131–140 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Xi Jinping and the CCP’s official goal is for the Chinese people and everyone else to have a common destiny. Interpret these how you wish, because they are interpreting these how they wish.
How does force sterilizing of Uighurs fit into a common destiny?
I'm not aware of any precedents to date, but a rigorous scientific record of this kind would be extremely valuable as a reference proof against future gaslighting and dubious arguments.
The process is already under way, anecdotally some normally outgoing folks (Hongkongers and involved) are reluctant to post this on social media or discuss it with you unless they trust the channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share your sentiment on this. Among all the big tech, Apple is the only one which has a significant foothold in China and can possibly have an impact. But they have failed to live upto the ideals they speak about when it comes to earning easy money. BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them. At least at one point Google stood up for its ideals and quit Search in PRC, which I highly respect. Wit…
> BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them. Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.
With that in mind, taking a clear moral stance against China's attack on democracy/human rights is far riskier than BLM branding, especially when you consider who is actually paying for Apple products.
This is crazy. First the Muslim concentration camps, now this. Why won't the Western world impose any serious sanctions against China? We have invaded others countries for less
>We have invaded others countries for less It's almost as if "democracy" wasn't the real reason for those invasions.
And the OP is cynical, it takes a lot for the US to mount a proper. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and post 9/11 Iraq part 2 + policing actions in Afghanistan are relatively big deals.
For the most part, there's no reason for the US and China to 'go to war'. What would they go to war over? The sheer physicality doesn't provide the opportunity.
Except for Taiwan - which China will go to great lengths to nab, and the US/West may or may not go to great lengths to defend. Even then I don't see war.
China will is not going to otherwise mount a military invasion of anything, it would be too costly. Their version of 'invasion' is called the 'Belt and Road' and it's ensuing corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember during Beijing Olympics, there were these "protest zones" that were created which theoretically should have allowed dissent in these areas. A pass based system was introduced to get access to these places. I remember people who applied for passes getting rounded up by the police. https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/08/13/china-police-detain-woul...
In 1956, the CPC "encouraged citizens to express openly their opinions of the communist regime" and then "after this brief period of liberalization, ... those who were critical of the regime and its ideology ... were rounded up in waves by the hundred of thousands, publicly criticized, and condemned to prison camps for re-education through labor, or even execution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campa…
This obviously doesn't change the fact that the CPC at the time, like the CPC of today, is a dictatorial organization that should never be supported. But the quotes in your post very much play into the "evil conspiracy" angle, and I think it's important to tell history in a way that reflects the actual power dynamics instead of cloak-and-dagger tales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "discrimination" they fear is no longer automatically being worshipped the second they step foot in a non-Western country, for being the richest guy in every room. In other words, what they actually fear is dropping from 99th percentile to 90th, and they think that possibility is worth starting World War III over. That attitude is typical, and precisely why people in China find the West so unconvincing.
> What they actually fear ... That's a baseless claim not related to the original comment. Why are you making things up and trying to derail productive discussion like this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What they actually fear ... That's a baseless claim not related to the original comment. Why are you making things up and trying to derail productive discussion like this?
Do you really think agitating for World War III was productive to start with? I pointed out rationally and straightforwardly where such extreme opinions come form.
I read the original comment as being against it but wondering if it's an inevitable outcome. That's a very reasonable thing to want to discuss - many of the respondents here (including myself) appear not to share the view that it's inevitable.
> I pointed out rationally and straightforwardly
You mean the part where you literally made things up about what the other party thought?
This is going to be very unpopular. History repeats itself. Just 30 years ago the Soviet Union was dissolved. If you study this dissolution process, you see that demonstrations and the ambition to sovereignty was nothing new in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but in comparison to the 50s, 60s and 70s, Gorbachev did not use military force to prevent countries from splitting off. If China lets HK go independent,…
But HKers aren't even asking for full independence. They want to retain the democracy and freedom they've had so far.
And the parallels with Soviet Union's collapse is debatable. At that point Soviet Union was on the brink of economic disaster, while China is at the height of their military and economic power.
This is crazy. First the Muslim concentration camps, now this. Why won't the Western world impose any serious sanctions against China? We have invaded others countries for less
We have never invaded any countries for purely human-rights oriented reasons. There is always a larger element of preservation of power structures and capture of wealth. But both of those reasons would also align with an intervention in China. The true answer to why we haven't intervened is both mundane and terrifying: China has nuclear weapons.
No it's not.
That China has nukes is not relevant because there's no impetus for the US to be 'invading' China whatsoever.
Other than of course a standoff in Korea 60 years ago, the US and China are not military adversaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share your sentiment on this. Among all the big tech, Apple is the only one which has a significant foothold in China and can possibly have an impact. But they have failed to live upto the ideals they speak about when it comes to earning easy money. BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them. At least at one point Google stood up for its ideals and quit Search in PRC, which I highly respect. Wit…
> BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them. Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.
A vocal segment might complaint on Apple, but where would they run to, Google's Android? Google is also pro BLM. All big tech are.