>This is whataboutism, and it detracts from issues instead of productively extending the conversation
This is a self contradictory statement. Calling someone's argument "whataboutism" is itself a logical fallacy designed to prevent extension of the conversation into a larger context
>If this very comment had been about some unrelated topic...it would be right for the comment to be censored from this discussion
By that same logic, we should censor your comment, because this article is not about filtering bot/adspam from small niche forums; It's about mass censorship and manipulation of organic political opinions on platforms with billions of users.
>The unique problem of the internet is that it allows bad ideas to infect, fester, and mutate in the minds of others at a speed never seen before, without the natural safeguards that we've always had: peer-review and social acceptance. That leads to a spill-over of bad ideas into the public discourse which, in turn, resets society's definition for what kind of ideas are acceptable. A few rapid cycles of this, and we got our Post Truth World
This is precisely the same logic held by the Church during the Inquisition as they were safeguarding Truth from the Scientific Revolution and the evil of the printing press.
>Modern philosophies that disregard the special place in nature of Man, and deny Man's nature, are a mess and lead to some pretty horrible outcomes, such as the dehumanization of undesirable groups.
It's fairly well-known that there is more medical knowledge about men, and women are affected in different ways by diseases, about which more knowledge is needed.
Sure we can, but I don't think it's very productive to start arguing that society doesn't care about men's issues. I don't immediately see what society has to do with the lower life expectancy:
> Perhaps it's because Big Tech is full of people who favor Chinese ideals over Western Enlightenment/American ideals, such as:
I think you're onto something, but some of your examples are off.
I'd say Big Tech has a disproportionate share of people who:
1) believe they are part of the elite (by being able to command a high salary due to their skills) or aspire to join the elite (by winning the startup lottery), and therefore tend to take the perspective of elites against that of commoners, and
2) tend to focus far too much on economics, business, and technology.
Those attitudes can interplay to result in attitudes that can be pretty favorable to the CCP (e.g. trade/business profits can't be sacrificed for moral or democratic considerations). However, I wouldn't go so far as saying those tech people "favor Chinese ideals over Western Enlightenment/American ideals."
I have always wondered what people mean by "Chinese ideals". As a Chinese person myself, all 4 of your options are things that I oppose. I find myself consistently on the side of individuality, privacy, free speech, and self defense, when arguing against Americans that disagree. In fact I'm doing that right now in another thread in the process of defending yet another undefendable scoundrel, Facebook.
Do you actually have something concrete in mind here, or have you instead considered that this is merely an example of calling the enemy tribe every bad name you can think of?
>Do you actually have something concrete in mind here
Ideals codified in law. For example, the 1rst and 2nd Amendments.
When generalizing with national boundaries, I of course do not mean to imply that literally everyone born within those imaginary lines thinks the same.
Are there more specific categories I could use for these ideological classifications?
>Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
The reasons why people in both societies enjoy those rights differently is much more complicated than just whether they are codified.
GP can do something very simple as a test. I’ll go to Washington and he’ll go to Beijing. We will both hold up a sign criticizing each leader. I wonder what will happen...
I’ll go to London, Berlin, and Paris and do the same thing. Maybe I’ll need a permit in the US/Europe and do it for a week.
It's easy to tell all kinds of crazy stories about would happen in China, but do you have direct evidence? I don't, but I know for a fact that expat communities usually bitterly hate the government, and blast those opinions publicly all over the internet.
My extended family over there knows perfectly well what happened, they just don’t like to talk about it. And my parents know exactly what happened because they were there, and nobody’s coming after them. So without further evidence it seems to be equivalent to certain very contentious political topics in the US, which people are aware of, but you certainly cannot bring up.
Can your extended family research any of it? (search online, read about it in books, etc) Can they speak about it without being persecuted? Can anyone who isn't your extended family find information about it other than through informal channels?
> to certain very contentious political topics in the US, which people are aware of, but you certainly cannot bring up.
Like what? Please elaborate specifically?
I'm so confused on what your stance is here. You realize there is a big difference between being persecuted by others for saying something or "knowing something" and being persecuted by the government for saying something or "knowing something"?
I think it’s probably better to think of those enlightenment ideals as not something particularly western in nature as they were opposed violently for centuries by the entrenched power structures of the west.
I’m not saying it didn’t originate in Europe. I am saying that most Europeans opposed it for centuries and it’s barely holding on in a lot of Europe even today. There’s nothing about the western mind or western culture that makes it more suited for institutions based around those principles. It was a long struggle to achieve them and it will be a long struggle to keep them. People of the west were no more well suited to them then the Chinese were especially well suited to invent or use gunpowder and paper money.
Ah, I suspect we're in violent agreement with each other.
The Enlightenment certainly originated in the West (Western Europe), and while there are certain cultural aspects that are more compatible with Enlightenment ideals -- primus inter pares and such -- there is no reason why those ideals couldn't find a new home in some other region (Asia, Africa, etc.)
Not intending to speak for others, but I believe that the original poster intended "ideals as practiced by the CCP" (e.g., Cultural Revolution, Red Guards, etc), and it sounds to me like you are espousing the Chinese culture of the 1911 revolution, which does indeed support the rights of individuality, privacy, free speech, and self defense.
This is and has been more of an intellectual and ideological battle more than anything. The Founders had very little in common with ancient Greeks and Romans in terms of ‘tribe’ and ‘national boundary’. I am an immigrant as well and have these very same discussions that you have - awkwardly explaining to Americans the benefit of their constitution to themselves.
Those aren't non-Western ideals, lots of people in all countries strive to achieve power either via the imposition or in order to impose those qualities on their particular citizenry.
tl;dr: your category error invalidates your entire point.
Using large geographic/national boundaries to generalize ideological categories is of course inherently erroneous to a degree; it's like the Zen Buddhist teaching of "a finger pointing at the moon". You seem to be getting hung up on the finger.
This is a self contradictory statement. Calling someone's argument "whataboutism" is itself a logical fallacy designed to prevent extension of the conversation into a larger context