Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really want to know, feel free to reach out to me in private. See my profile. Twitter preferred.
What if I just 'kinda' want to know, for instance, in a comment thread?
[deleted]
Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
451–460 of 484 posts
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
your going to have to clarify, there is no consensus to be found in your link: * The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue * Deluded or fake awareness. * When you look at the simplest thing and call it racist because you want black people to be victims. Other minorities don't matter. - a black conservative * "Wokeness" occurs when a white, upper-class person pretends to hold opini…
You're wrong, there is a very strong consensus. The first few entries are highly up voted. Take the first 2 as a basic definition or idea of the concept and the 3rd one as an example.
am I? I don't think they are the same at all. I would take all the top" entires as entirely different on face value so what are you extrapolating from them that is similar?
can you please concisely describe "woke" for us as it seems I am not the only one who is confused as to the meaning.
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really want to know, feel free to reach out to me in private. See my profile. Twitter preferred.
What if I just 'kinda' want to know, for instance, in a comment thread?
Then I'll be brief.
Check out this thread to get an idea: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1465863939825221632
Check out Col Lawrence Wilkerson at the Ron Paul Institute, mark 22:20, on one of the reasons why the US was in Afghanistan (which borders Xinjiang): https://youtu.be/91wz5syVNZs?t=22m20s
Check out Max Blumenthal, investigative journalist, on the quality of evidence surrounding Xinjiang: https://youtu.be/qZkxaEC1xjY
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're wrong, there is a very strong consensus. The first few entries are highly up voted. Take the first 2 as a basic definition or idea of the concept and the 3rd one as an example.
am I? I don't think they are the same at all. I would take all the top" entires as entirely different on face value so what are you extrapolating from them that is similar? can you please concisely describe "woke" for us as it seems I am not the only one who is confused as to the meaning.
woke:
- Deluded or fake awareness.
- The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation of African Americans nowadays is nowhere near comparable. The issue are the “jail looking” camps which are officially “education centers”. Forced labour happens there, which is basically slavery. Western companies don’t want to be associated with slavery. It’s hard enough when people are paid almost nothing, but here they are literally not paid and obliged to work. The living conditions of people in the…
When these allegations first appeared, I waited cautiously for evidence. Maybe something happened around me that I didn't know? When the BBC interviewed Xinjiang but failed to find evidence, and then only used video filters to render fear, I questioned the authenticity of these allegations. Later, the "evidence" displayed by the Western media had a lot of traces of forgery. After that, I didn't believe these allegati…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Do you believe this whole article is "Wester media propaganda"?
In my opinion the entire world is responsible for these atrocities, not only China.
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if I just 'kinda' want to know, for instance, in a comment thread?
Then I'll be brief. Check out this thread to get an idea: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1465863939825221632 Check out Col Lawrence Wilkerson at the Ron Paul Institute, mark 22:20, on one of the reasons why the US was in Afghanistan (which borders Xinjiang): https://youtu.be/91wz5syVNZs?t=22m20s Check out Max Blumenthal, investigative journalist, on the quality of evidence surrounding Xinjiang: https://yout…
You really must be quite westernized if you can't talk about China anymore without using the US as a reference point, and have to rely on Westerners spreading lies about China in service of their own agenda to speak for you.
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I'll be brief. Check out this thread to get an idea: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1465863939825221632 Check out Col Lawrence Wilkerson at the Ron Paul Institute, mark 22:20, on one of the reasons why the US was in Afghanistan (which borders Xinjiang): https://youtu.be/91wz5syVNZs?t=22m20s Check out Max Blumenthal, investigative journalist, on the quality of evidence surrounding Xinjiang: https://yout…
You really must be quite westernized if you can't talk about China anymore without using the US as a reference point, and have to rely on Westerners spreading lies about China in service of their own agenda to speak for you.
Well done, you completely ignored the actual argument in order to resort to ad hominem, while ignoring the fact that the first source doesn't use the US as the major comparison point, while also making evidence-free statements such as "westerners spreading lies". Exactly as I would expect from you.
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really must be quite westernized if you can't talk about China anymore without using the US as a reference point, and have to rely on Westerners spreading lies about China in service of their own agenda to speak for you.
Well done, you completely ignored the actual argument in order to resort to ad hominem, while ignoring the fact that the first source doesn't use the US as the major comparison point, while also making evidence-free statements such as "westerners spreading lies". Exactly as I would expect from you.
