Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldmanjay | Hacker News Reader

It's a power grab by specific industries and several governments, not 'the corporations' as an amorphous concept. Mischaracterizing the shittiness of TPP to score rhetorical points for favored politics is a sorry trick, and it lends an air of intellectual dishonesty to a very important topic.

View on HN

I don't know about you, but I don't expect anything more from alternet.

I wish people understood that hyperbole weakens their position.

It's an example of the seen vs. the unseen. What they see when they do this is lots and lots of clicks and lots of attention on social media, and that's interpreted as a win. What they don't see is all the more mature and informed people being swayed in the other direction since they understand that hyperbole signifies a lack of deeper comprehension.

> I wish people understood that hyperbole weakens their position.

Depends on the audience. Hyperbole won't convince anyone who fundamentally disagrees with you; you need a reasoned argument for that. But hyperbole can work wonders on people already slightly inclined towards your position but not yet acting on it.

I'm inclined to be suspicious of things like the TPP, but the hyperbole I see actually makes me wonder if it's a lot more benign.

Of course there's a deeper underlying reason in my case: I am very deeply cynical about "activists" regardless of their political bent. Left, right, up, down, doesn't matter-- I've long observed that activists are True Believers for whom the victory of a pet ideology is more important than truth or reality. It really is equal opportunity: I am about as skeptical of Greenpeace's latest claim as I am of the religious right's recent "abortion doctors are selling chopped up fetus parts" outrage.

I will take you seriously if you have a genuine grievance. Otherwise I see third party activism (moral outrage tourism?) today as largely a form of entertainment. It's something people do to feel morally superior and self-righteous or to be part of a "scene."

It's questionable if their target audience are mature and informed people. Those people are usually harder to manipulate and extract money from.

TPP is designed to formalize the reality that corporations tell governments what to do, not the other way round. Why else would governments sign away control of their own economy to secret tribunals appointed by the self same corporations.

Countries can withdraw from the treaty.

As a practical matter the forces that led them to negotiate it in the first place will tend to prevent that from happening, but control simply is not being signed away.

But why would they? They are ruled by the very same upper classes and large corporations that rule all other countries... And their ideology is that of the "competition" (that is, supported and subsidized by the state) and profits at all costs.

They make their own class everywhere, no matter their nationality.

To me, a phrase like "sign away control" implies a limited ability to change course. But the treaty requires the ongoing consent of each country.

As a citizen of the US with a certain employment profile, I believe that the TPP mostly benefits me. Which doesn't mean I support it, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think much of the criticism of the process is fair, but I think a lot of people are also looking past the broader motivations of it (bringing countries towards the US before they go towards China).

Actually, I live in one of the countries that "benefit" from this treaty, and people here think the same as you: it benefits the US, some of the US people, and US corporations, not the people of this country.

You see, I don't see people in Chile wanting tighter IP/patent/copyright law, people in Chile also don't want to give their sovereignity to a random foreign court (like it happens with, say, Argentina)... but quite the contrary. Except, of course, for those who make money off these laws and treaties, because, for them, the TPP is most probably a winning bet. Why wouldn't them want to sue their own government to profit even more? Why would, then, they avoid treaties that force their own government to follow the rules of a foreign country that is so admired and beloved by rich people (and wannabes, too) like the US?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com