BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

DreamScatter wrote: post #130

dang wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've seriously broken the HN guidelines. Please read the rules and stick to them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . If you'd like more explanation, there is plenty at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652363 and the links back from there. Edit: we had to warn you about this before ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26549570 ). Continuing to break the rules like this will get your account b…

So, you're also a chinese shill?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly and badly—badly enough to ban your account. I'm not going to ban your account for this comment, but please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.

Post by thereare5lights » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

TeeMassive wrote: post #125

thereare5lights wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, they're both things that should obviously be illegal. The question is why aren't things that should obviously be illegal not actually illegal. I answered that question. However, it seems like some people reflexively support the police so they don't read past the surface.

Your example is a glitch, of law, the other is obvious on its face.

> Your example is a glitch, of law,

No it's not.

In the past, it was lumped in with the right of cops to have sex with suspect, thus it was intentional to allow cops to catch sex workers.

Calling it a glitch only shows how little people care about that particular problem and in fact reinforces my argument.

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)