Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#61

Post by legostormtroopr »

xemoka wrote: post #48
matrixmultiply wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#metoo is focused on witch hunting.

This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).

Except the figure head of #metoo was found to be as guilty as the rest of them [1]. Every actor or celebrity screaming #metoo is a hypocrite who was happy for the status quo to be a culture of assault and degradation, until it became convenient for them to say otherwise.

Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social breakdown [2].

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-...

[2] http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/lean-in-sheryl-sandberg/

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#62

Post by xemoka »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #61
xemoka wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).

Except the figure head of #metoo was found to be as guilty as the rest of them [1]. Every actor or celebrity screaming #metoo is a hypocrite who was happy for the status quo to be a culture of assault and degradation, until it became convenient for them to say otherwise. Then they passed it on the culture-at-large saying everyone has this problem, when it is vastly concentrated in Hollywood, which has lead to social…

There is no doubt that humans are shitty. Was that ever in question? The #metoo movement has brought forward, and into public discourse, a problem. Had this not been brought forward even Argento's indiscretions wouldn't be known. The things highlighted by the #metoo movement are impactful and important to the advancement of our society and civilization. These actions should not be considered "OKAY" and most people who say the #metoo movement is filled with witch hunting and should be stopped are effectively discounting any of its gains. Nothing is perfect, but we can all strive to be better—and maybe with #metoo visible in the world we can avoid the problems of the past in our future.

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#63

Post by xemoka »

matrixmultiply wrote: post #59
xemoka wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. The #metoo movement is not focused on "witch hunting", there are many different people associated with this "movement" and there is no real guiding person or organization that is focused on it. Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive).

> Individuals may be trying to take advantage of it, but don't throw everything out because of a couple rotten actors (that you perceive). Most are against due process, so it is difficult for me to take the movement seriously.

Most are against due process? As in most supporters of #metoo or as in the most visible and loudest supporters that you have focused on? Do you have any kind of real statistics about the supporters of #metoo or are you making an inference from what makes the headlines from your chosen media?

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#64

Post by vkou »

forapurpose wrote: post #40
vkou wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care who they answer to, I care about what they do. The CIA has a history of torture and terrorism. The DOD has most recently, caused the deaths of a couple hundred thousand people in the Middle East. Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures.…

> The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. A detail: They had a monarch with real power in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a parliament.

The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head.

If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.

The empire was governed by Parliament.

The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. The Koch brothers have power. Aristocrats, throughout history have had power, even if they have no formal posts in government. Just because a few well-connected individuals have power in a country, doesn't mean that it isn't a democracy.

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

vkou wrote: post #27
supercanuck wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing the CIA/DOD with the Saudi Kingdom? Really? One still answers to a democratically, elected president and Congress. One does not. This isn't comparable.

I don't care who they answer to, I care about what they do. The CIA has a history of torture and terrorism. The DOD has most recently, caused the deaths of a couple hundred thousand people in the Middle East. Just because you live in a democracy doesn't mean you can wash your hands of it. The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures.…

> The British empire was a parliamentary democracy

Not particularly; I mean, the Commons was democratic and Parliament largely governed the Empire, but the Commons wasn't really the sole meaningful house of Parliament during most ifthe period of the Empire.

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#66

Post by forapurpose »

vkou wrote: post #64
forapurpose wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. A detail: They had a monarch with real power in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a parliament.

The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head. If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall. The empire was governed by Parliament. The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. Th…

It wasn't a binary change, from absolute power to none. Those events represented shifts in degree from the crown to Parliament. AFAIK, King George III still had significant power, for example, during the American Revolution.

Also, I've never heard the UK of that era referred to as a democracy. Here it says that under Queen Victoria (1837-1901), the role of the monarch transformed from one that exercised real power to one that was purely ceremonial:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Victoria-queen-of-Unite...

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#67

Post by dragonwriter »

vkou wrote: post #64
forapurpose wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The British empire was a parliamentary democracy, and it has done a lot of truly abhorrent stuff over the 18th and 19th centures. A detail: They had a monarch with real power in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as a parliament.

The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head. If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall. The empire was governed by Parliament. The queen/king had some power, sure. Today, Larry Page has some power. Rupert Murdoch has power. Th…

> The question of "Who has power in the British Empire" was settled pretty definitively back in 1649, when Charles I lost his head.

> If you want to split hairs, we can say that it was settled more definitively in 1661, when Cromwell's head was put on a spike outside Westminster hall.

Those are both wrong. It was settled in 1911 when George V made clear he would intervene by appointing new life peers if necessary to assure passage of reforms which would strip the House of Lords of its power to reject legislation, which finally settled that the Commons would henceforth be effectively the sole decisive ruling body of the Empire.

Prior to that, the Commons (democratic, approximately) and Lords (decidedly not) had an ebb and flow of power, with the Lord's sometimes being more powerful and the Commons sometimes being more powerful (including, for a period, the Commons abolishing the Lords with Cromwell's support, but that, like Cromwell, didn't last.)

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#68

Post by cbnotfromthere »

jiveturkey wrote: post #58
mrkstu wrote: post #26

I hope everyone who condemns the Saudis and those doing business w/them are doing the same with those doing so with China. China regularly disappears its citizens, and now openly is sending them by the hundreds of thousands to re-education camps. Xi and Prince Salman are two sides of the same coin and if you're comfortable with one and not the other, you're just virtue signaling. I'm just a IT guy at a business that…

> China regularly disappears its citizens The difference here is that SA killed a citizen of another country. I'm not arguing the morality of it, just pointing out the important difference.

LOL! Kashoggi was (or is) a Saudi citizen. That's why he had to go to the Saudi consulate to get some papers.

Duh.

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#69

Post by Koshkin »

jiveturkey wrote: post #58
mrkstu wrote: post #26

I hope everyone who condemns the Saudis and those doing business w/them are doing the same with those doing so with China. China regularly disappears its citizens, and now openly is sending them by the hundreds of thousands to re-education camps. Xi and Prince Salman are two sides of the same coin and if you're comfortable with one and not the other, you're just virtue signaling. I'm just a IT guy at a business that…

> China regularly disappears its citizens The difference here is that SA killed a citizen of another country. I'm not arguing the morality of it, just pointing out the important difference.

Somehow it seems to me that in this day and age this difference should not be important...

Re: Saudi Backlash Threatens U.S. Startups

#70

Post by mrkstu »

ozmodiar wrote: post #50
mrkstu wrote: post #26

I hope everyone who condemns the Saudis and those doing business w/them are doing the same with those doing so with China. China regularly disappears its citizens, and now openly is sending them by the hundreds of thousands to re-education camps. Xi and Prince Salman are two sides of the same coin and if you're comfortable with one and not the other, you're just virtue signaling. I'm just a IT guy at a business that…

I am not comfortable with either country (and likewise have no business in either). It’s where you say we shouldn’t act against one unless we act against both (or else be labeled virtue signalers) that this becomes whataboutism. It is not about the degree of their offences, or that ones is better/worse or significantly different, but paralyzing action or discussion unless it can always be dolled out equally every tim…

If I was trying in any way to justify or excuse SA's behavior you'd be correct.

I remember going camping/hiking in the top of the Uintah mountains as a kid and saw something that made sense but hadn't occurred to me before that time.

In high mountain meadows there were hundreds of tiny rivulets coming off the snow pack. It was enlightening to see each of these seemingly independent rivulets gather down-elevation into brooks, streams and finally a decent sized river.

Identifying that these cults of personality that are proliferating have a common source and that we need to address them as a single phenomenon isn't whataboutism, its trying to crystallize the challenge we are facing as a global society.

Post reply on HN