[flagged]
The world had had more invasions, interventions, toppling of legitimate governments, etc, from the US than from China. And while the US keeps democracy internally (unlike China) they have supported all kinds of dictators abroad.
So there's that.
The mere fact that you were even considering "flattening China with nuclear weapons" to bring democracy (even to discard it) is telling of the US imperial mindset...
And the same is for the interventionist idea of "totally excluding China from any and all international trade".
Yeah, let's risk internal chaos, power struggles, civil war, famines, etc in a sovereign nation like China, because they don't have a system of government we approve of.
As if intervention to "bring democracy" worked so well in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other places besides, who cares for the million out of their homes, rising fundamentalism, killed, etc, they're not white enough...
When does some countries finally understand the concept of "mind you own effing business"?
All large nation states are guilty of aggression, that's how you become a large nation state.
Please don't move the goalposts. We're talking about the current State of China, which came into being in the mid 20th century, and is thus a lot younger than the current US state which traces its founding to around 1776. By that measure, the US has been involved in far, far more invasions and wars than the Chinese state.
For Tibetan, the government freed them from the old cult (you may don't know their nobles used to wear slave skin clothes and drink from human skull bowl), build railways accelerate their economy, lower the university score for them to help them get educated, enfranchise them to vote, propose new proposal in People's Congress, etc. So how do they feel about their government? I mean those Tibetans who live in China.
What's more, Tibetan, Muslims in western China, they are all Chinese people, so their issue IS the Chinese government's own business.
Even if you think that it's desirable for the government to try to accelerate secularization with its "re-education camps," the implementation is guaranteed to cause a lot of suffering. The rushed timeline for construction, involuntary detention in the resulting cramped quarters, guards and teachers who were hired quickly with essentially zero training... all of this is just setting things up for physical and psychological abuse of inmates. Just look at the cases of 杨永信 and 豫章书院 torturing children to cure them of internet addiction to see how far people are willing to go if there's no oversight and their aims are supported by mainstream opinion. That the government tries so hard to suppress negative reporting doesn't exactly inspire confidence that abuse will be prosecuted.
My personal prediction is that the majority of inmates are going to come out of "re-education" traumatized and with a justified hatred of the government. I'm sure they'd prefer it if the government stuck to their business of modernizing the economy, instead of trying to force loyalty in the most ham-fisted way possible.
1. While the Constitution of the People's Republic of China does protect religious freedom, this is only under the condition that the religious beliefs in question do not disturb the social order, cause bodily harm or obstruct the national education system. That means in practice, people will be detained for beliefs that are considered too extremist.
2. Would you believe me that they exist if I called them "education centers" instead? Try searching for 教培中心 in http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-03/18/c_1124247196.ht... It is described quite clearly that people can be brought to these centers even if their extremist beliefs do not otherwise amount to a crime.
3. I specifically brought up "杨永信" and "豫章书院" because they don't involve minorities. I didn't mean that they were mainstream in the sense that most people would approve of their methods, but there's definitely widespread concern about students spending too much time on the internet and too little studying. It's just that most schools take a less brutal approach to the problem and confiscate their student's phones instead of using torture.
Given your statement that
> Many Chinese people hope the government put an end to "杨永信" and "豫章书院", but I don't know why they don't.
consider that many Uyghur people hope the government put an end to the conditions in those "education centers" and don't know why they don't.
4. Do tell me if any of this is unconvincing. I'm still working on an airtight argument that is acceptable for someone with the perspective that the CPC is trying to do good in principle.
3. Your refute is valid only if the presumption is real, I applause sincerely for you, but how can you stand for many Uyghur? I live with Chinese every day so I can present more or less their thought, did you get in touch of some Uyghur or you just surmise their thought from, let me cite Trump, "Fake News"?
4. I really hope to read your airtight, immaculate, irrefutable argument!
Maybe not, but not all beliefs that are defined as extremist are of the stabby kind. It's a bit hard to get information on which specific beliefs are covered; http://www.xjnj.gov.cn/jgdj/flfg/201502/09174829hwdu.html talks mostly in general terms, but does explicitly mention "活佛转世". Belief in reincarnation is not exactly a violent ideology, but it does create a separate hierarchy (of reincarnated lamas) that does not directly answer to the CPC, which I guess falls under the "social order" exception. Also, various kinds of headscarves and beards seem to be forbidden alongside the Turkish/East Turkestan flags: http://xjtzb.gov.cn/2017-06/19/1121167392_14978365485711n.jp... (I realize the image is watermarked by some random WeChat account; but the reposting by the Xinjiang branch of the United Front seems like an endorsement.)
> maybe even teach him some skills so he can make a living and become a part of society? The latter is exactly what "education centers" do according to the link.
I don't have a problem with that in itself, but that's contingent on the implementation. Making the plan work requires lots of resources, not just the one-off construction of buildings, but also teachers, guards and other supporting staff. There's already a shortage of teachers in poorer regions of China, so where are all those teachers coming from? How are they trained? The inmates aren't going to be economically productive for some time, so how are their living expenses paid? What about the loss of income to their family members?
These are all difficult problems to solve, and I'm not sure the Chinese government has actually solved them.
> the center is not a prison or Auschwitz (go back home regularly)
I agree that comparisons with concentration camps are not appropriate, because the purpose is not genocide, but ideological assimilation. However, I'm not too sure about the "going home" part. Only one of the three groups are voluntary signups; what's the point of sending someone there involuntarily if they can just go? They might even end up stabbing someone.
