(It's kinda funny really - in the movie the hero returns to earth disgusted because she had to help with operations colonising neutral worlds. And then joins the Air Force.)
Maybe you would have repeated the same line if Disney was making cartoons for the Soviets or Nazis last century. And to that I say, bug off.
Since you don't seem to want to use HN as intended, I'm not sure what there is left to do but ban you. I can't help but feel like you don't really mean to be aggressive, though, and are somehow doing this for some other reason. So, one last plea: if you don't want to be banned on HN, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart. There's no reason why you can't make your substantive points in keeping with those guidelines. Yes, there are many bad comments that get posted here. That's no reason to be abusive and make this place even worse.
However - if you want to make a moral argument against another side in a conflict, you need to make sure that you're actually standing on a moral high ground. At least if you want to recruit allies on your side. And, if you read the news, current US administration hasn't been treating their allies too well these last years. And US will need allies to resist Chinese influence.
I don't hold any sympathy for the Chinese, but it's also hard to see how following just another bully in an unequal relationship would benefit my non-US government.
This isn’t the us army making the argument or the American state. Normal people are.
How is this different from saying “only people who have never sinned can speak out against evil.” With the added dollop of whataboutism?
You can't make a moral argument ("China is evil!") without being on moral highground. Having your own moral highground questioned when you're trying to paint youself as better is not "whataboutism".
There's two way how you can go about this argument:
1.) You can debate purely realpolitik - where morals don't matter and only the benefit of US or China hegemony is taken into account. This can be a hard sell though, mostly due to how current administration relentlessly attacks even their historic allies.
2.) You can debate on basis of keeping a free and modern society and how US keeps Chinese totalitarianism at bay. But then you will have to accept having your own morals questioned. Screaming about Chinese totalitarianism when the current US president actively avoids and attacks the US justice system trying to keep him accountable is hypocritical.
How is this in any way comparable to China where people have to come up with homophones/alternate words to literally get around armies of state censors?
Which makes me wonder: when I first read his post I found it quite interesting and, in fact, it confirmed my experience as a non-American that occasionally watches contemporary American action movies: they're sickeningly propagandistic and paint the military in a way that is, to say the least, unrealistic. It always bothers me, but I'm used to the idea that many people in America buy the idea that soldiers are their heroes, fighting for them and saving the country. It's an idea that in my European country is much less effective and widespread (even if recently the right is trying to make it a thing).
In any case, now I'm wondering what is true and what is not about his statement. I guess I'll have to research it, as I'm curious to know more about this. I have to say that this shows that the trick with propaganda is not to lie but to use some specific facts as a weapon.
Honestly, I wish I had made a throwaway for talking about "political" topics. This account was meant for my more professional stuff. For various reasons I gradually "came out" and rebuked a few hate and war mongering posts. And your comment sounds much like one I believe I made days ago about the rise in anti-China/Eastern smears getting attention on HN.
Please do respect my privacy, but I am an actual, verifiable person who has no affiliation with reputation management, psyops intelligence groups and so on in any country (neither private nor state groups btw).
What I've posted is true, and many others have expanded on it. Some of their supportive posts I'll try find time to research and confirm myself!
"Facts as a weapon", well that's flattering--"pen mightier than the sword" sort of vibe.
But having my history looked into, my identity found, employers contacted in efforts to have me fired, that is scaring me. That's a weapon governments use to squash dissent against their use of fascism, and I don't see it as good use of facts as a weapon.
My immediate thought is to delete all my posts, change my usernames everywhere and shut down professional accounts. But then the pushers of Chinese occupation, invasion, suctions, proxy-wars or general weakening of a state I admire (at least above others) get a gold star.
Anyway, I'm going to stop posting. Hopefully I can find another username I like when I want to post about product releases.
Even showing actual facts can get you in trouble.
I have definitely learned a lot from your posts and hope you do keep them up.
I checked and no it’s not
The person is very clearly pro-China. But “their entire account” looks like a normal hacker news user except for their political leanings
To the mods: potty mouths aren't the problem on HN, the spreading of fake news is.