On Campuses Far From China, Still Under Beijing’s Watchful Eye | Hacker News Reader

On Campuses Far From China, Still Under Beijing’s Watchful Eye

nytimes.com

209 pointsterri_cat175 comments

Open articleView on HN

And China's government have also bought nearly all Chinese language press in Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-language-newspapers-i...

And actively entering into mainstream media:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-03/birtles-australian-med...

Good idea for a startup if it's a near guaranteed buyout.

In 2016, China landed a robotic rover on the moon. The NY Times had fairly extensive coverage. For a solid month, the main article was in the top ten of forwarded articles, assuring that all nytimes.com readers would repeatedly see it in a prominent sidebar. This is unusual behavior. NY Times readers are interested, but easily jaded by space travel. And nothing lasts forever a month.

Finally, I complained to the nytimes.com ombudsman. Gone in a day! Someone there must have agreed with me. Click farm behavior.

>> This is unusual behavior.

>> Click farm behavior.

2010 U.S. Census reported[1] 695,000 who self-identify as Chinese in the NY metro area alone...never mind LA, Bay area, Boston, and Seattle...only a few of the largest, wealthiest, highly educated cities in the nation. Are you sure?

[1] https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf

I think if the nytimes were to actually have responded to agjacobsons claim, it would have been with an internal investigation, and then any action would have been taken only after the results of that investigation.

I think the Chinese government is making a huge mistake in the way it is oppressing freedom of speech at home and broad.

China is now on its fourth political and economic system in the last century and a half. The present system is an accidental conglomeration of three quite contradictory philosophies: Confucianism, Marxism, and liberalism. It seems quite likely at some point it is going to prove unworkable.

At that point China is going to need to really think things out from basic principles and decide what sort of country it wants to be over the long term. That will take a great deal of intelligent, independent thinking. Alas, that is just what Xi Jinping is doing his best to stamp out.

> At that point China is going to need to really think things out from basic principles and decide what sort of country it wants to be over the long term. That will take a great deal of intelligent, independent thinking. Alas, that is just what Xi Jinping is doing his best to stamp out.

I'd take the other side for a moment and suggest he may be doing what he thinks is best for unity in China.

Democracy isn't something you can just slap on top of anything. It starts from the ground up because it is built by the people.

Any form of government is always going to be concerned about some form of popular uprising. Negative sentiment isn't good for Trump, and it wouldn't be good for Xi either.

I agree with you that China needs to think things from basic principles. I'm just not sure whether my ideas about applying these within China are more or less correct than Xi's. Ultimately I think that's really up to the Chinese people.

On the one hand, democracy in China seems inevitable as their population grows more wealthy and has free time to demand a better life. On the other, it seems the nationalist side will always be able to say that any attempts to achieve democracy are the result of foreign agents. Perhaps China will achieve democracy when the West's fails. That would be a sight.

The current system is working far better than the last few systems. Until 1985, China had regular famines. Now it has the largest GDP in the world.

You're right, China has been doing far better. The question is whether the present political system, which is to a great extent the product of a series of accidents, will hold up over the long term.

I think the reason Confucianism was so successful for so long is the same reason the US system has lasted for centuries, namely both are based on a coherent, well-thought out political and economic philosophy. China at present doesn't have anything like that.

As I see it, the problem with Confucianism is it was designed for an agrarian civilization, whereas today it is an industrial one. The Chinese have never really thought out what sort of system they need for today's world.

> China is going to need to really think things out from basic principles and decide what sort of country it wants to be over the long term. That will take a great deal of intelligent, independent thinking.

What you're describing sounds like a modernist, top-down approach, when an enlightened one in ivory tower decides on a best system of government and organization and then bestows it upon the people of the land. We all know how well something like this works out.

What China seems to be doing, on the other hand, is following the mentality of it's people. There's a lot of corruption and bad stuff happening in China - but it exactly follows the expectations and behavior of ordinary people, and exactly because of that, is more stable than an artificial and lawful democracy, implemented top-down, would be.

>What you're describing sounds like a modernist, top-down approach, when an enlightened one in ivory tower decides on a best system of government and organization and then bestows it upon the people of the land. We all know how well something like this works out.

No, I am talking about lots of scholars talking with each other in public, and thinking about the unique nature of Chinese society, and having a big discussion with everyone.

>What China seems to be doing, on the other hand, is following the mentality of it's people. There's a lot of corruption and bad stuff happening in China - but it exactly follows the expectations and behavior of ordinary people,

Quite true. But part of the reason this is happening is China has never developed a new political philosophy that the people could support and use to improve the society.

It sounds a bit arrogant. US systems are in a much worse shape than Chinese now (lack of innovation, constant bipartisan struggle, inability to make critical decisions and move forward fast, ridiculous expences) and a lot of that can be attributed to the current political system that supports individualism and freedom to express radically opposing opinions (creating turbulence and distracting from solvig the real problems). To me, after spending some time in both US and China, it seems that the optimal system is authoritarian meritocracy - you need a strong monolythic leadership, the question is how to avoid thyrany. China thus far balances it pretty well. Also, intelligent thinking doesn't really correlate with freedom of speach, btw.

You have to think things out for the long term. Authoritarian systems are often quite successful in the short term, but the have a closed decision making process that leads them into decline over the long term.

I've noticed similar things at my university [am research faculty; disclaimer: throwaway account since my usual one identifies me].

Something I've seen often is unfamiliar faces specifically at seminars presented by academics of Taiwanese origin. My department has a pretty static set of seminar attendees, so it is quite noticeable when three or four undergrad-aged people I don't know slip into the back of the room.

China is buying influence Globally as the United States and Europe cede soft power after years of war in the middle east.

While not fantastic for rights of freedom loving people everywhere it is probably a good thing for Africans in general since they seem to be getting a lot of economic love from China in exchange for mineral rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/africa/what-africans-really-th...

