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

The China Cultural Clash

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 379 posts

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#271

Post by Merrill »

gurumeditations wrote: post #258
Merrill wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free trade works so long as you are the economic hegemon. After the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was the strongest economic power and championed free trade until the 1870s. Then German and French manufacturing, US and Argentinian agriculture competed favorably with British manufacturers and landowners and free trade was not so popular in the run up to WW I. Similarly, after WW II, the US was dominant and free trade serve…

If that were true, the US would treat Europe as even bigger an enemy than China.

The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with the EU was $109 billion in 2018. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $378.6 billion in 2018.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#272

Post by scrumper »

nnq wrote: post #252
scrumper wrote: post #27

> The internet is an amoral force that reduces friction, not an inevitable force for good. This is well said and something everyone in tech should remember. Unintended consequence is a law with teeth.

Why would you care about "good", a relative notion that means different things to different people, over reduction of friction , a clearly beneficial thing that accelerates technical and scientific progress? If we could only "dissolve" all those parts of society and culture that are mostly pure friction, and spin the wheels 100x faster to the future...

So... I can't say "good" but you can say "beneficial."

Reduction of friction is not clearly beneficial! That's exactly the point. Superficially it appears to be, but it absolutely isn't the case. Reducing friction lets things happen faster. Both good things and bad things. And since the meaning of 'good' depends on where you sit, you can't claim that it's purely beneficial.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#273

Post by baq »

tpmx wrote: post #132
dmix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is still special in this context where free speech is really taken to heart and extends to not only dissent against the government but even vile extremely unpopular political opinions are protected ...which is something you don't always find in every western country. For example, in Charlottesville 2017 [1] the local government tried to prevent Neo-nazis from using a park for a protest but ACLU sued the gov an…

I'd like to say you're wrong... but anti free speech legislation is growing like mad in Europe. :/ (Of course it's always under the guise of "harmony". F*ck, we're beginning to resemble the PRC.)

this is because free speech on the internet is a powerful tool and it is abused by non-european nation states to influence european voters. smart dictators understand this and firewalled themselves off ages ago, resulting in asymmetry of freedom of speech == capability to influence masses.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#274

Post by Sag0Sag0 »

Qub3d wrote: post #248
throwawy4trueth wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is quite simple: mind your own business. Let time and history to tell. China never send army or CIA to overthrow other countries. If the other side don't want to do the business that's fine. Westerner like to spread their values, often with force.

Given the name, age, and almost hilariously stereotypical grammatical errors, I can only assume you are at best a troll and at worst some sort of astroturfer or Chinese national. China has absolutely used state power to affect foreign states. Consider all the infrastructure projects funded by Chinese money in Africa[0] and consider what the ultimate motive is. [0]: https://qz.com/africa/1326618/china-is-building-expe…

One one hand you are right. On the other hand state sponsored infrastructure projects are far less dramatically wrong than state sponsored coups. And the US has initiated lots of coups over the years, much more than China.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#275

Post by allemagne »

mizzack wrote: post #238
juanjmanfredi wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want. In fact that is part of their freedom of speech. This is different from government-enforced silencing of speech, which is what is happening in China right now. I feel no cognitive dissonance, but maybe you can explain more why I should.

If you want to see that sort of cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy on display, just go a few threads over and state: > "Blizzard Entertainment is a private company and can deplatform whoever they want".

Is "cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy" really the only reason you can think of why someone might support deplatforming Alex Jones, and not the Blizzard streamers in this case?

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#276

Post by AnimalMuppet »

chillacy wrote: post #210
Loughla wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

counter-counterpoint: much right-winged content is associated with hate speech and violence. Further, many users of websites such as this are young and tend to skew more left of center, and therefore will gravitate toward that content anyway.

Something to think about: > “We are strongly dissatisfied and we oppose Silver’s claim to support Morey’s right of free expression. We believe that any speech that challenges national sovereignty and social stability is not within the scope of freedom of speech,” CCTV said in its statement in Chinese, which was translated by CNBC. Hate speech is off the table in the US because historically it's been used to stoke eth…

That is actually somewhat fair, but I wouldn't let it dampen my criticism of China.

That is: The (implied) claim is that criticism could lead to the fall of the government of China (I wish!) or at least to social turmoil, in which a lot of people could die. Given China's history with respect to social turmoil, fearing a bunch of people dying in such circumstances is completely warranted. And thinking about the consequences of your words is never a bad idea.

But when I look at the way China is treating the Uighurs, "people might die in social turmoil" doesn't look like that much of a change from the status quo. In particular, it doesn't look like enough to keep me from saying the criticism of the Chinese government that seems so clearly warranted.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#277

Post by Sag0Sag0 »

chillacy wrote: post #201
UIZealot wrote: post #130

It helps to know a little bit about what's been going on in Hong Kong, before you all line up and take your daily dump on China. It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the regi…

This picture you're painting makes it sound like the protests are an overblown response to a minor grievance, like WW1 was an overblown response to the assassination of a minor archduke, without taking into account decades of cultural clashes and building tensions.

I think it's fair to say that WW1 was an overblown response. All the background tension doesn't in any way make WW1 justified. I imagine the poster you are responding to thinks the same thing.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#278

Post by rohit2412 »

bigpumpkin wrote: post #142
nostrademons wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you for a thought-provoking perspective, but I think you're wrong historically. Most totalitarian governments fail on the battlefield, or they fail when the charismatic leader dies and his heirs are not so charismatic. Think of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the empires that fell during WW1, the Axis powers in WW2, Libya post-Gaddafi, or Saddam Hussein. Totalitarianism seems to be an effective way to rapidly moder…

Genghis Khan was neither a totalitarian leader nor did he fail on battlefields.

Yeah, if they think Genghis Khan failed on battlefields, I don't know who succeeded.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#279

Post by confusedhnguy2 »

Loughla wrote: post #105
tiredwired wrote: post #77

World superpowers and associated people should not take tweets so seriously. People read too much meaning and emotion into throwaway comments.

That just waves away the fact that Twitter and other places like it on the internet are THE platforms for conversation and statements. It's seemingly a statement that assumes internet based communication is secondary to real-life communication. And that's just not the case in 2019.

> ... for conversation and statements.

Statements, yes. Conversations, no. It's just a bunch of echo chambers, when people occasionally come out of their favorite chamber they simply yell at each other with their ears covered.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#280

Post by barkxyz »

UIZealot wrote: post #165
throwaway1997 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you deliberately ignore any of the bad things the government did, and focus on the bad things the protestors did, that story is roughly accurate.

Please tell us all the bad things the government has done since the proposal of the extradition bill.

I can't tell you all but among them:

- Using the murder in Taiwan as a pretext to introduce the bill when it could easily have been handled ad hoc with Taiwan.

- Claiming it was a loophole left over by the British when it was very clearly by design.

- Initially refusing to suspend the bill in the face of huge opposition.

- Taking months to fully withdraw the bill and proudly ignoring the protestors.

- Blanket refusing an independent enquiry and unwaveringly supporting police no matter how brutal and unprofessional they've become.

- Seeking permission from Xi to withdraw the bill.

- Introducing an anti-mask law instead of attempting serious reform.

- Threatening internet lock downs instead of attempting serious reform.

- Not criticising the central government for threatening military violence and flagrantly manipulating coverage of HK on the mainland.

Those are just a few that stand out to me though I'm sure there are more I've missed.

Post reply on HN