The former sets up an argument that these rights are superfluous, and the latter fails to recognize areas where the west does poorly at upholding rights, especially the limitations on speech imposed by many western governments.
Luxury has more than one meaning [1]. If you prefer the language of counting blessings, so be it, though I could also pedantically quibble it implies a divine underwriting of our fundamental rights.
> the latter fails to recognize areas where the west does poorly at upholding rights, especially the limitations on speech imposed by many western governments
This crosses from pedantic quibbling to missing the forest for the trees.
Ok enough I quit hacker news
But who knows, maybe if you'd genuinely asked and heard them out instead of going all, "we don't like your kind here", you might've found yourself agreeing with them. Who knows, but this is about the genuine and free discussion of ideas, not baiting flame wars.
Edit: this is a long comment. It's the first one I've posted after seeing growing number of anti-discussion, reddit-like behavior. It's personally frustrating to me because this is where I go to get away from stuff like this. I hope this isn't too angry or judgy, and I hope everyone's doing okay.
"Excuse me, sir. Please keep your voices down. This is a family restaurant."
"Oh please, dear. For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!"
Is social media moderation worth discussing? Sure! Is, "Teens may or may not have been executed for distributing movies, but on the other hand they deleted my tweet" a conversation worth having? Debatable.
;-)