War in the middle east is ruining the West. I don't understand it and I don't buy the oil explanation. With the absurd cost of these wars we could just buy the oil, or pay for megaprojects to replace it with gas (even gas to liquids), nuclear, and renewable power. There seems to be no rational explanation for the immense gravity well of Middle Eastern war and how it drags in Democrats and Republicans alike even if they seem initially opposed to it.

I also don't buy the religious or Israel explanation, as neither of these groups have that much influence. The need to constantly involve ourselves in the Middle East seems like an imperative that supercedes all other concerns.

I wasn't a fan of Trump and did not vote for him, but I did have a little bit of hope that at the very least he might be against these wars on "America first" grounds. Looks like the answer is no as his administration is slowly taken over by the war party.

It's almost like when presidents are elected they learn something nobody else knows.

War in the middle east is ruining the West. I don't understand it and I don't buy the oil explanation

The conspiracy theory is that the war serves to dislodge the population and increase refugee flows to Europe to destabilize the region economically and politically. The war in the Middle East is in truth a war against the European Union, especially Germany. So the story goes.

I haven't heard that one.

I have heard that it is a proxy war against Russia or China, but I'm not sure that makes sense either. Russia in particular has tons of oil and doesn't need any from elsewhere.

The only thing that makes a little sense is that it's an end in itself: we must have war to support the war industry and it's associated jobs and social programs. It's not just corporations with an interest in this. For many poor Americans military service is the only way to advance, and military service signs you up for a much higher tier of social programs than the rest of the public. In truth America does have socialism. It's just enlistment to grave, not cradle to grave.

If there were a prolonged period without war, people would start questioning these expenditures.

> Russia in particular has tons of oil and doesn't need any from elsewhere.

Russia seeks to deny it to potential geostrategic rivals. It's not a military advantage to have oil; it's an advantage to have it and deny it to your opponent.

Also, Russia may have enough for internal needs and modest exports, but that's perhaps insufficient for what is antiicoated in the event of a major conventional war.

More prosaically, Russia wants it's oil to be worth more. The crash in oil prices due to the US shale/fracking revolution, and Saudi pricing war to try to bankrupt the frackers, has smashed Russian oil profits, and caused Putin heartburn. Destabilizing the middle east raises oil prices, enmeshes the US in a no-win conflict, and imposes massive costs on EU powers, leading to xenophobia, rise of far right, and possibly the breakup of the EU. Win, win, win.

And POTUS likes Putin? What a doofus.

Is not war in Syria a war for controlling the country? Current government (Asad) for a long time had good relationship with Russia and allows them to have military bases there. If West-backed opposition wins, they will allow locating there american bases instead of russian.

I guess that is the primary reason why West supports syrian opposition and why Russia takes part in the conflict.

The truth is almost even stranger. Before the toppling of Libya, Gaddafi (whose relationship with the US is absolutely fascinating) made a very clear warning that this and the Arab Spring would lead to such an event. Many western governments have their fingerprints on the above events, but likely had not accounted for the side effects.

I would love to see the plans of the above events in my lifetime.

Overall it's about SOTF. TPTB have a healthy respect for diversity. Conflict promotes innovation, ingenuity, and growth. The West has become domesticated, just like various breeds of animals and plants, the bloodlines become polluted. War, conflict, strife and struggle preserve the human race. But for how long??...

Then it would be Russia driving it... that explains Syria but not Iraq/ Afghanistan

The more plausible explanation, to me, is that it's part of the wealth transfer to the upper class. US Government contractors make billions off war-related contracts and US contractors have lucrative contracts in many Middle East countries that those countries are forced to accept in exchange for US military protection. On top of that, military action is a great way to divert the populace's attention while you're lowering taxes and otherwise screwing over the poor...just look at how well firing a bunch of missiles at an airfield worked for Trump.

If we allowed the Middle East to just work itself out without our meddling, there would be a lot of well-monied, powerful interests that would stand to lose a ton of money and they're willing to exert their influence to ensure that doesn't happen.

Seconded. These wars may not be in the interest of the US as a nation or of the US people, but those who profit from it have been doing so for a long time and gathered immense power, and are not willing to lose the source of their power. It's a kind of self-sustaining feedback loop.

The refugee flow is only a rather recent phenomenon. US military action in the Middle East has been going on for much longer. Recall the first Iraq war.

> War in the middle east is ruining the West. I don't understand it and I don't buy the oil explanation.

It is quite confusing. So many innocent lives lost, governments toppled, Western Gov. organised coups and plots and massive amounts of money.

The explanation for these actions could be quite simple once the rest is stripped away - Having essentially territorial control and military bases in the ME is extremely strategically advantageous. Control over territory (occupied or friendly regime inserted) is a tenant of power throughout history.

My feeling (and I realize this is little more than a feeling) is that corporations need there to be pockets of instability, both globally and domestically, to create a baseline of anxiety which makes people afraid to challenge the status quo. This keeps wages down, prevents people from starting new businesses, discourages people from trying for for higher level positions, etc.

In other words, some light distant instability helps those in top stay there longer.

No. Automation and a large supply of workers keeps wages low.

Businesses hate instability.

> Businesses hate instability.

Which ones? How many billions of GDP are created by arms manufacturers directly and indirectly, add to this the vast part of the economy supplying and/or supporting the military one way or the other, from washing clothes to direct semi-military support ("contractors").

So you tell me they want stability? I guess you are right - but they want it for their own growth rate and profit margins.

>I also don't buy the religious or Israel explanation, as neither of these groups have that much influence.

Um, Israel has yuge political influence in the US - successful secular Jews in the financial and entertainment fields donate large amounts of money to politicians. Their political sentiments are overwhelmingly Democrat, but they donate to Republicans, as well.

Search for 'AIPAC'.

It could simply be bureaucratic imperative. 26 years of war in the Mideast has created a whole generation of policy wonks whose expertise is the Middle East; if we cease to be at war in the Middle East, then all of their jobs are on the chopping block and all of their expertise is useless; therefore, they have a very strong self-preservation incentive to recommend policies that continue the war in the Middle East.

