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

The war on terror primed America for autocracy

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 301 posts

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#251

Post by anon291 »

rayiner wrote: post #100
applicative wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two million dead Hindu; ten million forcible refugees; thousands of ancient villages burned to the ground — it ‘was a huge boon to India’

In 2026, it’s a huge boon to India to not have Pakistan within its body politic. It’s like having broken up with a finance who ended up becoming a self destructive addict. Same for Bangladesh, even with all the people who died in the independence war.

This is not about Indian nationalism (which I don't really care about) or whether they should be unified countries (which I don't care about). This is about the forced mass migration of people from their homes and the resulting millions of deaths due to what is basically religious extremism.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#252

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

rayiner wrote: post #250
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” I do not agree. This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. In racist terms. In academic language from the linked study: > Thus, accommodating the radical right on immigration could benefit the radical right by increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage

> This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. That’s labeling. Neoliberals coined the term “far right” to refer to a group that to the left of the conventional right on economic issues. > increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to e…

Yes, describing political groups is literally "labelling". The idea that the UK's anti-immigrant far right aren't actually far right is just laughable.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#253

Post by red-iron-pine »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #106
rayiner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rome took some unexpected Ls against the barbarians too. Didn’t change the trajectory of the empire.

The "trajectory of the empire" is that it became the Roman Catholic Church. Rome still rules a sizable portion of the world's population. I wonder if the USA is going the same way. Democratic Church of America?

American Jesus is a thing, and there are a lot of homegrown flavors that do a ton of work proselyting elsewhere, the largest being LDS

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#254

Post by tharmas »

danans wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. Each step led to further centralization of government, a larger and larger security apparatus, and more and more foreign entanglements. We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire.

> We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire. The current military "excursion" seems to be transitioning the US out of being an empire.

On the contrary, the goal is energy dominance and it seems to be working. To be clear, I do not support how this is being achieved. In its endeavor the US has made a lot of people furious against it.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#255

Post by fsflover »

thunky wrote: post #235
fsflover wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My entire posting and submission history go against the adtech. I only get flagged when I write stupid things or off-topic.

Both of you can be correct: Valid posts get flagged frequently, enough for people to notice it. But not every, or even most, posts in this category get flagged.

This is just an empty accusation without specific examples.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#256

Post by fsflover »

nephihaha wrote: post #138
marssaxman wrote: post #5

This seemed obvious to me at the time. It was hard to understand why people in the cultural mainstream let themselves get swept up in it. I felt like I lost my country, back then, as they pretty much all went off into crazyland together.

In the same way it is obvious that internet age gating, digital ID and abolition of physical cash will lead to much worse. But who's standing in their way?

https://eff.org and https://edri.org do.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#257

Post by rayiner »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #252
rayiner wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. That’s labeling. Neoliberals coined the term “far right” to refer to a group that to the left of the conventional right on economic issues. > increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to e…

Yes, describing political groups is literally "labelling". The idea that the UK's anti-immigrant far right aren't actually far right is just laughable.

Definitions must be consistent with each other. Conventionally, “right” means more capitalist and “left” means more socialist. To be consistent with that existing definition, the “far right” would be the folks trying to privatize social security, eliminate banking regulations, eliminate barriers to free trade, etc. It would refer to libertarians, not anti-immigration populists.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#258

Post by thunky »

fsflover wrote: post #255
thunky wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of you can be correct: Valid posts get flagged frequently, enough for people to notice it. But not every, or even most, posts in this category get flagged.

This is just an empty accusation without specific examples.

I'm saying that you could both be correct, which is not an accusation.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#259

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

rayiner wrote: post #257
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, describing political groups is literally "labelling". The idea that the UK's anti-immigrant far right aren't actually far right is just laughable.

Definitions must be consistent with each other. Conventionally, “right” means more capitalist and “left” means more socialist. To be consistent with that existing definition, the “far right” would be the folks trying to privatize social security, eliminate banking regulations, eliminate barriers to free trade, etc. It would refer to libertarians, not anti-immigration populists.

> To be consistent with that existing definition, the “far right” would be the folks trying to privatize social security, eliminate banking regulations, eliminate barriers to free trade,

Yes, the far right parties in the UK are trying to do most of that (1) as well as inciting race riots against immigrants. I don't think that you have a point here.

1) not so much on the free trade, they talk a good fight on potential global trade deals, but their record is not so great - spurning actual EU free trade, going along with the USA's attempted trade wars.

On that last point, the USA now is a counterexample to your criteria.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#260

Post by danans »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #198
rvba wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster above seems to promote the secession of Texas and other states - what is the next step of the russian propaganda playbook to ruin USA

Would secession ruin the USA? Hard to know. Secession from the EU has certainly been bad for the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be doing ok.

> Secession from the EU has certainly been bad for the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be doing ok

The UK might have paid the biggest price due to Brexit, but the EU also lost a significant trading partner for it's goods and services. Arguably it was a lose-lose outcome.

Post reply on HN