I appreciate the fact that that was the argument being made.
>> The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything.
I did not say that you should give the US a pass (I in fact explicitly stated the opposite). I did state that if you claim to oppose some common ill of humanity that you should probably focus on where it is most ill.
If I decide to fight malaria, I should probably look at Africa as a good place to do my work.
If I decide to fight corrupt, oppressive, and deceitful governments I should probably look at states with the most distasteful human rights records.
If you decide to learn to swim, do you jump straight into shark infested waters?
If you anger the US government they will (generally) initiate legal proceedings to see you in court. Even if you think the legal proceedings against you are a sham, you (generally) get your day in court which are (mostly) fair. If you anger China or NK they (generally) don't bother with even that much pretense and you may be tried, convicted and executed before anyone even realizes you're missing.
Because of the structural arrangement and pay-to-play financial details of the American legal system, "mostly fair" is an extraordinarily generous characterization of how you will be treated.
So with that mindset, why are you arguing against WikiLeaks on Hacker News? There are FAR worse example of breaking your set of rules where you should probably focus.
>> The argument here is that just because the US isn't the worst, doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything.
I did not say that you should give the US a pass (I in fact explicitly stated the opposite). I did state that if you claim to oppose some common ill of humanity that you should probably focus on where it is most ill.
If I decide to fight malaria, I should probably look at Africa as a good place to do my work.
If I decide to fight corrupt, oppressive, and deceitful governments I should probably look at states with the most distasteful human rights records.