I'm not a country. I'm not worried about Uncle Sam taking me down for (1A) protected speech. I am worried about China taking me out for comments like this.

You mean killing you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's far, far easier for your country in general (and for the US specifically) to imprison you if you're a dissident (see whistleblowers, for example) than a foreign country (and China specifically) to kill you in foreign soil.

Great for you, what about all non-citizens ( what, most of the world) who have no protections under US law, but have their rights as humans violated by the US?

Human rights as defined by the UN? Care to list a single instance of the US violating these?

From https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

> No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_cam...

One could possibly argue additional articles, particularly around fair tribunals also apply to the above situation above.

You familiar with McCarthyism?

Yeah. What about it?

Not GP, but I think the point made was that McCarthyism is precedent of US citizens getting into serious trouble because of things they said. It's a counter-example to the assumption that the US government will protect its citizens' free speech.

While it’s true that the US used to be much more intrusive about policing “seditious” speech, it’s also true that this occurred a long time ago.

McCarthyism ended in around 1962.

During this era, homosexuality was still illegal, abortions were punished with prison time, and people with varying skin complexions still couldn’t drink from the same water fountains.

In terms of social progress, McCarthyism was only acceptable to a society totally alien to the one we live in today.

I'd argue McCarthyism ended not because the US has "progressed" socially, but because the US had won the Cold War and there has not been a "worthy adversary" for the US until the rise of China.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US start to make the life of China sympathizers difficult in near future if China becomes more competitive.

McCarthyism was over by the mid-50s. The Cold War was only gathering steam at that point.

McCarthyism's end predates the cold war. It also predates all other markers of social progress in the last 50 years.

To me, the end of McCarthyism is the first point in the great wave of American social change that began in the 60s.

But moving on...

> I wouldn't be surprised if the US start to make the life of China sympathizers difficult in near future if China becomes more competitive.

I think that China is largely viewed as a 'foregin nation', whereas communism (whcih is what McCarthyism railed against) was an ideology.

You can adopt an ideology and still remain patriotic--China is a good example of how to take communism and fuse it with your countries national soul. However, you can't really 'adopt' a foregin power.

Because of that China will likely find itself with a lot less sympathizers than communism. The existing sympathizers will likely be people who are ethnically Chinese, which would make it difficult for the government to pressure them due to concerns over racism.

Age is a funny thing, it makes people have different perspective on recent history.

1962 wasn't even 60 years ago. The president of the USA was already an adult at that time.

Do you have an example from this century?

well we're only twenty one years into this century - they did give you an example from within living memory. I'm pretty sure plenty other examples from the U.S can be picked up with much shorter distances than the one between now and McCarthy.

While it is living memory, it is about 60 years ago. Which is two whole generations.

On the one hand, people are alive who suffered under McCarthyism. On the other hand, much of the population will react strongly at being judged for the sins of their grandparents.

> much of the population will react strongly at being judged for the sins of their grandparents.

This happens today in every western country, there's nothing unusual about it.

If you're so sure there are "plenty", would you care to offer one?

it's difficult not to reply sarcastically to this but - how about the Move bombing - 1981.

oh wait, that was local government. So how about the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, closer, but not much closer.

Before I go further though I start to wonder about your requirements, I mean from where I'm sitting it is a 'commonly' understood thing that the anti-war movements in the U.S are often targeted for investigation and attack by government agents, but for every commonly understood thing there are people that do not agree for some reason that the thing that is the common understanding of the situation is correct.

So - before continuing - what is your position on the Chicago 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven)? Was there a conspiracy by the American government there or not? If there was then I have given an example even though not so far after McCarthyism was done, but more importantly if we can agree that there was then it is pretty easy to keep coming with examples over the years. If your opinion was there was not - but McCarthyism I take it was a bad thing in your book - what aspects of McCarthyism is needed to make an example you would find acceptable but would leave the Chicago 7 out?

on edit: of course my point with the Move bombing is that local government also counts in the U.S, although I suspect you would disagree otherwise there's lots of cops killing citizens and taking their property all over the country for you to choose from.

Isolated incidents of local police terrorism do not count.

Didn't we already rule out the 1960's? That type of political violence really doesn't exist here anymore. Your perception of the country notwithstanding.

Ok. Let's try another one to get a position on, if we say the 60s are off limits and you're not answering questions there.

What is your position on Aaron Schwartz then?

ok but you didn't answer the question.

Also, public forfeiture laws are not terrorism - they are policy.

A good chunk of the civil forfiture cases?

Uncle Sam takes you down for other things, such as being collateral damage from a drone strike.

Many people here are not from the US. Why do you whatabout the US?

Maybe we want interference from neither country?

Your isn't a valuable comment to this news, whataboutism is a very poor rhetoric.

True. But I fear China more.

Understandable given the media climate whipped up by the military industrial complex.

>> True. But I fear China more.

> Extraordinary rendition, CIA, regime change, foreign invasions. Compare US to China, please

The PRC is explicitly opposed to a lot of basic values nearly all Westerners care a great deal about:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...

For the most part, US foreign policy broadly attempts to promote and spread those values, though there are some notable areas where it disregarded them or failed (though to properly see those, you sometimes have to look at the big picture).

"For the most part, US foreign policy broadly pretends to promote and spread those values"

I think is more accurate. I'm not sure it matters if China is opposed to my basic values but doesn't do anything about it, and the US isn't opposed to my basic values, but kidnaps and tortures me for a few years because I've grown a beard and went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan.

> "For the most part, US foreign policy broadly pretends to promote and spread those values"

No, it's not "pretend." For instance the US just sunk something like 2 trillion dollars trying to build a democracy in Afghanistan, and you don't blow 2 trillion on anything you're only pretending to do (and if you think it's some conspiracy to line the pockets of defense contractors, there are far more efficient ways of doing that and it wouldn't have stopped).

> I'm not sure it matters if China is opposed to my basic values but doesn't do anything about it, and the US isn't opposed to my basic values, but kidnaps and tortures me for a few years because I've grown a beard and went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan.

You think China doesn't do that? I mean having "grown a beard and went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan" is a literally entry criteria to get sent to a camp in Xinjiang. Also:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48634136

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/world/europe/repression-u...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/world/asia/china-canada-s...

You really don't need a conspiracy for the government to pay large sums to domestic industries. It's what governments do. That it's also used for global power projection is without question.

To believe in good intentions, you need to also believe in complete idiocy. "Hey, let's just remove the authoritarian leaders and watch countries descend into civil war, that'll surely bring about democracy, right?" is a weird idea.

> You think China doesn't do that?

No, I'm not aware that China buys German Muslims from Pakistan's military in order to illegally torture & imprison them.

See, the whole spiel would be so much easier to believe if the acts would at least roughly align with the stated intentions. But they generally don't. I don't believe that the US government is made up of idiots, so "they meant well but were misguided" isn't on the table.

This is a slash piece my a media outlet owned by an explicit political adversary. There are no doubt things in China some folks would find difficult to swallow, but a US news outlet is not the place to find them.

The US establishment has wholly abandoned historic ideals in favor of a new era that aligns with much of what you'd see in Chinese governance. We in fact witness below US citizens faithful to the Party who devotedly support this act because they believe this individual has infringed upon the propriety of their Party.