Easier to extract the oil.. then in 20 years build the reactors etc... that being said electric transport will change everything. Oil rich countries need to diversify. That they maintain investments in western countries means that the west can use their countries for military and political dominance in the region.

Oil is cheap not sur why or if it is political. The Middle East might want to prevent tar sand etc... nato might want to destabilize Russia. Venezuela might be an outlier... I'm not sure why it's seemingly ignored.

> It could simply be bureaucratic imperative. 26 years of war in the Mideast has created a whole generation of policy wonks whose expertise is the Middle East; if we cease to be at war in the Middle East, then all of their jobs are on the chopping block and all of their expertise is useless; therefore, they have a very strong self-preservation incentive to recommend policies that continue the war in the Middle East.

I'm not saying everyone else's job is easy either but from an outsider's perspective I see the job at state department pretty challenging. Here's a quote from Condoleezza Rice's Wikipedia page:

> Following her confirmation as Secretary of State, Rice pioneered the policy of Transformational Diplomacy directed toward expanding the number of responsible democratic governments in the world and especially in the Greater Middle East. That policy faced challenges as Hamas captured a popular majority in Palestinian elections, and influential countries including Saudi Arabia and Egypt maintained authoritarian systems with U.S. support.

I'm sure there is some self-preservation going on, maybe explicitly or maybe even without someone thinking about it consciously but the other part is how much wiggle room do we have? Can we have the tough talk of "We don't negotiate with terrorists" while working with democratically elected governments with organizations that the government consider terrorists?

I keep thinking about this machine learning class where they talked about how classification and decision-making has always been a difficult problem. I think at the end of the blame goes straight up to the top, which is us the voting (or non-voting) public. At the end of the day, we are responsible for what our elected officials do or do not do regardless of the advice from the policy wonks. It is scary because I know so precious little about anything and yet I am to weigh all matters from oil pipelines to tariffs when I vote.

Yes, that's interesting. Similarly, Yellowstone-area grizzlies were supposed to lose protected status when the population reached 600. It's at 2,000, they're mauling people and livestock, and they're still protected. Bear-related federal jobs remain secure.

"There is no war but our war."-wag the dog

> It's almost like when presidents are elected they learn something nobody else knows.

I should hope so! Otherwise what do we spend billions on intelligence organizations for?

I don't think the answer is any deeper than that wars involve spending an enormous amount of money on contractors, and those contractors in turn fund politicians who will drive more business in their directions, then supply then with output from thinktanks that they fund to justify those decisions to their peers and the public, and ex-employees to hire into the bureaucracy. This, they do in a completely bipartisan manner, so their papers and bureaucrats are installed permanently, not turned over between administrations.

It's not a single-minded conspiracy with some deep reason. It's just basic economic incentives. There's nobody in the US who will make money from not attacking the middle east, and plenty that would. Policy in the US is determined by financial interest.

There's a few threads going on there, and it's too much for a Hacker News comment. There are entire university departments dedicated to this subject. I will offer some references for interested readers.

== Geography ==

Strategic control of the straits of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Bosphorus, and Bab-el-Mandeb drive a huge number of commercial alliances.

== Israel ==

I separate this out from religion (below), because Israel's origin story is more than the sum of its parts. Read up on the the history of Zionism (1), Herzl (2), Weizmann (3), the Balfour Declaration (4), etc. I especially recommend Prof. Ruderman's Great Courses lectures on Jewish Intellectual History (5).

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Weizmann

(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

(5) http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/jewish-intellectual-h...

== Population ==

Compare the population pyramids of the Middle East (1), Western Europe (2), and the US (3). You'll see a lot of young, unemployed workers in the Middle East. They live in dictatorships, which are often supported by foreign aid from Western democracies, traditionally considered a good investment in stability and UN security council votes, although certainly given to the dictators at the expense of the local population's human rights. Thus these angry young men have some grounds for pointing their anger at the West (4).

(1) http://regionalgeography.org/101blog/?p=1830

(2) http://www.indexmundi.com/european_union/age_structure.html

(3) http://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/20...

(4) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/

== US-Russia-China proxies ==

Syria, Afghanistan (twice now), Iraq (three times including the Iran-Iraq war), Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Taiwan: all proxy fights. The Russians want buffer states between them and Western Europe (which has been known to invade from time to time). China wants fealty from the satellite states that have from time to time expressed more or less fealty throughout history. China has also recently (last 20-30 years) realized that African markets are under-capitalized and under-exploited, and they are fixing that. This affects North Africa and East Africa too (Muslim nations), not just Central and West Africa.

== Religion ==

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam really do have some friction in their holy texts, both historical and dogmatic, that make the mixing pot of Palestine something less than a beacon of peace in the world. I'll refer you again to the Great Courses: Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad (1).

(1) http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/confucius-buddha-jesu...

Israel's been doing this for a long time. Try inviting pro-Palestinian activists to campus and see what happens.

At the end of the day, everyone has the right to protest, whether that's Black Lives Matter or the Westboro Baptist Church or any other group. Always distressing to see it used to further what I see as oppression but there's not really a whole lot to be done about it. You get your opinions and I get mine.

If people want to miss their kids' graduation, well, kinda sucks to be them I guess. Not everybody agrees with their graduation speaker, but you choose to make it political instead of being, you know, about your kids' achievements. I had friends who had George W Bush speak at their graduations, in 2008 no less.

Suck it up for 15 minutes, nobody is forcing you to march in support of some college graduation speaker.

There's a very interesting investigative documentary by Al Jazeera that shows how Israel funds and manages the Israeli lobby in the UK. I'll look for the link and edit this comment.

Edit: Here is a link to part 1 of the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc. You can follow the "Up next" link to watch the other parts; there are 4 parts in total.

