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

China

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 497 posts

Re: China

#281

Post by hungryhobo »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #267
Aperocky wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assume the goal for China is democracy, and the one the west set for them. If they failed, we must destroy their economy, take their people into poverty, because the barn door must be closed. This narrative basically can be taken verbatim by the CCP as propaganda material. “The west didn’t like our political system that made great economical progress, and they will try to destroy your livelihood. By the way, the…

So we should continue to let them buy US companies despite the reverse not being allowed? We should continue to let their companies operate freely in our markets despite the reverse not being allowed? We must maintain this double standard because the CCP might make propaganda out of it?

Given the number of times 'national security' has been the reason for barring Chinese companies from operating in the US or anywhere else, I don't think what you describe is true any more

Re: China

#282

Post by nailer »

zzzcpan wrote: post #198
a13n wrote: post #182

Hey mods is there a particular reason this post is being penalized? As of writing it's #22 with 400 points in 1 hour, while #5 has 119 points in 3 hours.

Votes alone don't determine frontpage position and it's still on the front page, so clearly it's not being penalized. Some people probably flagged it too, as I did.

Why did you flag it?

Re: China

#283

Post by dang »

kd3 wrote: post #263
kick wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham: I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of so…

I think the whole voting thing is stupid. It obviously leads to censorship. Someone else's opinion should not count less than others even if you don't agree with them. Assuming we're not talking about plain spam (bots, ads, etc). Graham did not think this through properly. Everyday I come across comments that are downvoted or flagged and can see no reason why that was done apart from subjective ones.

Of course, there's a lot of subjectivity. But if you think you can make a site like HN be interesting without voting, you should give it a try. It would be an order of magnitude easier and cheaper to operate, and that would be a real innovation.

Re: China

#284

Post by DataGata »

Aunche wrote: post #165
gregwebs wrote: post #59

I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I just want to point out that outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving. As a US citizen, I try to consider how the rest of the world may view our actions (glass houses and all). Following the logic here it would make sense for the rest of the world to cutoff trade with the United States due to the Iraq war, which ha…

The US has always valued "principle" over actual results. In Iraq, Saddam was "evil", so he had to go, even though it would leave the entire country in the power vacuum and destroy the livelihoods of the average Iraqi. Ditto for Gaddafi in Libya. This post is much the same way. A poorer China is only going to deteriorate their human rights. A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom. This happened in South…

South Korea achieved democracy when their GDP per capita was $4k. China's GDP per capita is approaching $9k. When will they be rich enough that they yearn for democracy?

Re: China

#285

Post by big_chungus »

kick wrote: post #221
big_chungus wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's criticizing liberals and most people on HN are liberals. Most censorship ("hate speech" included) is code for shutting your political opponents up. HN makes this really easy by making comments hard to read by removing contrast with the background as they get voted down; post something too much against the grain and it'll get flagged and hidden by default. When you hand users the power to shut those with…

Paul Graham: I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of so…

Problem is, it doesn't just attach a "score" to a comment. The UI will gradually hide comments as they are voted farther down; I've seen many that are barely legible. Flagging also hides comments by default. I can't tell you how many reasonable, well-thought out points I've seen that I have to highlight with the mouse to actually read. I wouldn't even see many insightful comments had I not logged in and enabled "showdead".

There is a great deal of difference between giving users the tools to express disagreement and giving them the tools to block out the opinions of those with which I disagree.

Finally, quoting Paul Graham isn't really an argument. Fine, it's his site, but I'm allowed to say I disagree with how the voting on his site is implemented.

Re: China

#286

Post by dang »

big_chungus wrote: post #196
echelon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted for expressing a contrarian viewpoint. This kind of censorship isn't even targeting hate speech, and it drives me crazy. Why downvote them?

Because he's criticizing liberals and most people on HN are liberals. Most censorship ("hate speech" included) is code for shutting your political opponents up. HN makes this really easy by making comments hard to read by removing contrast with the background as they get voted down; post something too much against the grain and it'll get flagged and hidden by default. When you hand users the power to shut those with…

> most people on HN are liberals

"There is a definite right-libertarian bias on HN" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21432833

"If you go against any kind of socially conservative or libertarian perspective it will get down voted and very likely flagged" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20643695

"chilling effect on discourse from leftists" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20804464

"a leftist can't have a sane discussion on this website" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15926162

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=13110004&sort=byDate&prefix&pa...

