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

Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 198 posts

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#151

Post by colordrops »

wesleywt wrote: post #102
colordrops wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved…

Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

Not sure what your point is, but I'm not suggesting any law that forces private entities to allow free speech. I'm also expressing my own opinion on the matter in a social context, using social energy rather than legal means toward the person who is telling me to shut up, using my own social vote to influence what standards are acceptable in society. Not out of line with what you are saying at all.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#152

Post by colordrops »

mariusor wrote: post #148
colordrops wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.

I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.

Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, which is why the same story told by two different people can have vastly different tones. It's why we have laws to draw lines, and courts to get around the confusion about where those lines lie.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#153

Post by Gnob »

dirtyid wrote: post #69
fxtentacle wrote: post #49

I know this way of thinking is horrible, but let me play devil's advocate for a while: What if the CCP puts Uyghurs into prison simply because the majority of Chinese citizens want Uyghurs in prison? 1. That would explain the behavior in the article. 2. That would explain why studies report that people in China feel like a democracy. Their government works in the way that benefits the majority of its people, so for s…

It's a lot simpler than that. PRC's XJ security architecture is publically about counter terrorism and deradicalization through forced reeducation (with mass interment) and poverty alleviation. While forced sterilzation for women with 3+ kids is XJ catching up to family planning policies with rest of PRC. Years of consistent Uyghur terrorist attacks stopped in exchange for repressing minority consisting 0.02% of popu…

It's really as simple as, they can go back to China if they want to disrespect the hosting culture with no proof or evidence to support their claims, just taunt and probably mob or bully others who've been probably through horrors caused by the very good CCP, then play the victim card.

If the USA did something wrong doesn't mean you can do something less wrong than the USA and get away with it.

it's exactly like saying well, I should be able to kill someone and not go to prison because you know there are people who torture others before they kill them and they get away with it.

Also one should really keep a good will when speaking about the CCP because authoritarian regimes are usually very transparent and honest, not to mention that they care a lot when it comes to human rights.

"Foreign student enjoying western campus culture doesn't mean they also get brainwashed endorse western foreign policy instead of their domestic ones. Especially when the gap in perspective is so antithetical."

I think you don't have to be brainwashed, all you have to do is to respect and disagree without trying to intimidate others, maybe debate and bring evidence to support your claims, but trying to blindly intimidate someone who's been through hardships when they speak out is really the unethical part.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#154

Post by Gnob »

whimsicalism wrote: post #134
logicchains wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They don't mean for crimes they personally did not commit, but alleged "genocide" that the global political UN community majority states PRC did not commit. The "majority" of UN are poor countries on China's payroll; facts are not a matter of majority opinion. >And in fact the opposite position is true, to them PRC has found a relatively "humane" method of eliminating radical terrorism versus US bombing the shit out…

There is no annihilation of an ethnicity and Uyghur birth rates are still higher than Han.

Citation? besides CCP / China's govt sources please

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#155

Post by xdennis »

sumanthvepa wrote: post #108

As a Cornell alum from India , I’ve seen so many these sorts of political storms in a teacup. Especially, of the India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine variety. If you’re a foreign student, just don’t engage with this stuff. You are a guest in a foreign country. So even if you disagree with the views of your hosts, keep them to yourself and be polite and gracious. Your home country’s government is more than capable defe…

That is very non Western approach. Just because you're foreign doesn't mean you shouldn't engage in political discourse. It's wrong to bully the victims of China, but not to verbally defend China, as messed up as it is.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#156

Post by xdennis »

midasuni wrote: post #60
HexDecOctBin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP is saying that if some is criticising the Chinese government, it does not imply that they are being racist towards Chinese people. But these students try to muddy the waters by conflating the two issues.

Sounds like the “criticise Israel and you’re anti semetic” thing

Not really. When someone is very anti Israel, more often than not, if you dig a little deeper you find an antisemite.

But when people criticize China, they criticize the politics and you almost always find them praising Taiwan and Hong Kong, invalidating the idea that they're racist.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#157

Post by throwrecession »

What I find really interesting is that if these were conservative students that did the same (for any topic) the other students would have gone ballistic, the school sanctioned them, and every Twitter warrior under the sun blasted them to pieces, but due to some magical reason, none of this happens when it comes to China/CCP (this is not the first time)

Then people have the balls to claim that US liberal organizations don't bow down to China (or their money I guess)

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#158

Post by xdennis »

whimsicalism wrote: post #132
jp0d wrote: post #26

It feels like the history is repeating itself. The people of Nazi Germany probably thought they were doing the "right thing". These Chinese students have been brainwashed enough to believe everything their government says. Or may be even paid well enough to act like that!

Comparing what is happening in Xinjiang to the Holocaust is Holocaust trivialization. They are not engaging in the organized murder of 11 million people. Not even close. Wish these gross comparisons for obvious political reasons (because we feel a rivalry with China) would end.

GP did not mention the Holocaust. You did! He metioned the Nazis, and the Nazis did not start with the Holocaust. They started with smaller antisemitic policies and ended with the Holocaust.

China hasn't executed millions of Uyghurs yet, but there are no signs of them relaxing the persecutions so it could get a lot worse.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#159

Post by Gnob »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #110
effingwewt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I find myself as well. You are free to say things, you are not free of the consequences. I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things. Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit. edit- screw canc…

> Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as…

"Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that."

Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman?

afaik it had nothing to do with violence but more against having personal honour or pride and thinking of one's woman as him alone and having a sacred relationship with her that anyone insulting / degrading her is directly insulting the man, and that idea triggers the feminists to the moon and back I guess.

"even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another." Then what is a man supposed to do? go to court over an insult? be rude and start a shitshow of exchanging insults? take it and move on? wait for the other party to initiate the fight? or what?

I am not a westerner by any means, just curious.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#160

Post by mlyle »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #124
davorak wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either. wesleywt seems to be against this too since removing a legal right like that would require government action and they are againts that as seen in: > I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the governm…

> I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing. Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence. You can construct a case wher…

> Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence.

I think people are saying that:

- The university should repudiate their assertions with the university's words.

- The university should strongly seek to enforce its rules when there are harsher actions than a walkout, such as the vandalism coordinated by group chats.

> but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.

If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy".

I mean, you seem to be arguing that the government should somehow force (someone?) to give the super racist person a job so they're not "cancelled."

Post reply on HN