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

91–100 of 129 posts

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

#91

Post by throwaway894345 »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #75
throwaway894345 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. The idea is that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization as we know it. As bad as China's human rights abuses are, they pale in comparison to its climate abuses. If you have ideas for compelling China to reduce its emissions to meet targets while also holding them accountable for their various other violations, I'm all ears.

>> they pale in comparison to its climate abuses Ah yes, the old "murdering a few people now is less of a problem than potentially murdering more people down the road" argument.

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?

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

#92

Post by throwaway894345 »

anm89 wrote: post #62
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opinion: Due to Chinese human rights abuses AND the threats against American business, the US should not attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics In a vacuum, I fully agree with protesting China to the fullest extent; however, if scientists are to be believed, these things (human rights, trade, etc violations) trifle in comparison to the climate change threat, and China has all of humanity by the throat here. We need a…

Hey, pollution is bad, so let's just forget about every other issue affecting humanity.

Sometimes bad things vary in severity.

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

#93

Post by mikestew »

ncallaway wrote: post #32
djrogers wrote: post #18

Amazing how much hay can be made by dropping a single word: “A Marriott refused” vs “Marriott refused”. The text of the article makes it clear that there is no evidence that Marriott as a corporate entity had anything to do with this, ans a corporate spokesperson actually denied that this was policy and as much as said that the local hotel manager screwed up.

There's just as much evidence in the article that it was Marriott as a whole refusing. The original rejection email specifically said: "We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management" > "Thank you very much for your visit today. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that we are not able to offer the premises. We consulted the whole matter with our corporate management. For reasons of political neutrality,…

And not but two lines below what you quoted was corporate's response, which doesn't match what the local hotel was saying:

"The Marriott spokesperson clarified in a statement to Axios that hosting the conference would not have violated any "political neutrality" policy, and said the reference to 'corporate management' in the email referred to 'hotel-level management.'"

IOW, it sounds like the local hotel said to themselves, "it's late, and I don't need this shit right now. Tell them 'corporate' says we can't do it."

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

#94

Post by anoonmoose »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #50
anoonmoose wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I to understand that you think we need to turn a blind eye to the bad things that China is doing to their own people so that we have a chance of convincing them to stop doing bad things to the rest of the world?

Not quite. The idea is that climate change poses an existential threat to human civilization as we know it. As bad as China's human rights abuses are, they pale in comparison to its climate abuses. If you have ideas for compelling China to reduce its emissions to meet targets while also holding them accountable for their various other violations, I'm all ears.

I wanted to include this in my initial comment but it felt too flippant, but since you asked- I have always outright dismissed the idea of US military action against China for their local human rights abuses until you made me consider the possibility that their global human rights abuses were worse and that you couldn't simultaneously pressure them on both fronts. Congrats, you have made me at least 5% more nihilistic today.

(No, I do not think the US should go to war with China. But if you think that China's climate abuse is an existential threat to humankind surely it has to be considered as a possible solution).

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

#95

Post by beaunative »

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…

Marriot executives arrested for "corruption" Marriot hotels closed for "environmental damage"

The Chinese government don't actually do these things, they don't really need to, this sounds more like options for the American government.

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

#96

Post by beaunative »

totalZero wrote: post #90

Marriott has a lot of hotels in the third world, and Chinese diplomats and delegates pay money to stay with them. I find it unsurprising that Marriott chooses its business interests rather than taking a political stand.

that's capitalism.

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

#97

Post by defaultprimate »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #57
FredPret wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would work about as well as appeasing the Nazis did

Here are a couple of not-rhetorical questions for you: * Which is worse in your mind? China's treatment of the Uyghurs or global civilizational collapse? * Does holding China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs increase or decrease the likelihood that China will cooperate on climate?

>global civilizational collapse

This is not even a remote possibility, or indicated in the IPCC reports.

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

#98

Post by civilizationUp »

I don’t see any problem from Marriott. A business is smart to stay away from politics(like Elon Musk on abortion issue), especially when it is difficult to judge who is representing justice(both have bad reputation among certain group of people).

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

#99

Post by throwaway894345 »

FredPret wrote: post #81
throwaway894345 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a couple of not-rhetorical questions for you: * Which is worse in your mind? China's treatment of the Uyghurs or global civilizational collapse? * Does holding China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs increase or decrease the likelihood that China will cooperate on climate?

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 those things anyway, but we in the west aren't even on track to hit targets that are based on the assumption that China and others will do some reasonable share. Unless the west kicks it into gear, we need China.

> Luckily, our species is incredibly resourceful at coming up with hail-mary’s when our lives are on the line (past examples are global trade, fertilizers, vaccines, WW2)

No, our civilization is incredibly resourceful. We've never had an advanced civilization until global temperatures stabilized within a few degrees. And we're threatening that because we're worried about the moral implications of allowing China to save face in order to save the world. Ironically you mention WWII, which involved far more, far worse moral tradeoffs than the one I'm proposing: firebombing and nuking civilians in Germany and Japan, starving the Indian subcontinent, etc. To be clear, those may well have been the right tradeoffs to make, but they cost far more lives and saved far fewer than what we're discussing here.

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

#100

Post by throwaway894345 »

codechicago277 wrote: post #82
throwaway894345 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are a couple of not-rhetorical questions for you: * Which is worse in your mind? China's treatment of the Uyghurs or global civilizational collapse? * Does holding China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs increase or decrease the likelihood that China will cooperate on climate?

I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat. It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-populatio…

> I feel like there’s a disconnect between people who believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity within the next few years and those who believe it’s a problem that will get worse over time, but not an immediate existential threat.

I agree. One of many disconnects.

> It’s worth pointing out that all doomsday prophesies so far haven’t come true, not just about climate change but nuclear warfare, asteroids hitting the earth, over-population, etc.

Of these, I think only "nuclear warfare" was an alarm bell widely raised by scientists and it was precisely that alarm bell that led to nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation policy (which averted the disaster). "We should do nothing because it always works out" is kind of silly when it has only worked out because people have done something. See also Y2K.

> overstating the immediate risks of climate change will lead to ignoring clear abuses like what China is doing to the Uyghurs.

Climate change isn't about the immediate risks (wealthy nations can largely live with a little drought, flooding, and wildfire), it's about the next century and beyond. But yes, I do think we should let this existential threat affect our decisions about Chinese human rights abuses, as a special case. Personally, I would love for the world to have invested heavily in nuclear 50 years ago to the extent that we don't have to worry about China's ego threatening all of civilization, but that's a reality we sadly don't inhabit.

Post reply on HN