Hacker News Reader

Comment by MathYouF | Hacker News Reader

Your chatty, polite tone doesn't compensate for or conceal the fact that you're trying to provide justification for why a government that has suspended the democratic rights of its citizenry to choose its own government and their rights to freedom of expression isn't that bad.

What exactly is the aim of your litany of past comments in support of the CCP?

Am I to believe you just genuinely think democracy and individual liberties are not the preferred method of governance by most people around the world, and that you think the world is better off without them being campaigned for?

Under which form of government do you currently find yourself?

View on HN

My polite tone is not meant to compensate for or conceal anything. Am I supposed to be rude and combative, especially in an environment where I'm well aware that my mostly-sympathetic view of China is unpopular? The aim of my "litany of past comments in support of the CCP" (how far are you digging? I post about all kinds of topics) is just sharing my opinion and the facts as I see them. In particular, I think our (i.e., the US, to answer your other personal questions) sudden turn on China is unwise.

I think it's probably true that many or most people like democracy and individual liberties, but I think it's equally true that these are not the sole criteria by which they decide which government they support. If they were, and that meant that China were ripe for regime change, Singapore would only be a little behind. I think the world is better off without them being "campaigned for" if "campaigning for" is instituting a big global chess game where we try to destabilize certain governments (and an honest accounting of those rarely ends up favoring one side as purely as we'd like to flatter ourselves).

I take objection to the polite tone because it is the kind that only a dispassionate academic could take when discussing the horrors that appeasement of the form of government you're advocating for will cause the citizens of those countries. You should seriously consider the real consequences of appeasement for people not as fortunate as you to live in the U.S. as you go about saying that we can't "prove" that a dictatorship which has suspended the rights to freedom of speech and elections doesn't have popular support.

You seem to frame this as me arguing in favor of the US, which makes it very easy for you to then rightly question the true objectives of the US and even the validity of its supposed moral authority.

I am simply discussing the validity of a government which has no individual liberty nor democratically elected leaders. This is unequivocally a tool for oppression and evil in the modern world. If you made friends who lived under communist regimes, and turned your abstract reasoning into concrete feelings, your feelings on this subject might change.

Well because I have, in fact, made a number of friends with Chinese people, I don't think we think should unleash a nuclear holocaust because we're unhappy with their government. Is this blunt enough for your liking?

You know, another thing I'll say about this is, your problem obviously isn't actually my tone. If I were combative and forceful in everything I said, you'd find a way to take issue with that too (probably more convincingly). Because your actual problem is you dislike the content of what I'm saying. Fine. Argue against it, or ignore it, but let's not waste our time pretending there is any manner I could possibly present the same view that you wouldn't find fault with.

Victims of communist regimes all have terms for Westerners like you who make apologetic arguments in favor of their dictators from the safety of a Liberal democracy.

The role you're playing and your perspective is nothing new in the last century of fascist dictators depriving people of rights under the banner of communism.

And again, you're framing it as an American vs China thing (nukes?). You're a useful tool of the CCP, even adopting their talking points and framing it in the ways they do when they indoctrinate their own citizenry.

Your final argument sounds like a doctor complaining that the patients family won't like hearing the news that insurance won't cover cancer treatments no matter what tone they use. The content you are delivering is in support of cruelty and evil in the world, I'm protesting that you try packaging it in courtesy to disguise that fact.

I think presenting my views politely is better than just personally attacking the character of people talking to me and accusing them of being dupes. Clearly you see it differently, and I welcome you to engage in mud-slinging with others whose idea of a productive discussion better matches yours.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com