Re: China

#287

Post by Aperocky »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #267
Aperocky wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assume the goal for China is democracy, and the one the west set for them. If they failed, we must destroy their economy, take their people into poverty, because the barn door must be closed. This narrative basically can be taken verbatim by the CCP as propaganda material. “The west didn’t like our political system that made great economical progress, and they will try to destroy your livelihood. By the way, the…

So we should continue to let them buy US companies despite the reverse not being allowed? We should continue to let their companies operate freely in our markets despite the reverse not being allowed? We must maintain this double standard because the CCP might make propaganda out of it?

Name some Chinese company operate freely in US? Tiktok? What else?

Apple, Starbucks, Intel, Microsoft etc operates in China - as for freely, you define whatever that word means. American companies have a much larger namesake and presence in China than the other way around. Your complaint is the complete reverse of real life.

Re: China

#288

Post by [deleted] »

jeffdavis wrote: post #256
gregwebs wrote: post #59

I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I just want to point out that outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving. As a US citizen, I try to consider how the rest of the world may view our actions (glass houses and all). Following the logic here it would make sense for the rest of the world to cutoff trade with the United States due to the Iraq war, which ha…

There's no moral equivalence between China's totalitarianism and the U.S. China is worse by orders of magnitude both in degree and kind. Comparing the two is just an excuse to do nothing. In the meantime, feel free (pun intended) to protest misdeeds by the U.S., vote for new leaders, organize with like-minded individuals, or buy weapons. (Aside: many people feel like buying weapons is completely futile against oppres…

[deleted]

Re: China

#289

Post by perennate »

Aperocky wrote: post #216
ilamont wrote: post #43

Xi's in a trap. The nationalist fervor that the CCP has whipped up for decades, coupled with the demonization of the HK protestors by Chinese media and Xi's 'no compromise' stance, makes it impossible for him to lighten up -- and the protests to de-escalate -- without him seeming weak. The HK protestors/population at this point are so angry and the radical wing so large, that they won't willingly de-escalate. Even if…

Both the west and China omit information when reporting about HK. China highlights protester violence, the west talk about police. The only difference is that west is doing it voluntarily. If you step back and think about it, if this protest were to happen in the US, with subways burned, shops destroyed, road blocked, for 6 months. What is going to happen? Compare this hypothetical scenario with what happened in Hong…

In the US I can read any English source, both ones from China and ones from US/UK media. I read that the CCP imprisoned approximately one million Uighurs in concentration camps in Xinjiang, where they are being held indefinitely without due process, and there are reports of physical torture (waterboarding and tiger chair), rape, and occasional killings. I also read from CCP's point of view that this started because there were some terrorist knife attacks in 2014. So I can get both sides' point of views. But after reading both sides, my conclusion is that even if 10,000 people are guilty it does not justify a Holocaust-scale genocide of one million Uighurs, where the overwhelming majority are innocent and did not participate or condone the terrorists. There is no difference between the logic of those perpetrating the genocide in Xinjiang and the logic of Hitler during WWII.

Re: China

#290

Post by iandanforth »

jeffdavis wrote: post #256
gregwebs wrote: post #59

I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I just want to point out that outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as hypocritical and self-serving. As a US citizen, I try to consider how the rest of the world may view our actions (glass houses and all). Following the logic here it would make sense for the rest of the world to cutoff trade with the United States due to the Iraq war, which ha…

There's no moral equivalence between China's totalitarianism and the U.S. China is worse by orders of magnitude both in degree and kind. Comparing the two is just an excuse to do nothing. In the meantime, feel free (pun intended) to protest misdeeds by the U.S., vote for new leaders, organize with like-minded individuals, or buy weapons. (Aside: many people feel like buying weapons is completely futile against oppres…

Meta: I think the rhetoric of humility is more powerful here.

"We are not perfect, but we can't stand by. We have sins of our own that we are trying to rectify, but we cannot allow what you're doing."

The flaw in mutual criticism without admission of guilt is that saying "we're good" even in comparison is so obviously self-serving that it gives your opponent a trivial excuse to dismiss you.

Post reply on HN