Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#81

Post by yorwba »

me_me_me wrote: post #78
powerapple wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the right attitude. People should be allowed to participate, and they can downvote whenever they see fit.

That's not participation, that's violating community protocols. Downvote is not used to show that you disagree but that the reply is low effort, inflammatory etc.

Flagging is for guideline-breaking content and a sufficient number of flags suppresses visibility except for people who have showdead on.

Whereas upvotes and downvotes control the sort order without silencing anyone, reflecting (albeit noisily) the overall community sentiment. Voting based on agreement is a perfectly valid way to use HN, and it seems to be what the majority is doing. (At least judging from the votes on my own comments, where I can see the count.)

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#82

Post by pas »

Arkaad wrote: post #53
causality0 wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Saudia Arabia also gets the red carpet treatment, so sadly I'm afraid the situation will not get solved thanks to worldwide outrage.

As long as local politics is so successfully muddied by national chauvinist bigots/populists there's not much chance of a coordinated foreign policy to try to do something about it.

Though the current US-EU sanctions on Xinjiang is quite an unexpected development. (Also might not really mean much.)

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#83

Post by pas »

kwere wrote: post #9
causality0 wrote: post #5

[flagged]

it depended on the political spectrum. Initially everybody thougth internaments were some kind of forced labour schemes not an extermination plan (Europe still had some conservative views on human rigths of non whites at the time)

Those conservative views are alas alive and well everywhere worldwide today.

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#84

Post by yorwba »

pas wrote: post #80
boomboomsubban wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very likely that economic sanctions will cause more harm to the Chinese than the harm done to the Uyghurs, and has a poor record of it's intended regime change. They are not a solution to a humanitarian crisis.

It's intention is not regime change. It's directly making slave labor unprofitable. Sure it's a whack-a-mole of sorts, but it at least makes things clear for everyone involved. So usually Joe Rando does not care when he is shopping, but at least he can't and doesn't fund more labor camps indirectly.

> It's directly making slave labor unprofitable.

That only works if sanctions apply to slave labor, but not to comparable non-slave-labor. Sanctions based on geographic region ("Made in China"/"Made in Xinjiang") ethnicity ("Made by Uyghurs") or product category (cotton) can't achieve that, because they don't apply differential pressure that allows non-enslaving businesses to outcompete enslaving ones (and then hire former slaves as free workers), they affect both equally.

To make differential pressure work, the first step is knowing who you're dealing with, which means having dedicated inspection teams working their way down supply chains to record labor conditions on the ground. Once you do have that information, highly targeted sanctions can be used to force change.

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#85

Post by me_me_me »

yumraj wrote: post #31
c0nducktr wrote: post #28

Anyone care to say what they believe should be done, or is this just another mad about things thread? Anyone have ideas? What is the solution?

[flagged]

> Cool, China just spent $1 on me or is it 10 cents. What’s the going rate?

With the current rampant nationalism in China - likely nothing. They created a self protecting system. Especially with introduction of the social credits.

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#86

Post by nuller »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #57
KlinkEastwood wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is war. It's really that simple. Do we want to bear that cost? Personally my answer is please God no, but that doesn't mean war isn't the only real option.

You must be joking as this kind of war would be WW3 and the end of life. We need to sanction the shit out of the people closest to the problem and get the UN out there to investigate.

[dead]

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#87

Post by curt15 »

KlinkEastwood wrote: post #46
c0nducktr wrote: post #28

Anyone care to say what they believe should be done, or is this just another mad about things thread? Anyone have ideas? What is the solution?

The answer is war. It's really that simple. Do we want to bear that cost? Personally my answer is please God no, but that doesn't mean war isn't the only real option.

When was the last time the US fought another nation with nuclear weapons?

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#88

Post by chinkycho »

blackrock wrote: post #73
Leary wrote: post #3

[flagged]

This is actually an interesting question. The western countries are accusing China of fake genocide here, such as suppressing the Uyghur culture, their language, their food, their clothing, even their haircuts. But yet, H&M is a western brand, that sells jeans and T-shirt, which are western style clothes. So, if the Uyghurs are buying and wearing H&M clothes, instead of traditional Uyghur clothes, then they are in ef…

Han Chinese reproduce like rabbits and CCP sends them to Tibet, Xinjiang to erase local culture. Those are the people who buy in H&M. Its irrelevant that there is one actress who is popular. If CCP wants it can disappear or put them in concentration camp. Its like saying you have a black friend and therefore not racist.

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#89

Post by pas »

yorwba wrote: post #84
pas wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's intention is not regime change. It's directly making slave labor unprofitable. Sure it's a whack-a-mole of sorts, but it at least makes things clear for everyone involved. So usually Joe Rando does not care when he is shopping, but at least he can't and doesn't fund more labor camps indirectly.

> It's directly making slave labor unprofitable. That only works if sanctions apply to slave labor, but not to comparable non-slave-labor. Sanctions based on geographic region ("Made in China"/"Made in Xinjiang") ethnicity ("Made by Uyghurs") or product category (cotton) can't achieve that, because they don't apply differential pressure that allows non-enslaving businesses to outcompete enslaving ones (and then hire…

Sorry, I wasn't detailed enough. Sanctions help other countries', so let's say the Vietnamese cotton producers.

> dedicated inspection teams

That would be a very welcome development in international labor/human rights.

Re: BBC: The cost of speaking up against China (Uyghurs)

#90

Post by boomboomsubban »

pas wrote: post #80
boomboomsubban wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very likely that economic sanctions will cause more harm to the Chinese than the harm done to the Uyghurs, and has a poor record of it's intended regime change. They are not a solution to a humanitarian crisis.

It's intention is not regime change. It's directly making slave labor unprofitable. Sure it's a whack-a-mole of sorts, but it at least makes things clear for everyone involved. So usually Joe Rando does not care when he is shopping, but at least he can't and doesn't fund more labor camps indirectly.

>It's directly making slave labor unprofitable.

At the cost of making a billion non-slave laborers also unprofitable. Sure, removing that billion from the labor pool may help other workers, but that's a huge sacrifice.

Post reply on HN