Not sure that the mouthpiece of the ruling family of Qatar is a reputable source for anything, much less any topic involving Israel.

To complete the circle, however, Al Jazeera's China related journalism is excellent. And generally they seem to push the envelope in what they cover.

And for their home turf, would you like to suggest a better source for middle-east related news?

I'm a huge fan of Al Jazeera for some issues in the Middle East, but I think the best all-round news source for the region is Middle East Eye[1]. Their journalists have a no holds barred approach to sensitive topics in the region.

[1]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/

I've never heard of Middle East Eye, but I'm always looking out for more sources of news so thanks for the link.

Do you happen to have any specific articles handy, or general topics, that you feel they covered better than other news sources?

Their best coverage is on topics related to the Gulf states. In particular, the arrests of human rights activists [1], the inner workings of the Gulf monarchies [2,3,4,5], and other similar topics which are rarely if ever covered by other news agencies, let alone state news agencies in the Gulf.

I've only linked a sample of articles I could remember off the top of my head. Their archive has many more articles on similar topics.

[1]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-jails-academic-10-year...

[2]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-yemeni-president...

[3]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/revealed-senior-uae-royal-...

[4]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/revealed-uae-backed-plan-y...

[5]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-eyes-military-expansio...

To be fair, this was a minor scandal that was covered by all the press in the UK.

as a rule, alj's reporting for things outside of the middle east are reliably pretty good. inside the middle east they have more obvious biases, particularly w/r/t qatar. if you have specific quibbles with anything said in this documentary, by all means raise them, but if you're just going to throw shade without any specific substantiation then you probably shouldn't bother.

You might be able to say that about AJ Arabic, but AJ English is an entirely different entity. You'd actually be surprised how much autonomy AJ English is given in its reporting.

Also, you could say AJ's reporting on Israel is biased, but why do you dismiss everything else? AJ has some of the best journalists in the world and continually pushes the barrier in its reporting worldwide.

Until you just referred to them as AJ, I had no idea that they were the same as Al Jazeera. I saw videos on YouTube by AJ and just figured they were some other entity.

Ah yes, I believe that's their US branch. IIRC, the AJ America news channel didn't do so well, so they pivoted to an online-only presence and rebranded to AJ+.

You'd be amazed how many branches Al Jazeera has worldwide. Heck, they even have AJ Balkans[1]!

[1]: http://balkans.aljazeera.net/

If you don't want AJ's take on it, read it from haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.763768

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.765533

Even if you read both sides, it's hard to tell whether or not it's a loud mouthed idiot who thinks he's hot shit, or something more insidious like AJ and some Brits are insinuating.

Try inviting pro-Israel supporters and see what a stink BDS and the general leftist students make. [1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/students-are-shoutin...

Pro-Israel in what sense? Believing that Israel shouldn't exist is an extreme opinion that isn't widely shared in the western world. The debate is about a homeland for Palestinians.

Believing that Palestinians shouldn't have a homeland with safety and rights is an extreme opinion not widely shared in Pro-Israel world, they just aren't delusional about the security implications.

I'm serious. What does Pro-Israel mean in this context? Most of the western world is Pro-Israel as in pro Israel's existence. An Anti-Israel speaker would be extremely controversial.

Look at what happened when Ahmadinejad came to Columbia University.

Also Obama was considered "anti-Israel" because well, I guess he said something that wasn't pro-Israel enough:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Obama+"anti-Israel"&sourceid=...

It is sort of ridiculous what some segments will call anti-Israel.

I guess in this context, as referenced in the parent article, anyone who isn't anti-normalization/ doesn't support BDS.

Guess it's a point of view thing. They say "lift the evil Gaza blockade," Israelis/Many Jews hear, "We don't give a flying fuck if you and your families get killed by terrorists."

The term "anti-Israel" is used extremely often in North America to refer to things that are not "pro-Israel". For example John Kerry's speech about the occupation and why it is in Israel's best interests to end it.

Large segments of media here branded that as an "anti-Israel" speech even though it wasn't questioning existence of Israel:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=John+Kerry+anti-israel&q=John...

Anti-Israel is misused in many of its uses these days, not always but a lot of the time.

"Suck it up for 15 minutes, nobody is forcing you to march in support of some college graduation speaker. "

As far as I know these speakers make big bucks. If they spoke for free it would be easier to ignore them.

If all we can do is feel distressed and lie down, then we are simply enabling the opposition. Apathy is quite cancerous.

> Israel's been doing this for a long time. Try inviting pro-Palestinian activists to campus and see what happens.

Having spent some time on college campuses recently, the exact opposite is the case.

Israel is a very special case in American political life, compared to any other country. Even UK and Canada are not anywhere near close to the level of influence Israel has over US politics.

There was an insightful article drawing parallels between ongoing hysteria over possible Russia's influence in the election and Israel's ho-hum business as usual that nobody dares question: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/20/why-not-a-probe-of-isr...

Nothing. I was involved in hosting a debate between two Palestinians about one state vs two state and nothing happened.

inviting pro-Palestinian activists to campus

Why invite pro-Palestinian activists to campus when you can just walk to the faculty lounge?

Reminds me of that one time when some students at UCSD protested against the university hosting the Dalai Lama for a graduation speech.

https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-d...

I've always felt that in an increasingly globalized and connected world, we will start to see increased external influence in America from parties that are not the Democrats or the Republicans. China is arguably the world's largest and most powerful political party, and with no domestic competition, it pretty much has the freedom and ability to overshadow smaller, more divided political entities.

The UCSD Dalai Lama incident is literally the subject of at least the first four paragraphs of this article.

The leadoff photo is literally outside the main library at UCSD.

The second photo is literally the chancellor of UCSD with the Dalai Lama.

Let's not forget the market pressures watering-down American Hollywood movies to not being banned in China.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-movies-in-china-201...

At some point, someone with gravitas has to come out and say "Money is not everything!".

