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

Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

edwardsnowden.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–266 of 266 posts

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#261

Post by zepto »

sangnoir wrote: post #259
zepto wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been true of all governments of all kinds thoughout all of time. Once again, it’s something America can only be criticized for because the goal is for it to be something different . It’s fair to criticize America for not living up to its ideals. It’s intellectually dishonest to imply that the ideals don’t exist.

I'm having trouble understanding, the tone sounds like it's a rebuttal to my comment, but the words appear to agree with me, maybe? My entire point was that a lot of disappointment stems from America failing to live up to its ideals[1], and the people who thought they were (or deserve to be) in the in-group, are dismayed to find out they are in the out-group. 1. I'll hasten to add that those ideals are often retconne…

I think it is a rebuttal.

You talk about it being public knowledge that there is an ‘asterisk’ by ‘we the people’, as if slavery was some secret.

Also how does Dred Scott support this innuendo?

There was nothing secret about the ideals, and nothing secret about slavery, and nobody was surprised to find that slaves weren’t considered to be citizens. This discrepancy was a source of some public disagreements.

The retconning is the idea that the ideals were somehow a fraud, rather than an extraordinary step forward at a time that was far more brutal than today, and that people had to work hard to try to establish the ideals as more than just words on paper.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#262

Post by sangnoir »

zepto wrote: post #261
sangnoir wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble understanding, the tone sounds like it's a rebuttal to my comment, but the words appear to agree with me, maybe? My entire point was that a lot of disappointment stems from America failing to live up to its ideals[1], and the people who thought they were (or deserve to be) in the in-group, are dismayed to find out they are in the out-group. 1. I'll hasten to add that those ideals are often retconne…

I think it is a rebuttal. You talk about it being public knowledge that there is an ‘asterisk’ by ‘we the people’, as if slavery was some secret. Also how does Dred Scott support this innuendo? There was nothing secret about the ideals, and nothing secret about slavery, and nobody was surprised to find that slaves weren’t considered to be citizens. This discrepancy was a source of some public disagreements. The retco…

> You talk about it being public knowledge that there is an ‘asterisk’ by ‘we the people’, as if slavery was some secret

This sentence is logically inconsistent. Slavery was no secret that is why it is public knowledge that people have been treated unequally from the very beginning.

I have been very explicit - no innuendo. The Dred Scott ruling cemented that people like Dred were not considered citizens.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#263

Post by zepto »

sangnoir wrote: post #262
zepto wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is a rebuttal. You talk about it being public knowledge that there is an ‘asterisk’ by ‘we the people’, as if slavery was some secret. Also how does Dred Scott support this innuendo? There was nothing secret about the ideals, and nothing secret about slavery, and nobody was surprised to find that slaves weren’t considered to be citizens. This discrepancy was a source of some public disagreements. The retco…

> You talk about it being public knowledge that there is an ‘asterisk’ by ‘we the people’, as if slavery was some secret This sentence is logically inconsistent. Slavery was no secret that is why it is public knowledge that people have been treated unequally from the very beginning. I have been very explicit - no innuendo. The Dred Scott ruling cemented that people like Dred were not considered citizens.

Right, but there was never an asterisk. There was slavery, and a set of ideals which were ultimately incompatible with it, and a bunch of people who wanted to keep profiting from it.

No asterisks. Just a disagreement which was settled by a war.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#264

Post by sangnoir »

zepto wrote: post #263
sangnoir wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You talk about it being public knowledge that there is an ‘asterisk’ by ‘we the people’, as if slavery was some secret This sentence is logically inconsistent. Slavery was no secret that is why it is public knowledge that people have been treated unequally from the very beginning. I have been very explicit - no innuendo. The Dred Scott ruling cemented that people like Dred were not considered citizens.

Right, but there was never an asterisk. There was slavery, and a set of ideals which were ultimately incompatible with it, and a bunch of people who wanted to keep profiting from it. No asterisks. Just a disagreement which was settled by a war.

> Just a disagreement which was settled by a war.

This brushes over a lot history - there barely was an abolitionist movement when the constitution was written, and you missed the 3/5 compromise (and compromise means there's agreement). "We the people*" was definitely asterisked with "Slaves excluded", and updated a little later - with consent of northern states - to "slaves are 3/5ths people"

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#265

Post by zepto »

sangnoir wrote: post #264
zepto wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but there was never an asterisk. There was slavery, and a set of ideals which were ultimately incompatible with it, and a bunch of people who wanted to keep profiting from it. No asterisks. Just a disagreement which was settled by a war.

> Just a disagreement which was settled by a war. This brushes over a lot history - there barely was an abolitionist movement when the constitution was written, and you missed the 3/5 compromise (and compromise means there's agreement). "We the people*" was definitely asterisked with "Slaves excluded", and updated a little later - with consent of northern states - to "slaves are 3/5ths people"

It wasn’t asterisked with anything. Slaves were excluded.

Compromise doesn’t mean people ‘agree’ on some truth. You can twist language to make the claim that everyone agreed with slavery, but that is clearly a dishonest claim.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#266

Post by nautilius »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #256
nautilius wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try reading it, maybe you can connect the dots!

"I dont know the argument so I'll just post a link and force everyone else to make it for me"

"I don't want to go through the exhausting ordeal to read a full sentence comment that explains it to me already, let alone read the linked article that lays it all out, so I just answer with a one-word answer to prove my intellectual superiority."
Post reply on HN