61–70 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean trying to internalize other entity's commands as your own behaviour. That's the idea behind Chinese "points for obedience" system, isn't it?
Hmm... perhaps the term you're looking for is "blind obedience"? I don't think the word "obedience" on its own accurately describes what you're trying to convey.
This is a quintessential example of not basing policy on evidence of harm. Any decision that affects others (such as policy) should be empirically-based, or risks being simply wrong/bad (as I would surmise it is, in this case).
I think it would be better to be seek out and take heed of evidence, but not block things because of lack of prior evidence. What you need to be able to do is experiment -- try out policies -- and gather evidence from that. This will lead to some number of failed policies but ought to lead to better overall outcomes in the long-run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Clarification: I know that it's not what you meant. But if you answer "no" to this question (as any reasonable person would) then I can show that from that, it logically follows that well-being of people in your own country is more important to you - because those people can affect you and people close to you more than people on another side of the globe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So, your own well-being, as well as well-being of your closest relatives, is just as important as well-being of people on another side of the globe? Clarification: I know that it's not what you meant. But if you answer "no" to this question (as any reasonable person would) then I can show that from that, it logically follows that well-being of people in your own country is more important to you - because those people…
But if you're asking specifically what I would do, well, the question you've posed is very abstract so it's hard to get clear what you're really asking.
What sorts of scenarios, where it's my close relatives vs people on the other side of the world, are you thinking of?
It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in zero-sum terms is vastly overblown.
.
Regarding your clarification, I can not think of any scenario where I would want something done that would benefit my close relatives at the expense of people in other countries. I'm open to you suggesting some possible scenarios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, your own well-being, as well as well-being of your closest relatives, is just as important as well-being of people on another side of the globe? Clarification: I know that it's not what you meant. But if you answer "no" to this question (as any reasonable person would) then I can show that from that, it logically follows that well-being of people in your own country is more important to you - because those people…
I think people are equally important. But if you're asking specifically what I would do, well, the question you've posed is very abstract so it's hard to get clear what you're really asking. What sorts of scenarios, where it's my close relatives vs people on the other side of the world, are you thinking of? It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in zero-sum terms is vastly overblown. .…
It's never zero-sum, and it's never full cooperative either.
> I can not think of any scenario where I would want something done that would benefit my close relatives at the expense of people in other countries.
Imagine that your close relative loses a job, and his, hm... "standard of living" goes down X, while someone else on another side of the globe gets that job, and his standard of living goes up 2X. (It's not zero sum, yes). Would you be happy over such an outcome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people are equally important. But if you're asking specifically what I would do, well, the question you've posed is very abstract so it's hard to get clear what you're really asking. What sorts of scenarios, where it's my close relatives vs people on the other side of the world, are you thinking of? It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in zero-sum terms is vastly overblown. .…
> It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in zero-sum terms is vastly overblown. It's never zero-sum, and it's never full cooperative either. > I can not think of any scenario where I would want something done that would benefit my close relatives at the expense of people in other countries. Imagine that your close relative loses a job, and his, hm... "standard of living" goes down X, w…
Why did they lose their job? Is it because of freer trade? If was something like that then I would be ok, because I think that ultimately that's likely to make things better for everyone including the people in my country and including my relatives and descendants.
(and why does helping your relative out have to be at the expense of those other people overseas? Perhaps the best way to help them is for them to receive funding to get retrained to be more competitive in another area?)
I'm against the idea of blocking things with long-term gain, for the purposes of short-term gain.
The thing with obedience (which is disgustingly praised by quite some HN commenters, maybe even not just astroturfers) is that it leaves zero territory to live your actual life. Which then will create people living completely double lives, the obedient shell one and the other one .
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?…
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.
Second, your comment crosses into personal attack, which is against the rules here. Please don't do that again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's related to why you felt the need to use a throwaway account to post your comment.
Because HN is actively policing "dangerous viewpoints" as well? Things are further down the rabbit hole than you may perceive you know.
The problem with tedium is that it's human nature for us all to care most about the sound of our voice and the sweet sweet beauty of our own words on the screen. We don't notice when we're repeating things that have been said millions of times because those lacked the flagship merit of it being me who was saying them.
This little me is the arch-enemy of intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It is the same in everyone and has nothing to do with pro- or anti-China, or pro- or anti-anything.
Why is western media so concerned about China when their own government ramped up their control over their own people ? And hackernews mostly westerners going ga ga over this. You should be concerned about what’s happening at your home than what’s happening in some other country. Stop policing the world. There is a proverb, fix the dust in your eye before trying to fix the dirt in someone else’s.
My solidarity with those resisting oppression is thicker than blood, while my loyalty to those who do not is more of an outer space kind of density. It's all the justification I need to speak freely about anything I see.
As for "proverbs", while we're picking cherries:
> Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.