Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

Why are you asking me to explain things I didn't say?

> What is this sentence referring

It's referring to people trying to forcibly make everyone more-or-less equal.

You're asking me why I'm projecting Stalinism... but you brought up Stalinism, not me. If you think that matches Stalinism then that's something you've introduced to the conversation, not me. People opposed to Stalinism like Trotskyists were also in favour of dictatorship and violently forced equality. Stalin didn't have a monopoly on demonstrably shit ideas for oppressively and violently reshaping society.

View on HN

So which "whirls" killing millions are you referring to?

Have you really never heard of any https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...?

If you're going to deny these things happened then I think you're crazy and I'm out the conversation.

Finally. So it's just about the USSR and its off-springs as I thought.

Deny? I'm not denying anything, I'm saying that you're projecting those things onto people with fundamentally different ideas, a.k.a democratic ideas, not totalitarian.

People aren't arguing for democratic ideas though, they're arguing to enforce more-or-less equality. People don't try to achieve that through democracy. They seem to pretty much inevitably decide that 'just to get started it's ok to force it because the ends justify the means...' then before you know it - oppression and totalitarianism.

It's played out like this again and again and again.

Maybe it's just not such a hot idea?

Could you be less vague and specify examples of people and ideas that you are referring to? It's hard to reply to these vague generalizations.

Who are these people that are not arguing for implementing their ideas democraticly?

What undemocratic ideas are they proposing?

What example do you have of something that started democratic but "then before you know it" ended up with oppression and totalitarianism?

> It's hard to reply to these vague generalizations.

Then stop trying if you find it too hard to contribute a serious comment!

You're asking me what I'm alluding to and what I'm projecting and asking me to explain things I haven't said and other backwards and inside-out things, rather than responding to the actual arguments I'm making myself. Seems like you're bringing some kind of baggage to the discussion that I'm not party to.

What a pathetic non-reply. Those are direct questions to vague statements you made in that comment.

It's clear now that you're not going substantiate anything since it would just display your ignorance.

You're just being abusive now. I'm not sure why you feel the need to resort to this kind of language.

The original question was 'what’s wrong with trying to force everyone to be financially more or less equal'. What’s wrong with it is every time someone tries this it ends up hell on earth.

That’s it. That’s the whole point. No implications, no allusions.

If that's not good enough for you, sorry nothing I can do about that. Maybe move on?

Sigh, and we're back to vague generalizations with zero effort nor intent to go beyond superficialities:

> What’s wrong with it is every time someone tries this it ends up hell on earth.

No surprise that you latch on to tone policing either. I rest my case.

It's not 'tone policing' to ask someone to not use personal abuse!

Please check the site guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com