In Flint, MI city officials say, "We're not spending money to upgrade water pipes"

For healthcare, "I don't want to pay for somebody else's healthcare"

For housing "I don't want a low income neighborhood next to mine reducing my property value"

For race relations "The criminal justice system is just fine"

....And now "Don't offend the Chinese"

This has to stop, money is not everything. At some point we need to do what's right (and show empathy) before money.

There are lots of things that people don't like, the world doesn't revolve around them. If the US claims to be a free society and wants to uphold it's true values, man the eff up and stop catering to almighty dollar. It'll hurt in the short term, but will bear dividends later.

This link is a Readability-style view of https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/chinese-students-weste...

It looks good, but it's a not good canonical link for sharing.

Blocking other speakers isn't speech, and it is not protected. Speaking out against an invited speaker is free speech, but if they were successful in blocking an invitation, that would be grounds for a lawsuit against the university.

So, condemning China for their attempts to block a speaker isn't so wrong. They have the right to say what they like. However, when they say "this is trampling my free speech rights" they're just as wrong as democrats who felt that way about Milo at Berkeley.

It often takes a lawsuit to demonstrate what is and isn't free speech. There are some good examples on thefire.org [1] which I learned about during the Yale Halloween costume debacle.

[1] https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/free-speech/

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-25/uts-professor-preve...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/world/asia/china-xinji...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/05/03/china-bul...

We are dealing with an increasingly totalitarian state, which bullies other countries through money. Present Chinese leadership is increasingly dictator like and has conflicts with every neighbour. China is not good news for our future. Western countries beauty is the free speech culture. You have to experience the suffocation of living in China, the fear of retribution and no basic han rights accorded to you. Trade with China should be shunned, hope was that trade would make the society open but instead it has made them even more brutalistic on the citizens.

I am sure they will be welcomed alongside third wave feminism and radical islamic groups to the great coallition of the outraged.

Of cause the students will protest Dalai Lama.

China has a database for a list of certified overseas universities. There was a school removed from that list for allowing Dalai to talk about Tibet in his visit.

I just don't think all that effort is going to make a difference in anti-China sentiment in the US or anywhere else.

It might make it worse. I actually have many things I love about China and wouldn't mind moving there for a few years if it wasn't for this oppressive stuff.

If you don't involve yourself deep into politics the most oppressive thing there is that you have to eat with chopsticks.

It is hardly totalitarian dystopia. As long as you are there to make money and help the chineese do so you are fine.

China doesn't represent Anglo Saxon culture or ideals. Canada, NZ, Australia, the UK and the US are the reason we have freedom of everything.

I've met Chinese grad students who said the students at Tianamen square were terrorists.

A friend of mine played hosts to some Chinese students in London, as there was one happening he took them along to a demonstration that was happening that day. They were utterly baffled, he said, they asked why anyone would want to protest against the government?

how is your feeling about the UC Berkeley campus's protest? Someone called them riot

I don't know how I feel about posting outline.com articles that are from the NYTimes.com without their consent...

Seems pretty unethical since I don't have a subscription and would like to support them somehow.

Globalism can be a real bastard.

Link to source, which I could not find in the posted link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/chinese-students-weste...

It's literally at the top, plain as day, in a hyperlink labeled SOURCE, immediately to the right of a label denoting that it came from NYT.

Seems like a war of culture vs. culture, who will win?

The one with the money.

More specifically, the reserve currency.

The culture with the reserve currency has lost its mojo and is confused about its values. It that continues there's no way it's going to win.

Money is a variable but to list it alone feels a tad glib. Factors like ideology, corruption, political altruism, perceived and actual opportunity within nation, social justice etc are all extremely significant and can outweigh money when they are obviously unbalanced from expectations.

It's interesting how many people instantly try to twist this into an anti-Israel thread.

I noticed this too.

I'm not sure what you're implying when you say it's "interesting".

If you have a problem with the equation of anti-Tibet political intervention by China and anti-Palestine intervention by Israel then state your case.

> If you have a problem with the equation of anti-Tibet political intervention by China and anti-Palestine intervention by Israel then state your case.

As much as Israel has colonized parts of Palestine by way of settlements, its nothing like the Chinese annexation and colonization of Tibet.

Perfect, let's downplay Israel by shitting on China!

In reality, both of these are clear examples of how the victor gets to write the history books. By getting rid of the conversations, this is unequivocally censorship.

What about the white annexation and colonization of America?

Equally bullshit. I can admit Israel is better than colonial America. Kind of a low bar though.

I don't think I'd have a problem with people advocating for settlements if they acknowledged they were colonizing native people in order to eradicate their culture.

At least be honest about it. People act like Israel is some sort of liberal state.

That distinction largely irrelevant in the context of how either is trying to interfere with freedom of speech on the campuses of American universities.

And the comparison is pretty obvious, because I can't think of any other countries that are doing something similar, at least on a noticeable scale (i.e. actually getting results they want).

For better or for worse, China's interpretation of freedom seems to match their culture.

Culturally, in much of Asia, criticizing someone else is more offensive than in the West. "Saving face" seems more prevalent to me in Eastern offices and families than Western institutions.

So, punishing someone for offensive speech in China probably feels normal to a lot of people. More people there avoid pointing out each other's mistakes, and talk miles around problems to avoid that.

I think that results in a situation where people spend effort trying to win certain battles that people in the West would let go.

I wish we could somehow curb Chinese immigration and trade here in Canada. Our government seems to be bending over backwards for them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-04/vancouver...

I wish we could somehow make people less ignorant and more tolerant here in Canada. People are always blaming immigrants for their problems.

Rising housing prices in Vancouver are a valid concern. I don't understand why the grandparent is downvoted. You don't combat racism by not recognizing valid grievances.

how am I being racist? We have rich chinese immigrants from mainland literally buying their permanent residency and driving up the price of housing here. We have the chinese government pushing us around and our weak government isn't standing up for Canadians. I think it's a valid concern.

