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

Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 538 posts

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#501

Post by fouric »

analognoise wrote: post #449
Dah00n wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a voice doesn't not equal being heard. Especially not if you define A Voice as writing on Facebook or Twitter. You might as well stand on a box in the dead parts of Detroit and talk politics. Being heard in a democratic country means your vote matters.

Nobody has the right to "be heard"! That's the thing. You have the right to scream it out loud, but nobody is forced to stand there and listen. No - you can't falsely equate "being heard" by being on FB and Twitter to voting. If my neighbor starts screaming Nazi talking points, I have the right to walk away. They still have the right to scream them. Buy Facebook isn't "forced" to carry their views, either! And the Na…

This is completely wrong. "Being heard" is being on FB and Twitter, as these platforms (1) are effectively public forums by nature of their massive, near-monopolistic reach, (2) claim protections of public forums, such as immunity from liability due to user-posted content, and (3) implicitly and explicitly portray themselves as public squares/forums[1].

The online equivalent to "having the right to walk away" is blocking someone on a platform. It's that simple.

Once a company has reached a monopolistic size, which describes FB and Twitter, then it either needs to be broken up, or treated like a utility/government service - this is exactly the argument that you see all the time about e.g. ISPs and Alphabet/Google - because there's no other morally excusable way to act. The first amendment was written to only apply to the government because that's the entity that's the most likely to (and most dangerous in) silence speech and discourse, not the only one.

You definitely would not be making these arguments if it were your ideological tribe that were being censored.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28456794

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#502

Post by analognoise »

fouric wrote: post #501
analognoise wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has the right to "be heard"! That's the thing. You have the right to scream it out loud, but nobody is forced to stand there and listen. No - you can't falsely equate "being heard" by being on FB and Twitter to voting. If my neighbor starts screaming Nazi talking points, I have the right to walk away. They still have the right to scream them. Buy Facebook isn't "forced" to carry their views, either! And the Na…

This is completely wrong. "Being heard" is being on FB and Twitter, as these platforms (1) are effectively public forums by nature of their massive, near-monopolistic reach, (2) claim protections of public forums, such as immunity from liability due to user-posted content, and (3) implicitly and explicitly portray themselves as public squares/forums[1]. The online equivalent to "having the right to walk away" is bloc…

Bullshit. If I was a serious I'd go run my own website.

People whinge about being censored but don't care enough to run a website? Nazis run their own websites. It's easier than ever to run a website.

Nobody is owed being on a private platform, and it's total bullshit to say that we should force companies to. It's not a "de facto public square" - it's an advertising platform, first and foremost.

So @Jack said it was a public square - in the context of the ideal. Did he make that statement to a court? Because I'll bet being deposed, he'd say that was flowery talk.

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#503

Post by anonymousiam »

nl wrote: post #375
anonymousiam wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.

> the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC This appears to be a difficult argument to make in a consistent way. HK was ceded to GB a the Treaty of Nanking[1] which was between the UK and the Qing Dynasty Chinese government. It was later expanded in 1897, again with the Qing Dynasty. That Dynasty collapsed in the early 20th century…

So the smart thing for the British government to have done would have been to declare the treaty invalid when the PRC came to power. GB could have claimed Hong Kong in perpetuity and the PRC would not have dared to stand up to GB in that era.

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#504

Post by jollybean »

nl wrote: post #371
jollybean wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point about Vietnam and Philippines wavering on direct conflict is well taken but I did hint at that. I didn't say 'they would be going to war over Taiwan' - I would agree with you there there. In the geopolitical realignment, they'd be in a difficult situation, and though they might not join the Asian NATO, they'd join the new Trade Pact. Neither Sweden nor Finland nor Austria belong to NATO either, but there's…

> I don't know what you mean. 9/11 resulted in two major wars and that was a non-state actor. As I said elsewhere: In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those. Or more starkly: The US lost both those wars and the US population is sick of it. If China sank a couple of US ships, I'm sure the US wo…

The US was not run out of Iraq by Iran, not was it run out of Syria by Russia. That's a total misrepresentation of the situation.

The US lost the political will to stay in Afghanistan. It wasn't actually that difficult or costly, just not worth it.

There was no appetite for war after Vietnam, and yet Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan all happened.

