Hacker News Reader

Comment by bingbong70 | Hacker News Reader

>I see pasabagi criticizing xtian’s specific comments and approach.

I see him implying that the comments/observations are not in good faith and that he might be paid for taking the positions he takes. This seems completely unnecessary and quite rude.

>Assuming any negative comment about China to be an attempt to scam us into a war also seems like a mistake.

You may not recognize the increased sinophobia in the west but it is part of a well funded centralized effort to demonize and increase the potential for kinetic warfare between western countries and China. The fact that HN acts like an echo chamber for state approved anti-Chinese perspectives doesn't help matters.

A close reading of sino-western historic/economic relations results in a very different perspective than the one which is promoted in western MSM by corrupted organizations.

View on HN

Since your account has been using HN primarily (exclusively?) for ideological battle, I've banned it. We ban such accounts because they destroy the curious, thoughtful conversation this site is supposed to exist for. Regardless of what you happen to be battling for or against, that's not allowed here. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> You may not recognize the increased sinophobia in the west but it is part of a well funded centralized effort to demonize and increase the potential for kinetic warfare between western countries and China.

Is it? It’s clearly geopolitical, but the claim that it’s intended to lead to kinetic warfare seems like something you don’t have evidence for.

The fact that so much of it is funded by defence contractors isn't a clue? Google ["Xinjiang" "ASPI"] for examples.

Or maybe the massive buildup of missiles and warplanes around China could be a clues? We are now at a stage where geopolitical hostility with China has a good chance of turning kinetic if exacerbated, and there is funding from exactly the parties that would stand to benefit from that, so I don't see how this lacks evidence.

> Or maybe the massive buildup of missiles and warplanes around China could be a clues?

If there is such a buildup (evidence?), it seems like a natural response to check China’s increasing overtures towards Taiwan, a key strategic ally.

There is no evidence that anyone wants a kinetic war for its own sake or that any development in that direction is ‘just’ a product of the defense industry.

China is involved in geopolitics and just as much as the US.

What’s curious here is not the invocation of well known bad acts by the US.

It’s the presentation of China as a benign victim who has no geopolitical ambitions, oppressive behavior, or political repression.

Based on this post, I think anyone can predict what your own comment history (https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=bingbong70) is like, similar to theirs (https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=xtian):

>I personally think the GFW is a good thing, for now, that other developing countries may have an interest in copying. Free flowing mass communication in nations without fully developed public (security) services can be a disaster... the conflicts (and even genocides) that arose from poorer countries adopting FB come to mind.

>If given a choice, as a person that lives 99% of the time in the US, would you rather have a US device that is backdoored by the NSA/CIA or a Chinese device that is backdoored by the Chinese government? I personally think the latter is preferable. Not sure why anyone buys US made equipment post Snowden/Assange.

>Quite an analogy with an assumption that "speech" is the only thing Jack Ma could have done wrong....

>I do find it interesting that the idea of a foreign country dropping covid in China is not even considered.

>Students of history will find it much more believable that a western country infected the Chinese with covid-19.

>Does each US/EU/German/Japanese person have more right to pollute than a Chinese person? I think not.

>If Julian Assange leaked Chinese intelligence/war-crime-evidence he would be at home raising his kids right now.

>Also notice what's going on in Palestine isn't called genocide because its not convenient for these "civil nations", even though what Israel is doing is more genocidal and violent than anything that has happened in Western China to Uighurs.

>I've only seen unsubstantiated nonsense from MSM when it comes to this topic...wild extrapolations that ignore the real terrorism problem in western China.

>Reeks of double standards being set by western nations to suppress China's economy. At this point, any manufactured excuse will get adopted and mainstreamed.

>The difference is that the largest trading nation on the planet just created a system for 0 fee transactions that can expand to global usage quite easily (I believe wepay/alipay were mostly intended for domestic use).

>The average Chinese citizen is less free thanks to these covert/overt foreign interventions.

>Dictators aside, the Chinese are considered fairer trading partners than most (possibly all) western countries. ~1000 years of African history makes this point very clear.

>Both Churchill and Roosevelt had planned to continue supplying Japan so they could destroy China, the supplies were cutoff without their knowledge.

>One would expect the more assertive to openly/unapologetically defend their history and decisions of leaders like Mao. Thanks to tremendous western propaganda that's probably a red flag (no pun intended) for most immigration agents.

>I expect the fact that this virus emerged in Wuhan during the World Military Games makes the Chinese very cautious about allowing in 'investigators' from countries that potentially deployed this biological weapon.

>The West just literally got done murdering a few million innocent Muslim civilians in Yemen, Iraq, Syria,etc... and now thinks it has the authority to lecture China about "proper" deradicalization techniques, it's quite comical really...

>US/UK were bombing these Uighur extremists/separatists just a few years ago. Now they are seen as useful pawns in the trade/economic war with China, so the genocide narrative gets mainstreamed by the usual suspects (the same ones that tried to hide the fact that we (US/UK) were arming/training/funding ISIS and visiting Uighur/Turk terrorists in Syria).

>Taiwan's strength is being right next to one of the largest economies in human history. Put Taiwan in Northern Europe or for that matter anywhere else in the world and its future prospects would be reduced drastically.

>>As said, money inside China is not yours, ask a guy Ma. Now we may say, digital money of China is not yours as well, just the ccp.

>Are dollars really yours inside the sanction happy dollar system?

I genuinely don't necessarily think you or the other poster are "paid shills" or anything like that. (I didn't see pasabagi making such an accusation in their initial post, either, but I agree it was probably implied.)

