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

111–120 of 129 posts

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

#111

Post by FredPret »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #99
FredPret wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 carbo…

> 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. I'm nearly certain that it's not moving out of China into significantly greener countries, and certainly not at a rate that allows us to meet climate targets. > We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway: Yes, we will have to do…

Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands.

If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we ask them nicely not to pollute. We tell them to stop polluting or we pull a boycott, divest, and sanctions on them.

WW2 was a last resort to stop a very nearly unstoppable madman, but we pulled together and we did it. The insane tradeoffs made was only needed because it was during wartime. Pressuring China need not lead to WW3 (perish the thought) nor need it involve death on a large scale. What’s needed is an intelligent 5-10 decade economic strategy. We did this to scuttle the USSR and it worked, with minimal total deaths.

Regarding the Uyghurs: a million-person concetration camp isn’t about “saving face”. Human civilization isn’t worth saving if we just let this slide because it’s easy and convenient to do so.

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

#112

Post by mikem170 »

qwertyuiop_ wrote: post #89

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

> hell bent on world domination

Is there any evidence for this?

I hear it often enough. We used to say that about Russia, but when the cold war was over and everyone got to look at the historical documents it turns out that they were terrified of the U.S., more so than the other way around, and not as much of a threat as we made them out to be.

Historically China has not been as adventurous as Europeans in this regard, although of course they have exerted a lot of influence in their region before the Europeans dominated them, and later the Japanese. They are dominating minorities in Tibet and the Uyghars, similar to how we've screwed native americans and black folks. It seems like they have been expanding their influence in Africa lately.

Or maybe I don't follow what is meant by domination here. Maybe you mean the way the U.S. dominates the worlds oceans and trade?

I assume that China wants to get out from under that, along with a number of other countries. Nobody likes being dominated by others. I assume they, and others, have been saying the same about us.

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

#113

Post by throwaway894345 »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #107
throwaway894345 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I guess in my mind it’s worth finding face-saving means to alleviate Uyghur suffering in order to save humanity as we know it. But again I ask: what is your solution?

Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore. It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur.

> Plug the leaking holes in the boat and worry about getting the sail replaced when you get to shore.

This is meaninglessly abstract. Anyone can offer trite platitudes. Concretely, how do we meet climate targets by the end of the century without China's participation? What additional burden does that put on the rest of the world, and how are we going to meet that when no one is on track to meet their current obligations?

> It's certainly easy to brush it off if you're not a murdered Uyghur.

1. No one is brushing anything off.

2. What's the Uyghur death toll, approximately?

3. I can similarly imply that you're being too cavalier about the people who will die of starvation, disease, and poverty, but I don't think these sorts of ad hominem are very productive.

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

#114

Post by throwaway894345 »

FredPret wrote: post #111
throwaway894345 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm nearly certain that it's not moving out of China into significantly greener countries, and certainly not at a rate that allows us to meet climate targets. > We’ll almost certainly have to do a combo of the following anyway: Yes, we will have to do…

Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands. If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we as…

> Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands. If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we ask them nicely not to pollute. We tell them to stop polluting or we pull a boycott, divest, and sanctions on them.

Maybe given enough time, but there's no way this is happening fast enough to meet climate targets.

> The insane tradeoffs made was only needed because it was during wartime.

This is cyclical reasoning. "We only needed to resort to warfare because we were in a war". Typically we justify warfare by something like, "if we didn't go to war, many more lives would have been lost". And if you can firebomb and nuke entire cities to save millions, can we not withhold a rebuke on Uyghurs to save hundreds of millions?

> Pressuring China need not lead to WW3 (perish the thought) nor need it involve death on a large scale.

If we can pressure China on Uyghurs without risking climate, then great. I'm not confident considering the tenuous relationship between China and the West.

> What’s needed is an intelligent 5-10 decade economic strategy. We did this to scuttle the USSR and it worked, with minimal total deaths.

We had a functional government and a more politically united population in the second half of the 20th century. Today we have one party that largely thinks climate change is a hoax and the other does little more than lip service.

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

#115

Post by paxys »

criddell wrote: post #45
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…

I understand how China is an important growth market for the NBA, but I don't think the NBA would be crushed in the US without China.

Crushed is a relative term of course, but in the last 10-15 years the value of many NBA franchises has gone up 10x due to rise in international viewers, mostly coming out of China. This is something other leagues (most prominently NFL) have not been able to replicate.

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

#116

Post by throw38473 »

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…

There are lots of people afraid to say what's on their minds for fear of getting cancelled.

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

#117

Post by FredPret »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #114
FredPret wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands. If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we as…

> Any manufacturing moving out of China is a good thing, even if it isn’t to a green country. If Vietnam, Phillipines, et al, then those are countries that can be strong-armed / sweet-talked into getting greener. If the West, well, then it’s even more in our hands. If we take this far enough, and we will, it also takes power out of China’s hands, meaning we don’t really need them to have the warm and fuzzies when we…

I disagree with you on the Uyghurs but I think there should be more thinking people in politics. You should go into it.

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

#118

Post by dirtyid »

mikem170 wrote: post #108
dirtyid wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process for detaining the Michaels was legal as well. Every nation has authority to round up spies. Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past. >Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very o…

Also I'm sure that crimes committed by billionaires are selectively prosecuted. This one one seems particularly political, given her crime was trading with Iran against U.S. law. Funny that she is not a U.S. citizen, though. I wonder how would the U.S. feel if China arrested a U.S billionaire in a third-party country because they broke a Chinese law. File this under "might makes right", I guess.

Yeah typically companies get prosecuted for evading Iranian sanctions, rarely individuals, and rarely politically significant individuals. The additional layer of context is DoD started the China Initiative month before which explicitly called for extradition of Chinese nationals for tech espionage. As far as I'm aware, it's the first time US drafted policy to specifically target one country over something general like industrial espionage. So it would be like China getting a third party to arrest a US national under a nacent PRC's Extradite American Act. Then said third party pretend US should totally be OK with them executing PRC foreign policy because it was "legal". The main stream Canadia interpretation of Meng/Michaels drama has been utterly detached from geopolitical reality.

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

#119

Post by criddell »

tata71 wrote: post #66
criddell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are new calls to boycott because of Peng Shuai's disappearance. It seems so strange to me that this is such a mystery. Can't reporters go to her home and ring the bell?

Think about what country they'd be doing this in.

If the government isn't lying, then there's no reason for any reporter to be worried, right? Is the fact that no reporter is doing this essentially proof that the government is lying?

Set aside the reporter question - surely she has some colleagues, friends, and family for whom it would not be unexpected for them to stop by?

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

#120

Post by mleonhard »

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…

You're putting responsibility on individuals to enforce ethical behavior. This has two problems:

1. People don't have enough motivation, knowledge, and free time to find and keep track of which companies behave ethically. Also, people are generally selfish and will buy from unethical companies if it saves them money or time. (I did this yesterday.)

2. Liars deceive large groups of people and escape punishment or cause wrong punishment of a competitor.

In a modern society, we need people with specialized skills to do the work of holding companies accountable. We should train them, pay them, and hold them accountable for how they do their jobs. USA has a law forbidding US people from paying bribes to anyone anywhere in the world. The FBI enforces this law.

How about adding a law forbidding US people from discriminating in business based on political or religious affiliation? I think we don't have this because a lot of US people wish to run their businesses with bigotry. See the gay wedding cake controversy [0].

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162

Post reply on HN