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

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#161

Post by deltaonefour »

logicchains wrote: post #125
deltaonefour wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

>Fail. What motivated them was actual slaughter. The uhygers conducted a terrorist attack that killed many people. Think 9/11 but it happened in china so your biased mind is unable to comprehend how bad it is because it didn't happen in your backyard. So it's okay to jail and sterilise innocent people for the actions of a small number of people of the same ethnicity? Anyone who believes that is a truly horrible perso…

Did I say it's ok? No.

Why don't you read the post. Before saying I'm advocating something I'm not.

Basically Every American once thought it was 100 percent correct to send soldiers to the middle east. That sentiment will occur again if another terrorist attack happens on American soil.

You're to young and niave to remember. Military recruiting was up during that time. The entire american attitude and sentiment changed overnight.

If you fail to understand this sentiment and youre only able to understand the world from a singular perspective. Then you're basically very biased or just really young.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#162

Post by deltaonefour »

logicchains wrote: post #127
deltaonefour wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they didn't. What's your point? I never said what the Chinese did is justified. My point is that emotions that launched the sterilization campaign is equivalent to the state of the US during 9/11. This doesn't justify genocide or actual war or does it? The US, on the other hand, thought sending soldiers to another country to kill more people was justified. China isnt doing that. But that's besides the point. The p…

>My point is that emotions that launched the sterilization campaign is equivalent to the state of the US during 9/11. This doesn't justify genocide or actual war or does it? The US, on the other hand, thought sending soldiers to another country to kill more people was justified. China isnt doing that. Were American university students overseas protesting at any criticism of the Iraq war? No; if anything US university…

This was before the Iraq war. 9/11 spawned a war in Afghanistan. Sentiment towards the war was extremely positive. So positive that military recruitment was up. Not one university protested military action. It was promoted.

You don't understand the sentiment and the attitude of a population once a massive foreign attack happens on home soil. It started a war and changed airport policy forever.

The Chinese response is equivalent to the American response in terms of scale. I would argue that the American response had much more negative repercussions and unlike the Chinese response... Failed to do anything about terrorism.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#163

Post by deltaonefour »

the_only_law wrote: post #143
deltaonefour wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Or china in response to a terrorist massacre, wages a campaign to assimilate, brainwash and sterilize an entire culture without any intention to start an actual military war. Which results in detainment and people losing their freedoms all in the name of preventing terrorism. It's hard to attract sympathy towards your argument when you straight up admit that sterilization of an entire culture is going on, which yes…

Attracting sympathy is the wrong word. Understanding is a better word. Understanding the psychology of why sterilization and genocide takes place.

To you it seems horrid. But to a chinese person the perspective is completely opposite. Why? This failure to understand leads to brain dead responses.

I use the war in afghanstan and 9/11 for comparison because Americans actively promoted and encouraged mass slaughter during that time by sending soldiers to another country. What causes Americans to embrace actual slaughter? What is the psychology behind it? It is the same psychology that pushes the chinese to do the "re-educate" the uhgyrs. The difference is, no actual "slaughter" is happening on the Chinese side.

I don't support the chinese response. But when I see people comparing the chinese students attitude to "white supremacy" and not even have a shred of understanding of why the uyghur were booed it shows how stupid a lot of people are.

Chinese people were slaughtered in a terrorist attack. People were killed. That's why the uyghur got booed. The situation isn't so black and white. The university has the right attitude. The OP to my original response has a narrow attitude, an uncompromising view that shows lack of knowledge.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#164

Post by deltaonefour »

logicchains wrote: post #126
deltaonefour wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the US sent soldiers to another country to slaughter more people after 9/11. Which is better? Re-education or more slaughter? Also what does the UK have to do with this? I'm comparing china to the us. Cornell is in the US.

> But the US sent soldiers to another country to slaughter more people after 9/11. Which is better? Re-education or more slaughter? Is the US doing this now? No it stopped, because so many Americans vigorously opposed it. How many Chinese people are speaking out against the genocide in Xinjiang?

You can't rewind your mind back to the time when 9/11 happened yesterday? I can. I was there.

Americans stopped because the event became more and more distant and forgotten.

Your attitude and your parents attitude and EVERYONES attitude at that time was one of mourning and burning desire for military action. The sentiment was universal and it will become universal again should another terrorist attack occur on american soil.

The chinese sentiment is the same, it makes sense given WHEN the attacks occured. It is fresh. If you can't understand why the uyghur was booed and instead choose to compare them to white supremacists then you're a person who's not very knowledgeable and lacks perspective. The universities attitude towards this situation is correct, it is complex and it is not fully evident how to proceed.

THe chinese booed the uhyger because in a sense from their perspective the uhyger is promoting slaughter and terrorism. From the uhygers perspective they are promoting cultural freedom and autonomy and protesting detainment.

The american perspective is one of rivalry against China. China is quickly coming into power so they are a rival. It is easier to pick a one sided, stupid and bigotted viewpoint that justifies the rivalry then it is to pick the complex viewpoint where justification of the rivalry is no longer clear.

I can easily say your post promotes terrorism and domestic acts of killing and terrorist attacks. It's the same as what a lot of people are doing to me. They're saying shit like "You're basically saying mass sterilization is ok" and putting words into my mouth trying to classify which "team" I'm on. But if I did the same as them and called you a terrorist promoter that would be naive and one sided and simple minded.

My post simply advocates that people stop doing that. View the story for what it truly is, a highly highly complex story of opposing intentions where the morality is not so clear.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#165

Post by kmonsen »

colordrops wrote: post #145
mariusor wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

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 feel that is a really bad example. I was an adult at the time and it was really clear back at the time that the Iraqi wmd was made up allegations, or at least the evidence we got to see was not worth anything.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#166

Post by femiagbabiaka »

RhysU wrote: post #117
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of Am…

> the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.

If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this.

And as for shibboleth:

> The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#167

Post by zaptrem »

dvt wrote: post #54
zaptrem wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a current senior at Cornell and I'm conflicted. > On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval." I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions…

> absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses I have no love for communists (having been born in the Eastern Bloc), but that's not how free speech works. Either you're for it (and all the icky stuff that comes with it) or you're against it. There's no "splitting the difference" here. We've debated and litigated this since the Enlightenment (from J.S. Mill to Skokie, IL…

By rebuked I don't mean actual disciplinary consequences. Instead, the university should (verbally/textually) condemn speech in favor of human rights abuse.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#168

Post by gamblor956 »

throwrecession wrote: post #157

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 organization…

Conservative students have been doing this for a while now without much, if any, notice or sanction. Hell, they've been doing this on the UC Berkeley campus since I was a student and the Daily Cal doesn't even bother cover their protests anymore because it's the same old victimhood shtick conservatives have been playing at for decades.

(But note that that the seniormost U.S. GOP senator is married to a CCP senior official and ask yourself which party is in bed with the Chinese government.)

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#169

Post by the_biot »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #100
systemvoltage wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in the US: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Emphasis mine. There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It…

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of Am…

It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.

Re: Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

#170

Post by femiagbabiaka »

the_biot wrote: post #169
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of Am…

It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.

What? The interpretation of the document by the highest court in the land changes according to the political affiliation of whoever happens to be on the court at the time. The very fact that it has to be interpreted means subjectivity is there from the beginning.
Post reply on HN