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

Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#71

Post by jaywalk »

poszlem wrote: post #25
jaywalk wrote: post #14

I wonder how long it took to come up with the phrase "political neutrality" to explain this, seeing as it's literally the exact opposite of that. To be fair to Marriott, they are saying it was a local hotel management decision and not a corporate decision, and that their corporate policies would not have restricted this conference. Remember, Marriott doesn't actually own or control (the vast majority of) hotels with…

I have no idea why you are being downvoted, since political neutrality for a hotel should mean - we host everybody no matter their politics. They are doing the opposite of what they claimed to be doing.

I can only imagine that it was the second part of my comment that people take issue with. It's completely conceivable that local hotel management made the decision on their own with no input from Marriott, so I think that should absolutely be called out.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#72

Post by bellyfullofbac »

flerovium wrote: post #65

> Also in 2018, Marriott fired a U.S.-based employee who used a company Twitter account to like a post by a pro-Tibet group. This is far more significant than the headline.

Feels like misuse of the company Twitter account (i.e. the official voice of that company on Twitter) for liking anything it shouldn't be liking is firable. "Why is Marriot liking Kanye's tweet?", "Why is Marriot liking someone talking about Joe Biden's infrastructure bill?". "Why is Marriot liking a pro-BLM tweet?" - although that last one would lead to so much pushback...

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#73

Post by [deleted] »

323 wrote: post #4

More evidence that China's arm reaches quite far, including inside the West. Because China is willing to play dirty. If they hosted it, they would see Marriot executives arrested for "corruption", or Marriot hotels closed for "environmental damage" or similar things, like how they arrested two innocent Canadians as retaliation for the Canadian arrest of the Huawei executive. This is why Nike, NBA, Hollywood, ... bow…

[deleted]

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#75

Post by artificialLimbs »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #50
anoonmoose wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I to understand that you think we need to turn a blind eye to the bad things that China is doing to their own people so that we have a chance of convincing them to stop doing bad things to the rest of the world?

Not quite. The idea is that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization as we know it. As bad as China's human rights abuses are, they pale in comparison to its climate abuses. If you have ideas for compelling China to reduce its emissions to meet targets while also holding them accountable for their various other violations, I'm all ears.

>> they pale in comparison to its climate abuses

Ah yes, the old "murdering a few people now is less of a problem than potentially murdering more people down the road" argument.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#76

Post by Aunche »

enriquto wrote: post #22
julianlam wrote: post #3

Marriott decided to avoid poking the bear by stepping on the proverbial mouse. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense, but moralistically, it does not. It is very disappointing that even I, as an Asian individual living in Canada, am disincentivized from expressing even my own opinion on China and HK/Taiwan, etc. due to the perceived threat of "consequences" from a government whose reach I cannot easily…

> From a business perspective And that is our fault, to a great extent. By "we", here I mean citizens of western countries that put up with this bullshit. When one of "our" companies engages in this shameful authoritarian appeasement we should boycott them to oblivion. If we fail to do so, we are enabling this behavior. There's not much that we can do about human rights abuses in other countries. But there's a lot th…

Westerners have this outdated view that they have enough economic leverage to pressure China into doing what they want. Hollywood, the NBA, and Marriott actually have negative leverage over China because they are American exports that the CCP doesn't particularly care about. They would much rather their population consume Chinese media and stay in Chinese hotels anyways, so they're more than happy to find an excuse to kick them out. Pressuring these companies to take a stand about China and get kicked out will not only do absolutely nothing in helping the Uyghurs, it will hurt our domestic economy and help theirs.

Nike and Apple do have some leverage that the government can work with. However, American imports tend to be intermediary goods, so doing so would mutually damage both sides. We barely have enough on the table to negotiate trade, so no politician is going to enter a war of attrition for humanitarian reasons, especially if it's one that they have been preparing for, and we have not.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#77

Post by hugh-avherald »

meragrin_ wrote: post #37
ncallaway wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's just as much evidence in the article that it was Marriott as a whole refusing. The original rejection email specifically said: "We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management" > "Thank you very much for your visit today. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that we are not able to offer the premises. We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management. For reasons of political neutrality,…

Was that hotel franchised or owned by Marriott? If it was franchised, the "corporate management" is obviously not Marriott.

My read of that quote is that even if it's a franchised hotel, the franchisee had been told by Marriott Hotels & Resorts, not that it had consulted internally. It does not make much sense for a single hotel to be so worried about wider damage to the brand.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#79

Post by binaryblitz »

ethbr0 wrote: post #47
simonh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The management of this Marriot Hotel did yes, but it's encouraging that Marriot's corporate management immediately overruled the Hotel on this and apologised to the group. Marriot do have a spotty history on such issues, but I think we should commend them when they attempt to do the right thing. Yes this shouldn't have happened in the first place, but given that it did they do seem to be doing their best to make it r…

Side note for those who don't know: most Marriott properties are Marriott- managed , not Marriott- owned . It usually doesn't matter, but on policy questions there can sometimes be some friction between owner preferences & Marriott corporate preferences. Usually this is over things like "Your food and service isn't up to Marriott quality, because you're under investing." But I imagine politics is also a sensitive poi…

This is actually true for a lot of hotel brands. It's more of a franchise situation.

Re: Marriott refused to host Uyghur conference, citing “political neutrality”

#80

Post by betwixthewires »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #57
FredPret wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would work about as well as appeasing the Nazis did

Here are a couple of not-rhetorical questions for you: * Which is worse in your mind? China's treatment of the Uyghurs or global civilizational collapse? * Does holding China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs increase or decrease the likelihood that China will cooperate on climate?

Not who you're asking but I feel like answering on my own behalf.

1) the treatment of the Uyghurs, hands down. Sometimes standing on your principles is what you have to do. Justice be done though the heavens may fall.

2) neither. China will do nothing that makes it harder for them to become the dominant economic, social and military force on earth. If burning coal gets them there that's what they'll do, and if lip service buys them time that's what they'll do.

In case you haven't noticed, nobody is holding their feet to the fire on climate change. Turning a blind eye to genocide is not about climate change, it is about access to the lucrative Chinese middle class.

Post reply on HN