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

81–90 of 129 posts

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

#81

Post by FredPret »

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?

China is a dictatorship. If civilizational collapse or not depends on the mood of the Pooh Bear, we’re fucked.

Luckily, it does not. Manufacturing is already shifting out of China to multiple other countries, and with increasing automation, might even end up back in the West.

We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway:

- limit emissions as much as possible using nuclear and solar

- scrape carbon et al out of the atmosphere somehow

- take a certain amount of warming on the chin and roll with it… again, somehow

Luckily, our species is incredibly resourceful at coming up with hail-mary’s when our lives are on the line (past examples are global trade, fertilizers, vaccines, WW2)

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

#82

Post by codechicago277 »

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?

I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc. overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs.

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

#83

Post by flerovium »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #72
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...

As someone who manages social media accounts, liking a post can happen without much thought.

Marriot could simply have unliked the post. The firing was symbolic and game theoretic.

The point is that now everyone who speaks in the public sphere will need to know, China cares about X, Y, Z. It's about brainshare.

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

#84

Post by ethagknight »

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…

Right direction but still not accurate correct: most Marriott "properties" are just Marriott-licensed not even managed. Marriott sets the standards for operation and provides access to its booking system, corporate accounts, rewards system, and some marketing. The actual business operation is a lot smaller than most people outside of hospitality realize.

According to a recent SEC filing, they own 20 properties internationally, lease another ~40. They manage 2,149, and franchise 5,493.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001048286/0...

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

#85

Post by codechicago277 »

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…

It doesn’t matter. By licensing its name Marriott is taking responsibility for everything these hotels do, along with the risks associated with that. This kind of event was foreseeable, and the corporation completely failed to avoid the situation by providing training on these sensitive issues ahead of time. I don’t see any reason to cut them slack given how suppressed the Uyghur genocide has been by corporations in general out of fear of China, and allowing Marriott to deflect responsibility by blaming everything on local management is exactly what they would want.

Also note that their apology doesn’t explicitly condemn the hotel’s behavior, it just says that they’re providing training. Definitely riding the fence.

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

#86

Post by gruez »

jbirer wrote: post #78

Pragmatically, this is bad PR for Marriott. It gives an opening to get "cancelled" and smeared over this, as the Uyghur problem is very hot right now.

I've heard of individuals successfully getting "cancelled", but a multinational company? I doubt it.

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

#88

Post by fithisux »

rib3ye wrote: post #30
killjoywashere wrote: post #16

"Only Nixon could open China". Yes, let's send pallets of cash to a communist country in exchange for plastic toys and other end-manufactured goods. This was exploitation of global inequality was only ever going to help the billionaires.

Amazing how quickly people forgot about the existence of the Cold War.

the cureent pandemic does not allow me to forget. It is for real and it gets worse like cancer that is not treated.

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

#89

Post by qwertyuiop_ »

I mentioned this on the other thread yesterday. This is slow and steady retreat in the face of ever growing threat from a totalitarian regime that is hell bent on world domination. People in the country boycott brands and protest at the drop of a pin but I’m yet to see a concerted effort by peopleto show the brands that this is not okay.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29273640

Post reply on HN