> first source doesn't use the US as the major comparison point,
"The typical American answer to problems: bombs and bullets." https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/146586396718...
"China went a different path. They didn't fire a single bullet or threw a single bomb, instead they used books and jobs." https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/146586397002...
Which is a lie, carelessly slandering the policemen who valiantly risked their lives in the fight against terrorism.
新疆打掉一境外直接指挥的暴恐团伙 1人投降28人被歼 http://xjfy.chinacourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2015/11/id/4667...
natded put it very well 13 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29527720
Most of the online discussion centered around China is just US domestic political projection using an imaginary China as a mirror, or as a counterfactual which doesn't exist, and then there's the obvious propaganda too.
RnaudBertrand seems to be using China only as an imaginary counterexample to the US invasion of Afghanistan.
If you were just an average Westerner, mistaking that Twitter thread for an informed perspective would be an understandable mistake, buy I think you should be able to do better.
> Exactly as I would expect from you.
Interesting, I didn't think you'd even recognize my username.
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well done, you completely ignored the actual argument in order to resort to ad hominem, while ignoring the fact that the first source doesn't use the US as the major comparison point, while also making evidence-free statements such as "westerners spreading lies". Exactly as I would expect from you.
> first source doesn't use the US as the major comparison point, "The typical American answer to problems: bombs and bullets." https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/146586396718... "China went a different path. They didn't fire a single bullet or threw a single bomb, instead they used books and jobs." https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/146586397002... Which is a lie, carelessly slandering the p…
> Interesting, I didn't think you'd even recognize my username.
You are right here, in my haste I recognized you for someone else who has been attacking me a lot lately. I apologize.
> The typical American answer to problems: bombs and bullets.
The US is a secondary supporting point, not the main point, which is Afghanistan and its terrorism problem.
> Which is a lie, carelessly slandering the policemen who valiantly risked their lives in the fight against terrorism.
This is an oversimplification rather than a lie. In the context of that tweet, what was referred to was:
1. Sending your military to foreign territory to kill the source of radicalization there.
2. The scale of the effort.
While there have definitely been fighting in Xinjiang, it cannot be compared to the likes of the War on Terror. The former's violance was at least constrained to people who shoot back, while the latter involved the killing pf many innocent people.
While you criticize the comparison with the US here, to completely take the US out of the picture in a description about Xinjiang would not be fair. For one, the US is a contributing factor in the creation of the terrorism problem in Xinjiang. Second, when one talks about counter-terrorism efforts, it only makes sense to compare the pros and cons of different approaches that have already tried. After all, it is a hard problem in which hard choices have to be made; nobody has succeeded in an approach which is completely free of violance or any kind of coercion.
I suppose you could also compare to France, but I don't think it would make sense to skip over the most high-profile example.
Re: Intel apologises in China over Xinjiang supplier statement
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “Broad Daylight” is an academic research, which necessarily cites related work or previous work, including of Zenz. This is how academic research works. Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible. If people are against Zenz, please judge the “Broad Daylight” report by ignoring all reference to and evidence provided by Zenz. If you find specific flaws with “Broad Daylight”, please list…
>Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible. Broad Daylight presumes Zenz conclusion of coerced labour as basis for rest of supply chain analysis. It can only be judged in that context, which makes it, and any research that use Zenz as starting point, less credible.>Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible. On par =/= equal. HKFP better than epochetimes, but…
> any research that use Zenz as starting point...
A research could be inspired by Zenz, then went on to find independent evidence supporting the same conclusion (forced labor in Xinjiang).
Getting inspired by Zenz does not make subsequent research less credible.
You need to list specific flaws in the Broad Daylight report to discredit it.
> On par =/= equal. HKFP better than epochetimes, but not by much...
With the Reuters reporting [1] linked above which reports the same as HKFP, diverting the discussion on HKFP is a straw man.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-xinjiang-hugo-boss-idI... "Chinese celebs, netizens slam 'two-faced' Hugo Boss over Xinjiang"
> The bias of Bitterwinter/HKFP is presuming PRC branches are going off script when acting "two faced" that gets "disavowed" by HQ...
The fact that the Chinese branch can go rogue against the global headquarter has been reported multiple times.
For an example in tech, see Arm China [2], where the damage to the headquarter is much larger than Hugo Boss or BCI.
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329731 "Arm China Has Gone Rogue"