Proof for the last point would be great.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-economic-fugitive-fox-...

The acceptance of undeclared foreign agents that threaten and blackmail local residents support his claim.

These people are part of a global, often criminal elite yet at the same time want the protections of a strong nation state and discover they can't have both at the same time. That's funny in a dark way.

Hmmm, it's just a hunch I have given how you don't want any more Chinese immigration? And trade with them is automatically bad?

- What's wrong with immigrants buying their residency? This happens all the time. At least you know they won't be a 'burden on the system' as some people would say. What the rich Chinese immigrants were doing was legal until some people didn't like seeing more Chinese people driving around town in their expensive cars and "flaunting" their wealth. And it's definitely not like half the town is made of rich Chinese immigrants as one HN poster put it. The last census puts Vancouver at about 18.7% Chinese (which includes over a hundred years of Chinese immigrants who helped build/shape the city).

- Your assumption that rich Chinese immigrants are responsible for driving up the price of housing is ignorant at best, racist at worst. One report says that 5% of buyers are foreign. They are buying the high-end properties which means the majority of properties are being fought over by Canadians. Vancouver is the only major city on the west coast of Canada and many people want to live here. Plus let's not ignore the many Canadians who are involved in speculation too. Did you know that mortgage debt (of Canadians) has been on the rise? The issue is complex and can't be boiled down to "the Chinese caused it".

- The Canadian government eliminated the investor immigrant program, is that bending over backwards? How about the creation of the 15% foreign buyer's tax?

- What you see as Canada being "pushed around" is trying to maintain good relations with its trading partners (one of which is China) which is a delicate dance. Do you see how the Canadian government handles the US? Carefully.

- I don't know why I waste my time writing this because people are more swayed by the sight of some Chinese person driving an expensive Audi. As I said, the Chinese govt is wasting their time and money too.

First - it is not racism if the gp would react disapprovingly to other nations also buying. If Russia and China places were changed, I have a feeling that he would complain about those pesky Russians buying in Vancouver.

Second - for a lot of people obtaining citizenship and residence permit in any other way than by being born or married into it is not acceptable. And outright buying it is disgusting.

Five percent in market with inflexible demand and severely constraint supply is huge.

And lets not start on the money origins which could be very shady. Do you want people with shady money in country? And why?

Disliking the side effects of immigration is not in anyway racist.

- Rich chinese are still buying up PRs through Quebec and then coming to Ontario and BC and buying up property. Also, cheating on exams to obtain study permits and work their way through a degree (cheating as much as possible) in order obtain PR amongst Chinese international students is rampant. Universities often overlook this because of the amount of money coming in, in terms of tuition.

- We are now allowing Chinese govt' backed companies to acquire Canadian companies that develop advanced military tech. This was banned even under Harper. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-green-l...

- Influential chinese are buying up political sway by "donating" to political campaigns: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/influential-chi...

I don't care about chinese people driving Audis. It's when they come over and treat Canada and Canadians as something that can be bought over, corrupted, and pushed around that frustrates me. And I'm not the only one here.

I'm ok with immigrants from certain other countries. Also I'm referring to limiting chinese govt influence here.

I am not ok with racists like you. So I probably should wish Canada kick you out

how am I being racist?

HN should curb this racist attitude.

I see this as an outgrowth of left-liberal student bodies clamping down on conservative speech on college campuses. If leftist students can block Ann Coulter from speaking then why can't Chinese students block the Dalai Lama? Every speech is guaranteed to offend someone and that's verboten in today's campuses. As a libertarian, I was always worried about this and it was a main reason why I opposed social justice warriors. Sadly, our fear has come to pass and censorship now reigns in universities. In the future, children's fairytales will be the only safe topic to discuss.

> If leftist students can block Ann Coulter from speaking then why can't Chinese students block the Dalai Lama?

Students actually don't have a right to forcibly block speakers. That's a common misconception of free speech.

If you want to see examples of how real free speech is upheld, check out cases on thefire.org [1]. It's a law firm that specializes in tackling free speech issues on college campuses. However, they can't take a case without a plaintiff.

So, if one group protests and succeeds in blocking some speaker, the burden is still on the victimized group to file a lawsuit.

As they say, freedom isn't free, and you need to fight to keep it.

[1] https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/free-speech/

It isn't a legal right, it is a de facto right.

Generally speaking, only left leaning speakers are allowed on campuses.

Generally speaking, only pro-immigration speech is allowed in polite company.

This story, at least to me, also illustrates Chinese immigrants aren't interested in immigrating to other countries because they like the culture, way of life, etc and are choosing them as a new home to raise their families (well, this is part of it of course), but perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves, they have a strong intention to modify their host cultures into a form more like what they are used to.

> Generally speaking, only left leaning speakers are allowed on campuses.

No. Just no. While American college campuses tend to skew left, they are not fortresses of liberalism where everyone duckspeaks about Bernie Sanders. They all have conservative professors, Young Republicans clubs, and so on.

Hell, part of my large, public university tuition money went to pay a 50k speaking fee to Alberto Gonzales, ffs.

When the riots and shouting over top of conservative speakers so they can't be heard stops, then I will concede that I was wrong, until then, I consider you wrong.

Freedom of speech used to be inalienable as a matter of principle, now the majority of college students vehemently oppose it. That is a fact.

If it's a fact why not cite something then? Nothing indicates a majority of students oppose free speech.

I think many speakers are dumb, so I don't attend them.

> It isn't a legal right, it is a de facto right.

Our legal system allows you to challenge that. If a campus prevented your conservative group's speaker from speaking, you can sue and win.

If you don't do that, you are failing to uphold free speech as we have upheld it for centuries in America. Your civil rights do not enforce themselves.

> This story, at least to me, also illustrates Chinese immigrants aren't interested in immigrating to other countries because they like the culture, way of life, etc and are choosing them as a new home to raise their families (well, this is part of it of course), but perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves, they have a strong intention to modify their host cultures into a form more like what they are used to.