If China invaded Taiwan, then the 'appetite for war would change' and if a couple of American ships were sunk, then the 'appetite for war' would be at 100%.

Sometimes I think I'm debating young people with no living memory of how these things change over time and how Americans absolutely do not tolerate direct attacks.

Pearl Harbour, 9/11, both had devastating consequences.

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#505

Post by phantomathkg »

tikwidd wrote: post #313
phantomathkg wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask them nicely?! Appeasement never work, did we forgot what we have learnt from WW2? The only way out is to start a cold/hot war until toppling the CCP.

Why not start with the low hanging fruit? Be an inspiration for Chinese dissidents and topple the Business party (Republican/Democrat).

Remember CCP have no similarly as Republican or Democrat. They will never fight fairly with you. Once you amass enough and they see you as a threat. They will use any methods to take it away from you. See what happened to Jack Ma. [1]

1: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-01/jack-m...

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#506

Post by CRConrad »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #424
Bayart wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so ? There's a case to be made for Linear B because of the Greek Dark Ages, but Old Avestan ? By that same token, Oracle Bone Script also doesn't represent a traceable and continuous culture.

Persia was conquered by iconoclastic foreigners. Many native traditions were lost, even the knowledge of how to read the old writings. Continuity was significantly interrupted. > There's a case to be made for Linear B because of the Greek Dark Ages That's sufficient to defeat the claim of cultural continuity, but note also that the case that Linear B has been deciphered at all isn't on the firmest ground.

> Persia was conquered by iconoclastic foreigners.

Spouting this as if it somehow justifies or reinforces the CCP's claim to China being the oldest and therefore most venerable of cultures is just continuing to give credence to their nationalist tropes. It's not as if China had never been conquered.

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#507

Post by CRConrad »

skissane wrote: post #130
cabalamat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US would never do that, it would violate Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US unlikely to be enormously bothered about violating treaties if it finds doing so in its interest. > Given the extreme risk of such a move What exactly is China going to do? Try to break the US-led world order? They're doing that already!

> The US unlikely to be enormously bothered about violating treaties if it finds doing so in its interest. The US cares greatly about the NPT because it wants a world in which only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, not a world in which dozens of them do. NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty dem…

> The US cares greatly about the NPT because it wants a world in which only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, not a world in which dozens of them do.

The treaty doesn't ensure that in any way. It's an empty letter.

> NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan.

Exactly. The NPT does fuck-all against this, and it's going to be of equally fuck-all use against the next bunch of countries that really want to get nukes. (Also, BTW, fuck knows if your four shouldn't be a five: how certain are you, really, that South Africa doesn't have them?)

> But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90

Maybe. (Yeah: I'm not even all that sure about that, any more.) But that has fuck-all to do with the NPT, since that is of absolutely no use in ensuring the former in stead of the latter.

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#508

Post by CRConrad »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #62
president wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good question. Assuming war is the only option on the table: 1. Would Americans be in favor of (relatively) short term destruction in favor of long term prosperity for their children and future generations? 2. Would the US be able to win a conventional war against China? I believe the answer to #1 is no. I don't think anybody knows the answer to #2.

On 1, let's not pretend that short term destruction necessarily leads to long term prosperity. We've "won" most of our recent wars, long term prosperity was not the result. On 2, there is no conventional war with a nuclear power.

> there is no conventional war with a nuclear power.

True. But maybe there can be a purely conventional war between two nuclear powers.

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#509

Post by CRConrad »

sneak wrote: post #28
jmclnx wrote: post #5

I really wish the US and Europe would get *lls and punish China for breaking the treaty with Hong Kong and the UK

I really wish that people would stop ascribing masculine traits, violent warmongering, and inherent virtue into the same bucket.

Oh, man up!

Re: Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum

#510

Post by CRConrad »

refenestrator wrote: post #113
Dig1t wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not what you're asking for but here is a perfect example of the misinformation that is spread by the CCP https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massac...

The tagline "objective, nonpartisan and insightful" on 'World Affairs' really brings it home. The Chinese government obviously has its own propaganda, but being anti-China is objective and nonpartisan in the US. It's not taking sides, it's just the natural state of affairs, the entire media thinks so, both kinds of it.

> both kinds of it.

Country and Western.

Post reply on HN