111–120 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on whether it's successful in preventing bloody protests. Almost everything is better than war.
The best way to prevent protests is to stop doing things that your constituents want to protest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has not really anything to do with human nature, its the power structures in the west that have vested interests to shape the mainstream narrative. Some atrocities are getting coverage, its not at all arbitrary which ones. Its more a sign of how incredibly effective they've become in pacifying the entire population in the west through media and politics, institutional corruption, sham elections, etc. Western democ…
If the West is bad at reporting, is it better elsewhere, maybe in China or maybe in Russia, even India? Or is it that almost everyone is like that? Are people in Santa Barbara bad because they don’t keep up with things in Sparks NV too much?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's so odd about us only caring about our own (westerners)?
It’s unwinnable. You go in and take sides, it’s interference, imperialism (you’re doing it for the oil). You stay out and let them work it out then it’s craven indifference. I mean Iran, Russia and Saudi are all over there. They don’t need another entity adding their two cents. It’s like AOC, let’s get out of Syria. We leave Syria —how can you leave Syria they’ve been our allies, etc. In that part, or any part of the…
But it is winnable. What people want is for you to for once just go in for the actual ethical reasons, fight for the actual rights, secure the freedoms, stop the injustices. Not go to a country to secure oil under bullshit pretext of WMDs and terrorism, only to destroy a nation and create a terrorist state next to it, and only then leave it to fend for itself.
(I think everyone would think better of the US if the government said, "you know what, oil is really fucking important for prosperity of our citizens, and we're willing to kill people to secure it". It still wouldn't be ethical, but at least it would be honest.)
People worldwide are not (just) unhappy that the US plays world police. They're unhappy that the US proclaims to be the world police, but is in fact a world gangster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the most HN comment ever read. And no, having an Internet curfew for preventing bloody protests won't improve the well-being of citizens.
Depends on whether it's successful in preventing bloody protests. Almost everything is better than war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s unwinnable. You go in and take sides, it’s interference, imperialism (you’re doing it for the oil). You stay out and let them work it out then it’s craven indifference. I mean Iran, Russia and Saudi are all over there. They don’t need another entity adding their two cents. It’s like AOC, let’s get out of Syria. We leave Syria —how can you leave Syria they’ve been our allies, etc. In that part, or any part of the…
> It’s unwinnable. You go in and take sides, it’s interference, imperialism (you’re doing it for the oil). You stay out and let them work it out then it’s craven indifference. But it is winnable. What people want is for you to for once just go in for the actual ethical reasons, fight for the actual rights, secure the freedoms, stop the injustices. Not go to a country to secure oil under bullshit pretext of WMDs and t…
2019-10-09 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraq-protests-latest-... >At least 110 people have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded in Baghdad and in the south, since security forces started cracking down on demonstrators. And the whole world is "outraged" about HK. Here on this thread the other posters are making jokes. If they killed every single person in the country no one would give a shit. Same way no…
This legitimizes the current puppet-government installed by foreigners.
I think a more appropriate term would be US-backed Junta forces.
Of course, some of us were saying this almost 20 years ago now: Don't invade Iraq, you'll destabilize the entire region.
I'm a one-issue voter: No foreign wars, period. Some of us do care about the well being of others, but it's impossible to have this kind of discussion because people are selfish. Everyone wants to talk about Climate Change, Socialized Health Care, etc, etc. Most people don't actually care about others, and it's why I want to slap anyone that discusses climate change. We have much bigger problems that we need to solve right now, or we're going to kill ourselves long before we fry the earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on whether it's successful in preventing bloody protests. Almost everything is better than war.
So tyrannical oppression is ok because it stops the citizens from bringing attention to the tyrannical oppression through protests? That is absolutely not better; sometimes violence is required to spur change unfortunately
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you're talking about the Internet, the US is far from a highly-developed country.
Can you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s unwinnable. You go in and take sides, it’s interference, imperialism (you’re doing it for the oil). You stay out and let them work it out then it’s craven indifference. But it is winnable. What people want is for you to for once just go in for the actual ethical reasons, fight for the actual rights, secure the freedoms, stop the injustices. Not go to a country to secure oil under bullshit pretext of WMDs and t…
And yet as the US disengages people are saying on my god, we’re abandoning allies, we’re letting them fend for themselves. The alliances are going up in smoke. The world depends on you guys to keep the peace, send troops and quash problems. Now we’re going to have fight ourselves and send our troops in, you guys are bad!
Obviously this is wrong and tyrannical etc. I can't help wondering though if this may have unexpected benefits for e.g.: sleep quality, civility in online discussions, exercise. It's hardly intended that way, but could end up being a net benefit for the well-being of citizens, particularly if it were implemented in a highly-developed country like the US.
Those kids might have nothing except go outside and assemble together...perhaps another instance of the law of unintended consequences?
The streets are still full of kids because no one can afford to give every child the latest smart phones.