81–88 of 88 posts
This is strictly r/worldnews material.
Yeah, right. Anything about americans is always about the world. I never want to say thing, but this is so stereotypical US behavior.
The two largest economies in world history spatting over human rights is absolutely world news. If that doesn't qualify, nothing does.
So many comments basically saying Chinese media has no right to comment on human right issue as China does it so poorly. The whole point of this linked article is that the other side is thinking exactly the same. Talking about nationalism... there is just no objectivity on both sides. Both sides should just mind their own business - hell, like that gonna happen.
I see a lot of excellent points that it's a sad joke for China to comment on the US, while ignoring the brutality in their own backyard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US never had communism, nazism, tyrants governing the country. Try to pull off concentration camps against your own people like Hitler or Stalin did when they are heavily armed. There is no way people wouldn't defend their families from going to concentration camps if they were armed. History shows that this holds true. The Government is afraid of armed people as it should be. That is a good thing. Not bad.
This is a foolish post - sorry to be so blunt. Civilians standing alone do not stand a chance against the combined arms of a standing army. Does not matter if they all have guns or not. What counts is explosives, range, airpower - oh and the idea that one side has their families to worry about. There was armed resistance to the rounding up - look at the warsaw ghetto. [1] This was armed civilians fighting an invading…
And number two: let's say you are a President of the USA. Let's say you do something really evil against the will of the people. Like - theoretically - sending all Mexicans to the camps. You say Mexicans are armed or not - no difference. Interesting.
This isn't a real Chinese viewpoint, this is propaganda issued by state. I know many Chinese who are throughly disgusted by the official media.
True. Unfortunately there is a length limit on submission titles, and it was the best I managed within the constraints. I don't believe it makes it a less interesting read from a Western viewpoint, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not in the slightest defending China's human rights record. But hopefully you realise that none of the above refutes the article in the slightest. You have not addressed a single point in it.
Hogwash. On a scale of measurement of worthiness of a certain quality - any quality - if you fare so many orders in the negative that you barely register on the scale at all, it is generally held that you nary have a claim to call into question the measure of others. You are not in that league. You do not get to even raise your hand. That's the privilege of similarly positioned peers who have earned the right to disp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's interesting to see the availability of firearms to citizens presented as a violation of human rights. The U.S. is an outlier among liberal democracies in its constitutional insistence that access to firearms is a human right. It's also, significantly, an outlier in its rate of firearm-related deaths, with a rate of over 10 per 100,000, similar to Panama and the Philippines and three times higher than the next…
The US never had communism, nazism, tyrants governing the country. Try to pull off concentration camps against your own people like Hitler or Stalin did when they are heavily armed. There is no way people wouldn't defend their families from going to concentration camps if they were armed. History shows that this holds true. The Government is afraid of armed people as it should be. That is a good thing. Not bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a foolish post - sorry to be so blunt. Civilians standing alone do not stand a chance against the combined arms of a standing army. Does not matter if they all have guns or not. What counts is explosives, range, airpower - oh and the idea that one side has their families to worry about. There was armed resistance to the rounding up - look at the warsaw ghetto. [1] This was armed civilians fighting an invading…
Did Hitler or Stalin used "explosives, range and airpower" to move people to concentration camps? How you imagine this? Let's say there are 200 houses in a neighborhood. You know that in house #47 and in house #186 there are families that are Jewish/suspected anti-communists, etc. You need to get them out to the concentration camp. You do it by bombing the whole neighborhood? Let's say in Berlin or Moscow? Please exp…
However these genocides seem to take two (possibly three) forms
1. Hitler / Stalin Like a virus they replace the societal leadership function and use the "normal" mechanisms of law and order for their own ends. People are "arrested" and "tried" just like every day - but it is a farce.
