Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Are you a PRC-funded troll or misinformation spreader?

You can't post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you have evidence of abuse, you should send it to us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it. If you don't, you should remember that the vast majority of these perceptions on the internet are completely imaginary. Either way, you should be editing such swipes out of your comments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Plenty of past explanation at these links:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652363 (<-- Mini-FAQ)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397695

Sorry. I said it partially tongue-in-cheek.

What would be an appropriate response to someone who's posted several comments to the same top-level post, all of which are grossly misleading and/or complete strawmen?

Obviously I don't have evidence of "abuse" (is this even abuse? obviously people can be trolls without being big-co/gov funded) but I'd like to point out the above fact to other commenters who might not have noticed it otherwise.

In terms of posting to HN itself, an appropriate response would be to refute bad arguments with better arguments and/or incorrect information with correct information—or alternatively, to remember that to a first approximation, everyone is wrong on the internet, and just let it go. You don't need to do more than that for other commenters; they can take care of themselves.

If an account is behaving badly, such as by repeatedly breaking the site guidelines, sending a heads-up to hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it is also an appropriate response.

> an appropriate response would be to refute bad arguments with better arguments and/or incorrect information with correct information

Isn't that just demanding that everyone surrender to a shill's Gish gallop?

I'd need to see specific links. It's difficult to answer that generically, because who people call a 'shill' varies so much, and it's unquestionably the case that people frequently apply such terms to other commenters who in fact are posting in good faith. On the internet, someone having a sufficiently different background from you, and someone posting in bad faith, are basically indistinguishable.

I can't resist saying a couple general things though. First, I think you need to assume a smart audience. If someone's throwing an endless sequence of distracting objections at you (which is how I understand 'gish gallop'), that doesn't have a lot of persuasive power for a smart audience. You should trust readers to see that those are distractions, and limit yourself (at most) to pointing out that they're not relevant.

Second, if you're truly dealing with someone posting in bad faith, the time-honored internet adage explains what do to: don't feed the trolls. I would never underestimate the wisdom of that advice. It may be the wisest thing the internet has ever said.

> I'd need to see specific links. It's difficult to answer that generically

Sorry, no links; I was asking generically. (Though a couple pro-PRC guys on this page feel pretty close.)

> the time-honored internet adage explains what do to: don't feed the trolls. I would never underestimate the wisdom of that advice. It may be the wisest thing the internet has ever said.

Yup. (Well, immediately after anything posted by me, of course.) Sometimes hard to remember, though: Provocateurs provoke.

Anyway, forget all that for a while, and have a merry Christmas!

I disagree if the sterilization is applied even-handedly as an application of their two-child law. I am skeptical that a lineage is being exterminated if, at minimum, they can have replacement level number of births. The Uyghur population is growing faster than the Han population is.

But backing up a bit - really what I'm taking issue with is the word "genocide." We can call horrendous, human rights violating policies for what they are without having to fall back on calling something a "genocide."

Not everyone who disagrees with you is PRC funded. I would encourage you to look over the HN guidelines as you seem to have forgotten some of them. [0]

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> The Uyghur population is growing faster than the Han population is.

This seems to be the crux of your argument justifying the PRCs sterilization policy. As others have noted forced sterilization is a crime against humanity regardless of reason. Justification of forced sterilization based on a believed “correct” ethnic ratio is abhorrent.

Nope, but nice spin.

1. Saying a birth rate policy should be applied universally to all citizens of China is not justifying such a policy based on a 'believed “correct” ethnic ratio.'

2. My point about the growth of the Uyghur population was a separate point, which is that from my (apparently naive) understanding of what a genocide is, the population would typically decrease after it occurred, not increase.

3. Forced sterilization is ongoing in the criminal justice system in the US, at least as late as 2011. Don't think it is equivalent because it is not nearly as broad based, but in the 80s and 90s it was a not uncommon remedy offered (mostly) to black people to get probation instead of jail in exchange for sterilization, as well as just straight-up court mandated sterilization.

I also don't think the CCPs child policy is justified, but I do think that it should be within the realm of actions that the state can take.

You’re advocating for a position on China’s 2 child policy that, in America, would most certainly would be deemed unconstitutional under a disparate impact framework. I know we’re talking about China here, but most Western countries have recognized that you can target a subgroup without saying you’re targeting a subgroup. You’re basically arguing that the Holocaust would not be a genocide as long as Germany was universally applying its no [insert Jewish characteristic] policy.

Just to underscore my point here, almost every aspect of your viewpoint on the genocide China is committing is abhorrent and untenable if you believe in human rights.

So you are saying that having lots of children is intrinsic to being Uyghur? It's a Uyghur "characteristic"?

The US law around this issue is in flux, see for instance [0], where policies that were neutrally applied but impacted people a specific religion were ruled constitutional. This specific case was later rendered moot by congressional action.

Regardless, is the claim that China is conducting a genocide, or that its actions would be in violation of the Civil Rights Act if it were a US state? Are we enforcing the Civil Rights Act globally now?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

US common law like disparate impact is always in flux - it’s common law. The minutiae of disparate impact edge cases is irrelevant under your argument where the universal application of the 2 child policy somehow requires China to round up, sequester in internment camps, and ultimately sterilize a particular group.

I won’t bother replying to the rest of your post about religious beliefs and children because it’s an attempt to derail the conversation by focusing on details that are relevant only to the particular framing you’re advancing.

Do you have anything against the Uyghur population growing faster and replacing the Han?

No, I think such concerns are stupid. I also don't think the Uyghurs are "replacing the Han."

But I do find it interesting that China is apparently conducting the first genocide in history where the population being genocided is increasing rather than decreasing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com