4 ms·

While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative

by rurp 2y ago

While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative advantage here.

graemep 2y ago
That is not how I understood GP. It was not a comment on free speech in general, but on the acceptability of certain ideas that have an economic impact. I do not actually agree with assertion being made either - the west has problems, but its biggest problems are complacency, economic policy, and an unwillingness to face difficult problems, not lack of homogeneity.
lelanthran 2y ago
> While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative advantage here. Who said anything about free speech? I said, and still stand by, that some cultures norms are superior to others, and that that sentiment is not acceptable to many in the west.
- munksbeer 2y ago
  The reason isn't "acceptable" is because the world is fraught with examples where the sentiment of superiority of culture or race led to horrific outcomes. Therefore people have worked extremely hard over the decades to stop those sort of things. I see from your profile you're from South Africa, so I'd assume you are more capable than many others of recognising that. Perhaps things swung a bit too far one way (I genuinely am undecided), but we should realise the intentions in this started out well. And we'll swing too far back the other way if we're not careful.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > The reason isn't "acceptable" is because the world is fraught with examples where the sentiment of superiority of culture or race led to horrific outcomes. You know, I didn't say anything about race. Please don't misrepresent my point in order to argue against it because ... well, there's a reason that there's a common name for that sort of thing. > I see from your profile you're from South Africa, so I'd assume you are more capable than many others of recognising that. Not just "from", I grew up in Apartheid South Africa. I saw the rubicon speech live on TV, not read it in a wikipedia article. I had to watch where I go because of the "whites only" signs in certain parts of the country. And yet, I still get lectured on race by people who have never lived under legislated racism, which is a good deal harsher than "systemic racism". > Perhaps things swung a bit too far one way (I genuinely am undecided), but we should realise the intentions in this started out well. And we'll swing too far back the other way if we're not careful. Some cultural norms are superior, and have superior results, producing better and more productive members of society on average. And some cultural norms are primitive and regressive, and produce less productive or net-negative productive members of society. Race has nothing to do with it.
    - munksbeer 2y ago
      You're not following the advice of hn and reading my post in the most charitable light. I specifically used "culture" in my reply, and added "or race" to illustrate my point. You chose to view this as a strawman. It is not. Please feel free to ignore the "race" part of my statement. So for the benefit of doubt, the world has over many decades tried to fight against the sentiment that some cultures are superior because (and pay attention here) this line of thought (whether it is right or wrong), has led to horrific outcomes in the past, and still does.
      - lelanthran 2y ago
        Here's the thing, though, my point was always "some cultural norms are superior". I never made the point that "some cultures are superior". You responded as if I said "some cultures or races are superior", and your second response refined my point to "some cultures are superior", both of which are incorrect characterisations of my position. There's a big difference in the meanings between what I wrote and what you read, twice.

by rurp 2y ago

While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative advantage here.

graemep 2y ago

That is not how I understood GP. It was not a comment on free speech in general, but on the acceptability of certain ideas that have an economic impact. I do not actually agree with assertion being made either - the west has problems, but its biggest problems are complacency, economic policy, and an unwillingness to face difficult problems, not lack of homogeneity.

lelanthran 2y ago

> While yes the US could be better about freedom of speech and ideas in some areas, it's a pretty wild assertion to say that China of all places has a comparative advantage here. Who said anything about free speech? I said, and still stand by, that some cultures norms are superior to others, and that that sentiment is not acceptable to many in the west.

munksbeer 2y ago
The reason isn't "acceptable" is because the world is fraught with examples where the sentiment of superiority of culture or race led to horrific outcomes. Therefore people have worked extremely hard over the decades to stop those sort of things. I see from your profile you're from South Africa, so I'd assume you are more capable than many others of recognising that. Perhaps things swung a bit too far one way (I genuinely am undecided), but we should realise the intentions in this started out well. And we'll swing too far back the other way if we're not careful.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > The reason isn't "acceptable" is because the world is fraught with examples where the sentiment of superiority of culture or race led to horrific outcomes. You know, I didn't say anything about race. Please don't misrepresent my point in order to argue against it because ... well, there's a reason that there's a common name for that sort of thing. > I see from your profile you're from South Africa, so I'd assume you are more capable than many others of recognising that. Not just "from", I grew up in Apartheid South Africa. I saw the rubicon speech live on TV, not read it in a wikipedia article. I had to watch where I go because of the "whites only" signs in certain parts of the country. And yet, I still get lectured on race by people who have never lived under legislated racism, which is a good deal harsher than "systemic racism". > Perhaps things swung a bit too far one way (I genuinely am undecided), but we should realise the intentions in this started out well. And we'll swing too far back the other way if we're not careful. Some cultural norms are superior, and have superior results, producing better and more productive members of society on average. And some cultural norms are primitive and regressive, and produce less productive or net-negative productive members of society. Race has nothing to do with it.
  - munksbeer 2y ago
    You're not following the advice of hn and reading my post in the most charitable light. I specifically used "culture" in my reply, and added "or race" to illustrate my point. You chose to view this as a strawman. It is not. Please feel free to ignore the "race" part of my statement. So for the benefit of doubt, the world has over many decades tried to fight against the sentiment that some cultures are superior because (and pay attention here) this line of thought (whether it is right or wrong), has led to horrific outcomes in the past, and still does.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      Here's the thing, though, my point was always "some cultural norms are superior". I never made the point that "some cultures are superior". You responded as if I said "some cultures or races are superior", and your second response refined my point to "some cultures are superior", both of which are incorrect characterisations of my position. There's a big difference in the meanings between what I wrote and what you read, twice.