That being said, I hope you don’t mind a bit of input here. The parent comment didn’t seem snarky at all, and while his language about “war” might not have been exactly literal, that doesn’t make it exaggerated. China has been extremely aggressive about acquiring Western technology and IP. Furthermore, Chinese students have been a significant avenue of this theft. These facts are not in dispute (except perhaps by Chinese’s government spokespeople). Not only has this been in the news repeatedly, but I have specific professional experiences to this effect.
All that being the case, it’s difficult to understand why you would have described the parent poster’s quite accurate description of the current state of affairs as “nationalistic flame bait.” To be honest, this is the one time I’ve witnessed where your contribution lowered the discourse instead of raising it.
Of course those are merely my interpretations. Maybe I'm wrong, though seeing the commenter post later that every Chinese person should be seen as an enemy makes me pretty sure I wasn't wrong. Either way though, this call wasn't particularly different than the others we make, and I didn't make it because I secretly favor the opposite side of the argument, however much it may feel that way to passionate readers. And I'm certainly not denying your or anyone else's professional experience.
Such a factual situation is often the subject of such snark. In this age of search bubbles and personalized (read algorithm distorted) views of information the observation is often true. Such reactions are exhibited by one group even to factual information. This results in frustration on both sides of the statement, creating the state of "War," which, "is not a place from which people find it easy to climb down." This is particularly bad because such information is particularly valuable. It's precisely such mental model breaking information which is the most valuable.
It's very easy to see how a group like, the Flat Earthers, or Anti-vaxxers have such model-breaking information blindness. Throughout history, we've seen that it's particularly hard for privileged knowledge workers -- who have been validated by society through high pay and social status -- to see the model-breaking information. (Witness the struggle to get germ theory recognized by gentleman doctors.) In short, we tech folks need to acknowledge that there are factors acting to make us the most blind.
In 2019, we all have it. We've always all had it. The question is how do we communicate this without being in the mental state of "war."
Not every war is fought with guns, not all the time. We are in a period that's equivalent to an asymmetric version of the Cold War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
Would you refute that the United States has been at war for decades with the Soviet Union?
You seem to have an issue with my ideas, not with my language. I welcome the debate about those ideas, but it doesn't seem appropriate to throw the weight of your status as moderator to win an argument against ideas you don't like. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the spirit of HN is?
I think America is an idea where most countries are based on genetics and history. I get where you are on this, but it should be realized illiberal people will take advantage of liberal people. It's a price worth paying if you stick with it to the end.
It comes across as a dry description of reality to me. Apparently some people can't read it without thinking it's some kind of knock against China.
Preserving the container here matters more than rightness or wrongness. Indeed, nothing will burn this place down faster than flaming rightness.
I think dang's point in this thread should be interpreted as: "Such mental model breaking information around delicate subjects needs to be treated with the most care, precisely because it's the most valuable while it's the most likely to be lost to emotional jamming of the discourse."
Your recent comments to HN have nearly all been using the site for ideological battle. We don't allow that, regardless of which ideology you're fighting for or against, because it destroys the intellectual curiosity HN exists for. Would you please stop now?
Since it's clear you don't want to use HN as intended, we've banned the account. If that changes at some point, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Of what value is wrongness?
Thanks, Dan. It's nice to have a concise statement on record to the effect that HN would rather be wrong than be right and risk offending anyone. Truth is not a goal here.
I happen to believe (and most of our intelligence does too) that China has been studiously and purposefully stolen everything they could get their hands on for the last 20 years or so with the clear objective of gaining a military advantage. That's what a war is, and it's a very well substantiated position.
Also pretty funny you call me a nationalist, I wasn't even born in the US.
The Cold War is a perfect example, and very similar to the situation we are in now with China. Are you suggesting the Cold War wasn't a war either?
None of which are really comparable with today.
Today? A minor trade war, and some considerable industrial espionage, proven or not. There's barely even minor mention let alone posturing over Taiwan, Hong Kong or the airfields being built on China Sea islands. There's no stand off, aside from the N/S Korea border that's remnant of the Korean war stalemate. It's going to take a huge escalation to go hot (or cold war).
You really see them as comparable? I don't, not even slightly close, except only for the few shades of McCarthyism in the feature article.
We probably should have banned you with the every-Chinese-person-is-an-enemy slur, but I like to give people multiple chances.
The US (NSA) has been stealing secrets from a significant percentage of the world population for years. Snowden showed us that. China stealing from a few corporations makes them angels in comparison. Further, the US slaughters hundreds of thousands in ACTUAL wars in the middle east over the past 20yrs to gain a military and economic advantage over the rest of the world.
Stop making it seem like China is some big bogeyman when the US has been the bogeyman all along.
(Also, while I have you: can you please not use allcaps for emphasis? The guidelines include that, and explain what to do instead. I know it sounds trivial, but doing that is the online equivalent of yelling.)
I have my gripes with US policies (may I remind you I'm not even a citizen by birth?) and we're definitely seeing a slide towards an even more overt fascism than ever before, but it's still an avoidable risk compared to the very present danger a stronger China poses to all democracies.
To be blunt, I don't want to live in a world where China has any more power than it has right now, because we're MUCH better off in any version of what we have in the west than anything China has to offer.
I like my civil liberties, I like to be able to express dissent and to protest without being ground into a pulp by a tank, and I like to express politically antagonistic opinions without having my organs harvested after a summary execution.
Moderation work has a weird side-effect that is elusive to describe but is relevant to this question. When you routinely have to moderate angry arguments, where neither side will concede so much as a grain of sand or a drop of water to the other, you often end up in an intense position where one or both sides turn their frustration onto you instead and decide that you are the problem. Sometimes it seems as if that's the one thing they agree on! The side-effect is that over time, this seems to gradually change how your brain functions. You start to think less in terms of agree/disagree and more in terms of the container as a whole.
People often make claims about our personal biases and views, but from my perspective they're always curiously off, because they miss this weirdness of how moderation changes a person over time. I've compared it to having one's brain sandblasted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16361266). Dwelling in the crossfire has altered how I see many of these high-energy topics. My views have become more friable—smaller in scope and less welded to the infrastructure of the major positions. For example—speaking personally now, not as a moderator—it seems obvious to me that there's no factual dispute in the current thread. That is, there's no contradiction between state infiltration of corporate and academic environments being a thing, and misguided persecution of honest researchers also being a thing: not only could both of those be true, it's actually hard to see how they wouldn't go together. Yet people each pick one of those two and use them as spears to joust with.
What's happening is that our loyalties keep us from widening the frame enough to incorporate all available information. Instead we try to exclude any information that 'helps' the other side and block it when they try to bring it up. Most heated arguments now appear to me to be of this nature. At root, we can't and won't hear each other's stories. In this way the gruntwork of moderation has turned out to be a protracted exercise in forcible frame-widening—something that is painful in its little steps but also has an expanding effect that may (or may not) be worth it.