Of course. That's many people's reaction to a new culture. They want the things they like from both. It's still your job as an American to uphold American values.

> Our legal system allows you to challenge that. If a campus prevented your conservative group's speaker from speaking, you can sue and win.

Sure, might as well sue mother nature for the temperature rise. What we're seeing is a force of nature, the legal profession cannot stop it, overall society has to choose to stop it, which means they have to choose to allow conservative voices.

> What we're seeing is a force of nature, the legal profession cannot stop it, overall society has to choose to stop it, which means they have to choose to allow conservative voices.

I find this observation very strange considering the current political climate in the United States. Isn't the conservative voice the dominant voice being expressed in the executive and legislative branches right now?

Political leaders don't define the culture, the culture is defined by activists within the culture itself, and the left is winning.

> Sure, might as well sue mother nature for the temperature rise.

Plenty of court cases have set precedent for how individuals and businesses operate in the future.

When a court makes a ruling, people know they can be held similarly accountable, according to the written law, in the future.

> What we're seeing is a force of nature, the legal profession cannot stop it, overall society has to choose to stop it, which means they have to choose to allow conservative voices.

That's not actionable. "Society must do x" is not something you have any control over. You can sue and convince culture to follow written law that way.

Oh it's not impossible to legislate, but very unlikely. Someone they trust has to tell these kids that listening to ideas is a good thing, but good luck finding someone influential with integrity these days.

Chinese students studying at American universities may not necessarily be looking to set down roots in the US. Most of them return to China after getting their degrees.

As for the question of assimilation, it takes a generation for cultural attitudes to shift. People aren't going to abandon the cultural values of their homeland. But their children will grow up as Americans and adopt more American ways of thinking.

>Generally speaking, only pro-immigration speech is allowed in polite company.

Anti-immigration speech was very far outside of the Overton window until very recently - a development I find incredibly concerning.

Are you saying you're concerned that anti-immigration speech is now more acceptable? If so, why?

Because most of it is wrong?

Most of the speech is around ideas that have been proven wrong over and over again. It's the same as when people come in and talk about a database that "solves" CAP.

Perhaps a better example is climate denial. Why do I have to listen to decades old debunked discussions over and over again?

EDIT: I also disagree with the premise. Loads of polite company will happily discuss immigration restriction and beyond. Though that's not your main point, I suppose.

It's not society's job to have all speech be acceptable. It's speakers' job to actually formulate ideas in a way that society accepts.

If you can't, the simplest explanation is that you're wrong, not that you're innovative.

Immigration issues aren't climate change.

Why is it a moral imperative to import, abuse, and discard Mexican and Guatemalan workers to pick your fruit and butcher your meat? Why could you drive around to Home Depot in the morning and see construction guys and landscapers hiring mostly immigrant, often illegal day laborers for cash?

My grandparents were able to migrate here legally in the 1940s without a pimp-like corporate sponsor holding them hostage or living illegally and being a second class citizen. Flooding the market with cheap labor that works cheap because they have no agency of their own hurts everyone.

If you want immigration that's fine, but don't advocate for the status quo -- take on immigrants as equals. If we did that, we might find that impoverished classes of US citizens would have an opportunity to enter the workforce.

I am not arguing for the status quo. The hostage-taking of immigrant workers through things like corporate linking in H-1B is a tragedy and shouldn't happen.

I would rather solve the day laborer issue by going after the employers. Some immigrants take these jobs because they have no other choice, but employers are the ones actually exploiting people.

My impression was that the post was referring to the "classical anti-immigration" arguments that have been debunked like "immigrants are stealing our jobs" or "immigrants cost us money".

I'm very much for a humane system of immigration, that is to say being able to come into a country without having to be an indentured servant, and having the same labor protections as citizens.

I think you'd find a lot of pro-immigration people to be for this as well. A lot of corporations lobby for things like H-1B increases because it's much easier to get than "overhaul the immigration system to just let us hire who we want".

Practically speaking, it's a two-way street. Speakers also redefine the speech that society accepts.

But I disagree that it's not society's job to have all speech be acceptable. All speech should be allowed, and all counter-speech should be allowed. Only violence is not tolerated (and speech is not violence).

We also shouldn't treat all other cultures as equally valid sources of immigration because some cultures hold values that directly oppose our own.

Ideally, any individual that accepts certain fundamental western liberal values like freedom of speech should have the chance to immigrate. Practically, it's extremely difficult to screen individuals for this.

We have to be able to talk about the effects of mass immigration from places like the Middle East and North Africa. In Europe, many people who arrive from those areas create no-go zones, and their children don't assimilate but instead foster a resentment for the dominant culture. That is not ok and if we can't even talk about the one solution being to stop immigration from those areas then we are done as a culture.

> In Europe, many people who arrive from those areas create no-go zones, and their children don't assimilate but instead foster a resentment for the dominant culture.

To be fair, I think a lot of the fault for non-integration lies with the host country, although if the migrants weren't invited, or weren't actually wanted by the population (fake democracy), then it's pretty tough to solve that. It's a group effort ideally.

> Most of the speech is around ideas that have been proven wrong over and over again

I doubt it, most likely you are thinking of some set of straw man arguments of the left having been disproven.

There's definitely a lot of strawmen being kicked back and forth in image macros ("You will pay for the illegal immigrant to go to school but not for the sick vet" meme was reposted a lot during the VA scandals)

But we do live in a world where a congressman said that nobody dies from a lack of health insurance. There is still a lot of "solved" debate that gets rehashed over and over again (see also things like the autism-vaccine link, based off of the debunked paper).

> we do live in a world where a congressman said that nobody dies from a lack of health insurance

There's straw men, and then there's the idiocy of "far right", or whatever you'd call that. Opposing Obamacare is one thing, comments like that are something else entirely.

