381–390 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like McCarthyism it’s a noble cause I'm unsure if this is sarcasm or not.
It’s not. Why on earth would you want to have a bunch of Soviet or communist Chinese spies running around?
I'm not trolling you, I want to know where you draw the line (if at all). 9% false positive? 99%? 99.999%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(It was the colleague's wife's parents.) Obviously I never got the full story, but from what I heard, the parents were academics who had their house vandalized by the Red Guards and were sent to work the countryside.
Did her parents ever leave China?
This is just such a sad situation. The scientist's reputation has taken a big beating and he will now be looked through the lease of these accusations for rest of his career, if not more. The last paragraph stood out for me. “My love is science. I did not want politics, right? I saw that, and I got away from it. I do my devotion to science. I help people, I support. But I learned that you can’t get away. Politics imp…
> The scientist's reputation has taken a big beating While this really sucked, this is an exaggeration. No charges. Still has his job. He can still file for government grants. The article starts with his colleagues offering up opportunities for him and celebrating that he is back. Yeah, the feds screwed the pooch and messed things up, but I don't see where his reputation was actually harmed.
He lost 15 doctoral students/post docs who moved on in his absence, and I'm assuming his research group(s) imploded - do you think it's going to be easy to get those back? He has a job, but it's not at the same job he had before - for one he'll be co-authoring fewer papers. So his reputation has taken a beating in measurable ways - that's no exaggeration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing the Cultural Revolution with the Great Leap Forward. If you read a little bit about the Cultural Revolution the connection will be obvious.
You have broken a number of guidelines in your various comments, for example: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." (this comment above) Be kind. Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30116919 Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not. Why on earth would you want to have a bunch of Soviet or communist Chinese spies running around?
McCarthyism led to the persecution of anyone with socialist political sympathies. It was an attack on unpopular economic beliefs. Let's McCarthyism what it is: Unamerican.
Consider that the application of the word "unamerican" is itself is destructive to national unity no matter where it is applied, and as such probably should be avoided, including in reference to McCartism or even to the very word itself.
Where does that leave us? Not entirely sure. The best I could come up with is "not exactly pro-american". This word does not have stigma (cats are not pro-american which is fine with everyone), yet in a political context it carries weight.
Last week, the government dismissed the case against Dr. Chen, which alleged that he had concealed seven Chinese affiliations in applications for $2.7 million in grants from the U.S. Energy Department. Prosecutors announced that they had received new information indicating that Dr. Chen had not been obliged to disclose those affiliations, undercutting the basis of the case. I feel like this part could use more detail…
> Prosecutors announced that they had received new information indicating that Dr. Chen had not been obliged to disclose those affiliations
He had affiliations, but they were of the kind that he was not required to disclose, so the government was harassing him for no reason.
> “My thinking is, I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “So whatever they look at, they won’t find that I did anything wrong.” This statement seems like a completely backward mindset to have, especially after watching this classic advice piece on youtube [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I wonder, if ever interviewed by the Police, I could just say: "No thanks, search on YouTube for 'Don't Talk to the Police' for why. Or maybe, giving that reason why I won't talk means that I'm actually talking to the police? Somewhat a tangent: when going through due diligence for Series A, my CEO said: "Remember, they are not your friends." The thing was, though, after they invested, the VC fired him. Maybe that's…
But don't be a dick: be respectful when you decline further interactions. Verbal (or other) aggression could give them a reason to try to force the issue, regardless of whether or not it's legal for them to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class struggle is the engine of history. Whether that fact is healthy for myself personally or not has no bearing on its truth. The company I work for keeps more of the value I create than they pay me. Whether I like it or not, I'm working class and in direct opposition to capitalists.
All exchange is predicated upon each party gaining more utility from what they get than by retaining what they give up. The company you work for retains the goods/services you sold them and enjoys a net increase in utility, and you retain the compensation they provided in exchange, and enjoy your own net increase in utility as a result. On top of that, the ultimate consumption utility enjoyed at the terminus of the e…
Per Marx, there is the class of people who work for a living *, and the class of people who don't because others do. This has been true since 10,000 years ago and the distinction remains relevant today. The actual classes change, but the division remains.
* Managers and executives are still workers, only their job is to drive other workers on behalf of the owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA was created in the wake of perhaps the largest ethnic cleansing in human history (virtual entirety of the North American continent) and has been at war for >90% of its history. It has always been deeply racist (whether overt like KKK lynchings or subtle like census reporting and tokenism). Whatever these rightoids are allegedly plotting, you can't say they are "remaking" America into something radically new.
How does mid-millenium colonization of America prove current-year racism? This is pure CRT-adjacent nonsense. The use of words like "rightoid" does not help your argument.
Idealizations of US history are common to all US factions, though their content differs.