Now at what point do you shoot a police officer? When is it socially acceptable to kill a cop? There just does not seem to be a point. So for years this can go on. Rounding up "criminals". I could put psychologists on stage to say "treatment of the whole family" is the solution for criminal activity - we are taking these families to family-re-start camps. You can make up anything for a while. Its only when the media provide proof that this is going on, that people are dying that maybe killing the next cop to arrest someone will be seen as righteous. But you could easily argue that 60 Minutes cannot be aired because it will incite people to shoot cops.
After the cop has arrested you, that's it, you have no guns, game over.
2. Serbia
This is very muddled but basically can be seen as just arrest / herd everyone out of a defined geographic area - for example it would be everyone in the street apart from #47 and #186. Round them all up with an army / militia and send everyone to a processing camp. Thus the removal of guns happens to a whole neighbourhood, and can be done with artillery and tanks. Cant arrest everyone cos they are all armed? Really it seems not to work like that. The mass graves in Serbia / Croatia are filled with military age people.
3. Rwanda. Half of your village attacks your family with knives. Imagine say the white folks in NYC deciding to kill the black folks using pitchforks [1]. This is hardly a controlled genocide so is less crime against humanity than WTF.
I was focusing on the first one - there seems to be no point where shooting a cop (even one in a black shirt) is something acceptable, even for people who would otherwise shoot back.
There is something built into us that perceives immediate danger as a threat, but if danger is kept far enough apart from the "now" we rationalise it away - even if it is bleedin' obvious. Its why i supported Blair/Bush invading Iraq - I mean the guy had a track record, of course he had WMD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did Hitler or Stalin used "explosives, range and airpower" to move people to concentration camps? How you imagine this? Let's say there are 200 houses in a neighborhood. You know that in house #47 and in house #186 there are families that are Jewish/suspected anti-communists, etc. You need to get them out to the concentration camp. You do it by bombing the whole neighborhood? Let's say in Berlin or Moscow? Please exp…
This seems to be heading off HN ground but I will try and answer you. I guess that yes, in a certain respect, you are right. However these genocides seem to take two (possibly three) forms 1. Hitler / Stalin Like a virus they replace the societal leadership function and use the "normal" mechanisms of law and order for their own ends. People are "arrested" and "tried" just like every day - but it is a farce. Now at wh…
Ad.1. Hitler and Stalin wouldn't necessarily be interested in getting power in a society armed through their teeth and Constitution stating that the people have the power to act forcefully against tyrants using guns. Probably, Hitler would become a painter and Stalin would become a pop, or priest. Exactly, like a virus. It feeds and spreads on the weak body. Not on the one that's armed.
Not a Police Officer. A highly feared Gestapo/NKVD. This is not police. Both Gestapo and NKVD were extremely feared and hated. No problem shooting their "officers". There is a joke in Poland from Communistic Times: an anti-communistic movement member goes to the Church because he want to confess. During the confession the priest asks him what sins he committed. And the guy says: Dear Priest, I killed a KGB agent. And the Priest replies: Son you came here to confess or to pride yourself. These guys were truly hated in their societies. General public in USSR would love to hear that someone is finally shooting bastards killing them in millions in 1930s. Are you kidding me?
However, you make very interesting point with our tendency to rationalize away even if it is "bleeding" obvious. That's extremely good point. And my answer to this is: in 300 million people in the US, you will find at least thousands (I think millions) who will see very well what is going on. As they existed in Nazi Germany too. Even when more than 90% Germans chose to follow their leader. What I'm saying is that this is precisely why you make a republican (not possible to take away by popular vote) law allowing everyone to have a gun. So maybe at least one among those thousands or millions will be able to shoot our hipotetical tyrant before it's too late.
Ad.2. Serbia - come on, were they armed? Were they? Were the people armed there? If I know they are taking me to the death camp, I'd prefer die fighting with dignity than to be slaughtered in a death factory.
Ad.3. Yeah, you can't stop people from killing each other. We're talking about the state going crazy because the "Dear Leader" went insane. So not really applicable.