a false sense of agency.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Yep it’s an imperfect system. It’s dramatically better than a lot of others that have existed through history (including today) though. It is simply wildly untrue to imply that the two major parties don’t hold opposing views on at least a few important topics or that voting doesn’t help determine which party holds the power to realize their worldview. There’s a lot of overlap and a lot of ineffectiveness but this does not make them the same.

boomchinolo78 4y ago

It's more than a narrative for sure.

bioemerl 4y ago

Seems insane to me to undercut our own companies because a hostile foreign state is operating in our nation. Kick out the hostile state. That's not hypocrisy.

hef19898 4y ago
That is only a problem if value profits of a few companies, that don't even pay that much of taxes, over your citizens. Unless, of course, FB and Co. are doing for the letter agencies what TikTok is doing for the Chinese. In which cade it never really was about the companies in the first place.
kevinschumacher 4y ago
The comment chain you’re replying to is advocating for reigning in “our own” companies, regardless Kicking out the hostile state solves the immediate threat from China. But what about threats from our own (current and/or future) government?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  We can handle our own companies with regulations that reflect the fact they aren't owned by a hostile state. We need to be much much more restrictive with china and also restrict our companies ability to work with them when it comes to data and technology sales
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  I find it fascinating how China is described as an hostile state when it's manufacturing the vast majority of our goods.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Are these two things inherently contradictory? They're currently flying missiles and threatening one of our allies. Can you interpret that as not a hostile enemy?
makeitdouble 4y ago