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

Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#41

Post by Ajedi32 »

thriftwy wrote: post #14
tpeo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean "obedience" in general or "obedience to the current Chinese government"?

In general, when somebody asks for your obedience and you comply, they proceed with adding conditions. First it's "no outright porn" then "no naming of private parts" then "no blurring of line between good and evil". You can imagine their conditions as an area, and your meaningful life as an area, and the Venn diagram of those two stops intersecting. You can't write "Crime and Punishment" without blurring line betwee…

If you're talking about "obedience" in general though, then some equally valid examples of rules someone might ask you to obey would include "don't murder people" and "don't do drugs". "Obedience" is far too broad of a term for you to characterize it as outright good or bad entirely.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#42

Post by jamesrcole »

golergka wrote: post #39
jamesrcole wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a good citizen is more concerned with problems in his own country than elsewhere. In practical terms it's hard to be personally concerned equally as much about what happens in every country on earth, but as a matter of principle I think what happens to people is just as important regardless of where they are. And in our globalised world, what happens in one country, especially a major country, can have implications…

> as a matter of principle I think what happens to people is just as important regardless of where they are Important to whom?

To me, and obviously I think it is the appropriate attitude for others to have, too, but of course I'm not trying to force that on anyone.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#44

Post by Sangermaine »

throw2016 wrote: post #10

Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening?…

>Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home?

But the NYT reports on those issues all the time. You likely know about them precisely because of their articles.

>Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening?

The NYT also reports on these all the time. In fact, it was the NYT that broke the story on surveillance programs like Stellar Wind in the mid-Bush era that laid the groundwork for Snowden's later revelations about the details of these programs.

This is hysterical nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in the slightest.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#45

Post by yoz-y »

yann63 wrote: post #32

One rule is to never click on "list" articles. Most of them are not worth your time. And after reading the comments here, it is the case for this one too :-/

Although the title looks like it would led to a listicle, it doesn't. The article is a perfectly fine column about the issue at hand.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#47

Post by Sangermaine »

paradite wrote: post #36
pmarreck wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OBJECTION: Whataboutist Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism In addition, making a claim from a fresh anonymous account conveys the message that you do not actually stand behind it, giving it zero credence.

> In addition, making a claim from a fresh anonymous account conveys the message that you do not actually stand behind it, giving it zero credence. Let me do it instead then: Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government offi…

No, it's just as wrong and stupid. Repeating idiocy doesn't make it less idiotic.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#48

Post by parenthephobia »

throw2016 wrote: post #10

Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening?…

> Why is Nytimes so concerned about China

It isn't. It's an article called "68 Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet", out of many thousands of articles on the site. Naturally, that article will be about China: it is typical for an article to cover a specific topic.

One should not expect all articles a newspaper publishes to cover all criticisms of the government of the country in which that newspaper is incorporated. That's unreasonable.

> Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects.

A great many people. The New York Times, for example.

https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citize...

https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/foreign-intelligence-s...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/technology/aclu-border-pa...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforceme...

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#49

Post by thriftwy »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #41
thriftwy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, when somebody asks for your obedience and you comply, they proceed with adding conditions. First it's "no outright porn" then "no naming of private parts" then "no blurring of line between good and evil". You can imagine their conditions as an area, and your meaningful life as an area, and the Venn diagram of those two stops intersecting. You can't write "Crime and Punishment" without blurring line betwee…

If you're talking about "obedience" in general though, then some equally valid examples of rules someone might ask you to obey would include "don't murder people" and "don't do drugs". "Obedience" is far too broad of a term for you to characterize it as outright good or bad entirely.

Following laws is not "obedience", as long as laws are reasonably consistent and universally enforced.

Also, "don't do drugs" is not usually a law, unless in repressive jurisdictions. You can't sell drugs and perhaps possess large quantities, but you can do drugs as an adult making choices.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#50

Post by [deleted] »

thriftwy wrote: post #49
Ajedi32 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about "obedience" in general though, then some equally valid examples of rules someone might ask you to obey would include "don't murder people" and "don't do drugs". "Obedience" is far too broad of a term for you to characterize it as outright good or bad entirely.

Following laws is not "obedience", as long as laws are reasonably consistent and universally enforced. Also, "don't do drugs" is not usually a law, unless in repressive jurisdictions. You can't sell drugs and perhaps possess large quantities, but you can do drugs as an adult making choices.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN