Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by christocracy 2052 days ago
> one of the most unstable times in history

I can think of far more unstable times in history than the times we’re living in now, recent examples being WW1 & 2, nuclear threat during the Cold War.

6 comments

The US Civil War is a better example than either WW1 or WW2 with respect to the balkanization of America, and the nuclear threat never went away. ;)
It depends on the continent you live on.
I could be wrong but OP's language suggested that the most immediate worst possible time would be the US election in two days and its resulting aftermath, and its connection to disinformation.

Perhaps I am a little biased as I've been eyeball-deep in weeding through election-focused disinformation and working with people to expose these tactics the past few months and everything looks like a nail to me right now.

In fact this is probably one of the most stable times in human history.
No kidding. I’m a 48 year old programmer. If today were 1939, y2k was the end of ww1, when I was a 28 year old programmer.
The Cold War was a sham, nobody was ever going to fire missiles except by mistake. It was just a way to maintain military budgets (and contracts) when peace broke out after WWII. Any instability in the main was only ever by design.

Look at all the people who went supernova when Clinton downsized the military after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR.

"Generals and majors always seem so unhappy 'less they got a war."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiLuYZNzNyc

> except by mistake

No small threat; plenty of room for those, according to Daniel Ellsberg’s book ”The Doomsday Machine”.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-doomsday-machine-978160819...

Stalin would have rolled over Europe if he had half the chance. Nukes like it or not is the reason why we haven't had WW3.
True. Mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent. But should one nation fire a nuke and the other appeals to neutrals- Behold the lunatics have unleashed world killing weapons on us! - the first nation will become the beligerent state and effectively lose their war.
Were nukes the only way to deal with his appetite?
How do you think those times became unstable?

Surely info suppression tactics have often played a role?

It was much easier to suppress info back then, and it is much easier to spread misinformation today.
OP probably meant one of the most stable times recent history, as in within most generations being alive today.

The majority of the population, boomers and younger, didn’t live during WW2 and we probably are globally the least stable since then right now.

In recent American history. I was born in 1985 and the breakup of Yugoslavia and ensuing wars happened in my lifetime, and the Russian invasion of Georgia and Ukraine Ukraine, and things like the Syrian civil war, US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan getting invaded by the Russians, then had a totalitarian Taliban rule, and then had the American invasion.

I mean, it sure is significant and all as the US, for better or worse, isn't "just another country", but it's also pretty narrow towards both the current time and specific location.

But we’re not just talking about the US. Tensions in the Asian region are at the highest since WWII as well: North Korea and South Korea. China and Taiwan. China and Hong Kong. Then there’s China and their increasingly imperial motives in Africa and the Asian sea. Plus increasing conflict with the US.

Then there’s Russia and Ukraine. Turkey and Armenia. The Middle East conflict with Israel, Europe, and the US.

So no, it’s not just American history. Globally, things are the least stable since WWII.

> Iraq invasion of the US,

That...didn't happen.

The MSM doesn't want you to know!
Well during the cold war, WW I and WW II you could visit your family, leave your house to have a cup of tea with a friend; you go walk through a restaurant without a mask on your face.

In much of Europe you can't do any of those things right now, without incurring the wrath of state force.

The next equivalent event in history in western europe to this destruction of civil liberty was the nazi occupation of France.

Yes, in WW1 or WW2 you were able to… oh wait, rot in trenches with a gas mask, or be fighting somewhere in Europe or northern africa or the pacific, or be interned in a concentration camp. That sounds much better than having to wear a mask when you go buy groceries
That's what's called an informal fallacy.
Not at all.
> Well during the cold war, WW I and WW II you could visit your family

My grandmother once told me her dad had to console a German soldier crying in the backyard because he wanted nothing more than being back home in Germany with his wife and children instead of occupying the Netherlands. It's not like he had much of a choice though.

My grandfather's dad (other side) had to work in Germany during the war. He sure as hell couldn't "just visit his family" and there was no realistic option to say no.

And then you have things like Anne Frank hiding in a bloody broomcloset for years. But the above are just two examples of "regular" folk who were not especially persecuted (or indeed, even the occupier).

Good heavens, this has got to be the most ignorant comment I've ever seen on HN. Please, study the daily lives of people in countries occupied by Nazi Germany and you'll find that any comparison to current events is absolutely ridiculous.

I was referring to non deployed persons, obviously.
My great-grandfather wasn't deployed. Anne Frank wasn't deployed. They were just regular citizens.
I think you are confused, I stated the last time any restrictions even remotely similar to this applied was then. But that despite those imposition on freedoms most people in say paris could go visit their parents etc. Which they cannot right now.

You seem to be acting like i'm saying this is worse when i clearly did not