Hacker News Reader

Comment by crawlcrawler | Hacker News Reader

>> I see this ban as a late but fair move.

A late but fair move to achieve what, exactly?

Reduce CCP's influence on the world.

CCP basically equals China and for most intents and purposes, Chinese people. Limiting their influence is just a way of saying to limit the rise and influence of China and the companies/people there, because there's no way for any Chinese person or company that has vested interests in the market there to escape the accusations and comply with any demands from the West except to completely cease operation of business there. Any person from China, or company from China, can simply be canceled by saying "they are a subject of the communist party."

Nope. You don’t get to use false equivalence to conflate CCP with all Chinese people. You can’t equate adversity towards the Communist Party as an attack on all Chinese people. It’s sad that their government has such authoritarian control that it works that way, but it’s the Chinese people’s problem to solve if their government causes unacceptable consequences for them.

China is far older than the cancer of the CCP and the Chinese people will cut that cancer out eventually. The CCP have been doing it to everyone else and their own for years. The difference is they go to far greater extremes to cancel everything and everyone who doesn't tow the party line. They deserve what's coming to them.

Regardless of how or why, the CCP has majority support by its citizens, even if you as a foreign national disagree. Even if they do not have democracy, they can still vote with their complacency.

How do we have any way of knowing this when punishment for dissent is so severe?

Wouldn't that lead to USA having more influence, in the world? When it comes to such things as surveillance, I'm not sure they're any better. Behind, yes, but not by choice and not by far, either.

Pretty sure that's a goal of the US. Regarding surveillance of own citizens China is on a whole different level at the moment which is crazy considering the US is basically a lost cause in that regard too. Everywhere is if we're to be honest with ourselves.

Maybe to show benefits of natural law.

What are the benefits? In this context they are not clear to me.

"If you punch me in the face then, later, I'll punch _you_ in the face".

This type of behavior may be par for the course in USA but how is it good for humanity?

I've been asking the same question about Black Lives Matter causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.

May I offer my apologies for saying the USA act violent and dominant. You're not all violent and dominant. I'm sorry. Friends?

“Tit for tat”.

Not saying whether I agree or not, just saying that it is, according to at least some people, a reason in and of itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com