291–300 of 304 posts
If they're willing to censor news. I wonder how long until China extends its social credit system (or a form of it) to people outside China... and what companies play along?
are you saying US's credit score shouldn't apply to immigrant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, we are in a sort of cold civil war in western culture right now over core beliefs and culture. HN definitely seems to have a collective bias to one side of that.
Yes, HN does tend to have a collective bias towards logic and reason, and against wild conspiracy theories.
EDIT: Oh wait, after re-reading it's a tongue and cheek comment making fun of liberals. Let's try to be more civil in our discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Post WW2 there has never been a more peaceful era in history per capita.
There's still a lack of peace in some countries. The US should invade to slaughter the naughty people and anyone standing next to them in order to impose peace and prosperity in those places as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you are conflating Assanges lack of publication of Russian material with Navoya Gazeta.
What do you mean by that? What I meant was that a lot of the sources for Novoya Gazeta regarding the murder of Anna Politkovskaya (as an example) who was one of their co-workers was Wikileaks. The very openly blamed Kreml/Putin. I don't know how else can I phrase it, I answered to the statement that "publish anything that would embarrass Russia". Also "Spy Files Russia" aka a national system of online surveillance. T…
> “These are tricks that the Russians were willing to give up,” says James Andrew Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who formerly worked as a Foreign Service officer and an information security rapporteur for the United Nations. “I actually thought it was a bit slow and belated. They probably had to get FSB clearance to release anything and that may have taken a while. Think of it as vaudeville for leakers.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> referring to the sentence "just wait till you see what China is going to do" It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experi…
> It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". I understood the phrase completely. The OP's original sen…
But I think that hypothetical, to the degree any hypothetical can be, is fairly valid. For example, at this moment, one side supports North Korea the other South Korea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had never even heard of this show until today, and it sounds like something I would really enjoy. On the flip side I do not want to give CBS any money as a result of this censorship
You'll want to watch the original series The Good Wife first. The Good Fight is a sequel series after the main character finishes her arc. It was a really great show. It's a typical law firm drama but it was very well written and surprisingly tech-savvy. Some of the topics and cases in the show dealt with things like the NSA, Anonymous, fugitives from justice (like Snowden), the haziness of the Constitution at the bo…
One addendum, however: I would greatly encourage skipping the last two seasons of The Good Wife (6 and 7), which constitute a massive and sudden drop in quality. There are a few good episodes, but not enough. You'll hear tidbits about what happened when you watch The Good Fight, and it's better that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> referring to the sentence "just wait till you see what China is going to do" It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experi…
> It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". I understood the phrase completely. The OP's original sen…
No, you didn't. I assume English is not your native tongue (it's ok, it's not mine either), but after I explained it to you I don't think it makes sense to keep purposefully misunderstanding it.
> you are condemning China for future, hypothetical abuses it will possibly carry out as a possible future world hegemon based on past and present actions.
Nope. I am condemning China for past and present abuse, and tell you that if China had chance to dominate, this abuse would increase orders of magnitude. Exactly because China is abusive right now. It's not some hypothetical guess about the future, it's the fact. Just as I can predict what happens if I drop a stone - it will fall to the ground, due to gravity, and the laws of gravity is not something hypothetical in the future - it has been long established and this is what allows me to make predictions - I can also predict what would happen with China exactly because I know present and past of China. You are trying to pretend it's some play of imagination that has no connection to facts. It is the opposite.
> You're saying because a country has done X and is doing Y, it will continue to do so in the future. History trivially shows this to be untrue
If history trivially shows that, it wouldn't be hard for you to show three examples of totalitarian states that voluntarily stopped being totalitarian while their dominance was on the raise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it will reach a point where its government will no longer feel the need to resort to totalitarian policies to ensure the stability and prosperity of its society Do you have an example from history of a totalitarian society voluntarily undergoing such transformation?
There are many, many such examples in history which you are free to spend time reading about. At the moment, I am not particularly inclined to research and type up a report for your personal consumption. I hope you understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last couple of days I've been learning a little more about China's emerging surveillance state and while terrifying to think about and worse sad knowing they're building essentially concentration camps, I am wondering how effective are China's policies. i.e. does China's investment and push towards a controlled society actually come out ahead compared to if they didn't? Without looking at any figures, surely poli…
I think it's less about building a productive China, and more about maintaining power for those in charge, but they could also honestly believe that the masses need to be controlled in order to have a productive China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socialism as it's understood now is a specific plan for replacing Capitalism, tied to a specific theory of history, not just a philosophy. At the level of implementation, it isn't morality, it's economics and politics. There might be morality behind it, but there's morality behind all actions, to some extent.
Many modern capitalist governments, including the US, employ socialist programs with no intention of overturning capitalism itself. And the entire thesis behind socialism is that it's morally superior to capitalism, in a similar way that free software is argued as being morally superior to proprietary software.
That's the entire point of Historical Materialism.