> It's not society's job to have all speech be acceptable

In the USA, it is. We call that the First Amendment

It has nothing really do to with that. Chinese government doesn't care about left wing American students and what they think. It is just doing what it can to promote its message, like it has been doing for decades.

I think gp is saying that the first action legitimizes the second by setting precedent, so it's difficult to call the second action illegitimate.

the chinese government may not care what left wing american students have to say, but if those students establish a precedent that speakers deemed 'offensive' can be shut down solely for that reason, then the groundwork is laid for parties who _aren't_ left wing students to abuse that precedent as well. this is why we must defend the principle of free speech even when we disagree with the speakers.

I think the GP meant that the Chinese government can in fact promote its message because it is free speech.

I'm sure someone will eventually object to the negative portrayals of witches in fairy tales. There's no safe topics once you give in to this direction.

First off, who would you include in "left-liberal", "leftist", and "social justice warriors"? These terms all mean different things to different people. "Liberal" in the American sense or the traditional sense? Do you group anarchists, communists, and sociaists into "left-liberal"? Do you consider Democrats to be "leftists"? I won't bother addressing the amorphous idea of a "social justice warrior". Your interchangeable use of these terms suggests a general boogeyman whose beliefs don't match your own.

Secondly, I happened to be in university right now, and I can attest that the idea of campuses being overtaken by "censorship" has been blown far out of proportion in the press. Religious fundamentalist groups regularly set up shop on the main thoroughfare to propagandize; one even put up a gigantic wall of very graphic abortion photos. The university isn't coming to kick them out as their expression is protected. Students tend to gather around and heckle/argue with them, and their expression is also protected. In another incident, the Hispanic services center and other areas of campus were chalked with slogans like "Build The Wall" the night before an annual event for prospective students and their families: extremely embarrassing for the school, and widely condemned, but there was no retaliation against those responsible as, again, their expression is protected and no permanent damage was done. I'm aware the plural of anecdote isn't "data", but stories like this remind me of other pumped-up "kids these days" moral crises like the D&D scare of a few decades ago.

When the law department attempted to get a representative of the white house to speak about public service (something they do every year, for obvious reasons), the aula got locked down with chains and students prevented anyone from coming there.

Why ? Well "not my president" was one of the signs.

Needless to say, the students blocking the aula were not law students and since they made it clear they would disrupt any attempt to change the venue, the talk was canceled.

VERY disappointing I must say. You don't like who's gotten elected ? Let's obstruct the futures of your co-students because it might help them.

This seems to be the norm now. And yes, it was rescheduled, the venue was changed to a downtown hotel, and there was a "covert" announcement of the new arrangement. I hear the hotel owner even gave the venue and the drinks for free in support of free expression.

Except the D&D crisis was fake, and Charles Murray really was assaulted, and his escort battered, and Anne Coulter wasn't really able to speak at to speak at Berkeley because of the threat of violence. While these anecdotes don't define the scope of the problem, they prove it exists.

Pretty sure it was the university administration, not the student body, that said the Ann Coulter event wouldn't happen.

And I believe this happened because at previous events clashes between protestors on both sides, right and left (or all sides if you prefer) had turned violent. And since then the university has changed its decision.

Also I don't think we know that the protestors were students. Although it's reasonable to think that at least some of them might have been.

To me it's far more interesting to look at the Chinese students associations as a phenomenon with a longer history, predating the recent free speech brouhahas. The groups have been around since at least the early 1980s and are staffed by brainwashed zealots who were raised in a country where the official school curriculum teaches them things that are simply false (edit: as does ours too (US) but in China it is at an entirely different level), and media is tightly controlled to the point that journalists sometimes just disappear.

The liberals in the US are more in line with the thinking: "tolerate everything but intolerance," so you see them react strongly when intolerant people try to spread intolerance. It's hard for some people to wrap their head around the seemingly contradictory idea of not tolerating intolerance... you may be one of those people. But the Chinese folks are an entirely different thing, imho. They are complicated (due to national pride coupled with a huge chip on the shoulder from their history of getting surpassed in the last century) but suffice it to say they have a very rigid line of thinking about things they were force fed from an early age, and this goes way back.

All you talking about really hilarious. The Chinese students' protest has nothing related with Chinese government, all these is assumed by NYT. There are lots of political related protests in US campus, like protesting against Milo Yiannopoulos was supported by Hilary?! In NYT's point, all Chinese students are dumb, and they are brainwashed by Chinese government, and controlled by the gov. So, their protest is remote controlled by the gov. Really?

Good for them. What a waste of time. China can't even tell that there really wasn't any anti-China anything at college campuses to begin with.

It's like me going to a bakery and making sure they aren't putting hand grenades in the ovens, and posting conspicuous warning signs about the dangers hand grenade shrapnel poses to croissants and the people who eat them.

What is it with totalitarian states, and this thing where they don't get that it's not about them?

I hope they keep it up. If this is their idea of effective sentiment manipulation, fucking awesome. I'd love to see what happens if we turn up the volume on this kind of ridiculously inept play at influence.

I'd imagine it starts to look not unlike sudden emails from Nigerian princes, thoughtfully explaining their ardent desires to share their clutch of investments with me, if only I'd helpfully provide the bank account to wire all that fabulous money into.

Url changed from https://outline.com/RFwceY, which copies this, which violates the HN guidelines, which ask submitters to submit original sources.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

TIL that pro China talk is against freedom of speech, how ironic.

"freedom of speech" refers to specific legal principles related to what kinds of reprisals the US federal government can take against you for speech (fun fact: there are types of speech which can send you to jail [0]). It has nothing to do with what kinds of actions society can take against you, or private citizens, or private institutions.

This is an article about astroturfing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

>"freedom of speech" refers to specific legal principles related to what kinds of reprisals the US federal government can take against you for speech

Legally yes, but colloquially it includes non-governmental actions[1].

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freedom_of_speech

Reply on news.ycombinator.com