I'd put a higher probability to you and they just being Chinese nationals or related to people who are, just as many American nationals may blindly defend the US government. Or if not, that you simply support them for other reasons.

The point isn't ostensible shilling or bad faith: it's that you're both extremely agenda-driven, biased, and suspect to motivated reasoning in almost every comment; and the vast majority of comments are about the Chinese government (plus Bitcoin, in your case); and you both have a lot of comments. I'd say the same if instead you were full-time apologists for the US government or any other government.

Also, I'd turn this question back on you:

If given a choice between being someone who lives 99% of the time in the US and has a US device backdoored by the NSA/CIA vs. someone who lives 99% of the time in China and has a Chinese device backdoored by the Chinese government, which would you choose?

I am a natural born US citizen of primarily German descent. I have zero connection to China, any Chinese institutions, or any Chinese nationals. I asked this extremely aggressive zepto person what proof they would accept of that, and I got downvoted with no response. Are we just making up stories about anyone who disagrees with us now? How do we know all of the anti-China people in this thread have no connection to the US state department or intelligence apparatus?

I think the response to your claims about who you are is likely to be because it’s neither verifiable, nor relevant to your arguments here. It’s what you are saying that people are responding to. Not your nationality.

> I asked this extremely aggressive zepto person

I’m curious if you can quote anything in support of your description of me as ‘aggressive’.

Also, you have made it clear that you are an activist who is against many US actions, but what makes you think anyone here is “anti-China?’”.

Most people in the thread seem to regard both the criticisms of the US and, the China’s oppression of the Uighurs as credible.

It’s seemed pretty relevant to a lot of people in this thread. Your general tone is aggressive. I’m curious if you can quote anywhere where I’ve made it clear I’m an activist. That’s not how I think of myself. I’m posting on a computer programmer forum.

The kinds of claims you consider normal about China are in fact anti-China to anyone who’s bothered to learn a little bit about their system and how people there feel about it.

> Your general tone is aggressive.

Can you quote something I have written with an aggressive tone?

>> I’m curious if you can quote anywhere where I’ve made it clear I’m an activist.

Here’s a quote:

“Why do I need to say something bad about China? I’m a US citizen. That’s the only country I have any chance of impacting through criticism.”

And another:

“My only aim is to dissent against the manufacturing of consent for another bloody US war. What’s yours?”

You have an acknowledged political agenda behind your comments here.

Your account has existed for 10 years so I'm not going to ban you outright just now, but the fact that you're using HN primarily (exclusively?) for nationalistic and ideological flamewar is a serious abuse of the site. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of what they're battling for or against. If you want to keep posting to HN, we need you to seriously recalibrate how you're doing it, and reorient to the intended use of the site, as described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

The users foolishly accusing you of being a communist agent are also breaking the rules. That's not relevant to the fact that you're abusing HN.

Actually, I would have a lot more sympathy if you did have a personal connection to China. HN's Chinese users (and those with other connections, such as their family background or couple relationship or work history) are under extreme pressure in these threads, because the forum is majority Western, aligned with Western media and geopolitical views, and a subset of the majority users have the kind of adamancy (and even aggression) that can only come from ignorance. That's a serious problem—users of Chinese background have even been hounded off this site, just for sincerely trying to represent their own viewpoint. I've even been personally accused of being Chinese (as if that were somehow an insult) just for trying to bring more respect into these threads. If you or anyone is interested, you can see some of that moderation history at these links:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

None of that applies to your case, though, if I'm reading your comments correctly, because you seem to be posting strictly out of ideological battle. That's, unfortunately, much cheaper and more destructive behavior. We don't allow it here, because the purpose of the site is curious conversation in which people relate to and learn from each other. Smiting enemies is precisely the opposite spirit of that.

I know what it feels like to hold a minority ideological viewpoint too (having been in that situation many times)—it comes with a feeling of righteousness and resentment that causes one to lash out and feel justified in treating others disrespectfully because, after all, one's cause is right and the truth is more important. Unfortunately this syndrome is poison to the sort of internet forum we're trying for here. Regardless of how right you are (or feel you are), or how important the truths you bring are (or you feel they are), we're going to ban you if you continue this way. We have no choice but to do that, in order to try to preserve HN for its intended purpose. Moreover, it makes little difference how right you are or what truths you're bringing, if this is the way you're going about it, because people don't listen when they're being blasted.

You haven't represented that account's commenting history accurately, and the site guidelines ask you specifically not to post like this. It's nasty and extremely tedious.

If you're worried about abuse, the guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.

I'm not worried about abuse and have no reason to believe any is occurring in this or the other poster's case, as I wrote. If I suspected actual attempted "influence" activity etc. I definitely would've reported it instead of posting about it. I also find it unfair and unsubstantiated that other posters are accusing either of them of being supposed "shills" or "agents".

I was just kind of taken aback by the nature of their comment history and reacted emotionally, in part because of the radical defense of what I see as the Chinese government's inhumane and genocidal policy towards Uighurs. And as I wrote, if it were extremely jingoistic support of the US government and intelligence community, or QAnon narratives or something, I think I would view it similarly; though I probably wouldn't have reacted as emotionally, since my impetus was the response to the treatment of that group.

I disagree that I haven't represented their commenting history accurately. The majority of their posts appear to be either of that nature or about Bitcoin, with the plurality being of that nature. I also included a link to their comments for anyone else to verify, and I quoted each of their posts in full to ensure no context was missing. (However, I should've qualified "almost every comment" as "almost every political comment".)

I understand it violates the rules and is nasty and tedious, though. I apologize and will refrain in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com