[nicarus1984]

To group the US in with the likes of N. Korea and China is dishonest and inaccurate. If the US were run by either of those governments, you would not have Jon Oliver, Washington Post, etc. exposing and criticizing the very issues you mention.

[diego]

That is a non sequitur. He's talking about grouping countries by specific criteria. To make a code parallel, if you ran

  select from countries group by police_score;

and

  select from countries group by freedom_of_press_index; 

You'd expect different results. Maybe there would be a correlation, and the US would be an outlier.

[nicarus1984]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to believe that because I stated we have the freedom to have an open and critical dialogue around these issues - something one is unlikely to have in N. Korea, etc. - that I am implying we do not have these problems. That is not what I had stated.

[jMyles]

Well, you said that "to group the US in with the likes of N. Korea and China is dishonest and inaccurate." So although you didn't expressly state that you didn't think the US has a police state problem, you did seem to think that grouping with other states with this same problem was deceptive. The only odd part was that you used as your justification an assessment that, in a completely separate (albeit obviously related) set of criteria, these states don't belong in the same group.

[nicarus1984]

Thank you. This was the most constructive reply I've received.

I do acknowledge the issues raised by OP; my quote: "...exposing and criticizing the very issues you mention."

I read the original comment as a generalization that the US is grouped in with those other countries due to these issues. My reply was simply to refute that primarily on the fact that we have the ability to discuss and solve these issues that those other countries do not have. It is an important distinction in my opinion.

Maybe I misread the intent - it appears from some of the fiery responses I've received that may be true. :(

[albedoa]

There is obviously a disconnect between what you think you wrote and how it reads to others. Perhaps instead of getting defensive you should acknowledge that the confusion is valid and apologize for being unclear.

People are responding to your exact comment, not guessing what you might be thinking.

[nicarus1984]

I honestly don't feel/think I am being defensive here. I've even asked for correction if I am wrong. I'm not asking people to "guess" what I might be thinking, hence the discussion.

[eximius]

What he's saying is that it is accurate, in a technical sense, even though you are right that it is a bit misleading.

[afandian]

Free speech is one facet of analysis. It's an important one, but doesn't invalidate the others.

[nicarus1984]

No one is claiming that it invalidates the others.

[albedoa]

You accused the OP of being "dishonest and inaccurate" because he neglected to mention the differences in freedoms of speech. The parallels he draws are independent of that concern.