> did you get in touch of some Uyghur or you just surmise their thought from, let me cite Trump, "Fake News"?
Unfortunately, Uyghurs are a bit rare where I live. It's certainly possible that the Uyghur and Kazakh Muslims who have appeared as eyewitnesses in Western media are just making everything up, or maybe their experience was simply atypical. After all, among a million people, finding one who had to live in a room with ten people because the new dorms weren't finished yet, or who was hit by a frustrated teacher, or who was raped by a drunk guard, is kind of to be expected. In that context, a statement from the government that they're investigating those crimes and will punish those responsible would be much more reassuring than a complete denial that anything bad ever happened.
Maybe you could ask some of your Uyghur friends if they know anyone who went to one of these centers and what they thought of the experience. I guess that'd be much more informative than debating with me.
This is often claimed, but I fail to see the disproof. The standard of living in China has improved considerably as a result of trade. That new prosperity means that now more people can afford to support journalists, lawyers and activists working to expose and curtail abuses of power.
This is not limited to underground organizations or something; the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims is run by the China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, probably funded by government grants. http://www.clapv.org/about/index.asp
It's also not limited to action in China; as Chinese companies get involved in large-scale construction abroad, so do Chinese NGOs who have experience mediating between those companies and the people negatively affected by them. https://pandapawdragonclaw.blog/2019/10/28/interview-can-chi...
You may think that internet censorship is a sign that things are regressing, but there used to be no internet at all. Nowadays anyone with a grievance can publish an article or a video to raise awareness; by the time the censors notice the outrage, it's already too late for the government to pretend that nothing happened.
30 years ago, the Tiananmen Square protests lasted barely over a month before they were crushed by the military; the protests in Hong Kong have been going on for half a year and the military hasn't been involved so far.
China hasn't turned into a democracy overnight, but neither did South Korea or Taiwan. So far, the trend seems to be positive.
>China has been using our money ...
The best way is to vote with your money then?
I find it intellectually dishonest to compare the USA’s foreign policy with a dictatorship government that forces compliance through threats on local relatives, etc.
Right, if you're a U.S citizen maybe not, otherwise they'll do that and worse, read on "enhanced integrations", kidnappings etc.
So the U.S is better domestically, (still employs prisoners as effectively slave labor, treats minorities harshly, lets people die due to lack of healthcare...), but it is worse in terms of foreign policy, so in the end it seems to be a bit of a wash, doesn't it?
Also all the nations in Africa with newly built debt trap infrastructure.
The US has done some truly shit things abroad, but we’ve also been the dominant superpower during a period of unprecedented stability, prosperity, and peace when you look at the numbers.
Sure Iraq was a shit show, and I’m of the opinion that war crimes were committed during enhanced interrogations.
But the entire history of the world before WWII is just one long history of war basically everywhere. Open market slavery.
The US isn’t perfect, but the alternative filled with constant regional conflicts everywhere certainly seems like a worse alternative to me.
Edit: not sure why I waded into this conversation.
Curious though, I’m seeing the 4x prison population for USA per capita number bandied about.
On one level, I see that number slowly improving as we stop arresting people for smoking marijuana.
And on the other, I’m really curious, and have no idea, are China’s Uighur population which are in “reeducation camps” counted in China’s numbers?
Aren’t they harvesting people’s organs in those places?
Rough. America’s always had a lot of outright and systemic racism but my feeling is that it slowly but surely keeps getting better.
I have a feeling Generation Z is going to be pretty open about things whether it’s sexuality, skin color, gender, or whatever.
Ultra PC and call out/cancel culture is another thing with it’s own warts, but yay for a society where an entire generation can push forward this new ideology of being whatever the hell you want to be.
The boomers are dying out, the evangelicals and religious are losing people every day.
I have faith we’ll be fighting for human rights and climate change accords soon.
I really hope at least.
So to conclude, my opinion, we’re no paragon of morals and values, but our history shows a slow but steady stride towards an ideal, one of freedom, and individuality, and opportunity, for all.
We take steps back, we make awful mistakes, but over the long term, we always move forward.
That’s the America I believe in. I hope I’m not wrong.
Sure, there were historically always some tensions at the border regions of these empires, but there are pressures of such nature felt in Europe now too, (the U.S. has the advantage of being physically very, very far from the regions in unleashes its worst policies on, so of course it's less felt there).
Also, all empires saw themselves as in some way policing, keeping peace and bringing their enlightened values to what they saw as the lesser. If we see that kind of thinking now as wrong, then I really don't see how the U.S. is so much different from the empire model of old.
As for China, I agree its regional foreign policy is not great, the problem is the U.S. doesn't just keep it regional. It treats the whole world as its backyard.
If you're a non-U.S. citizen, the unipolar world is not so great. I don't want China to say replace the U.S. as the dominant superpower, I want it to offer a counter-balance. I want the EU to be its own great power, offering counter balance to both, bringing both democratic values & a more humane treatment of its own citizens than the U.S. has, especially the less fortunate.
Try handing out flyers about civil rights in Washington DC and then try it in Beijing.
Of course it's easy to criticize the electoral college but look at the results of direct democracy recently, Brexit, the initial rejection of the FARC peace agreement in Columbia. There's a reason representative democracy is prefered to direct, it's just difficult to get a balance. Odds are that the Electoral College will be gone in my lifetime.
Is the authoritarian Chinese system better? Of course not.
The obvious counter-example to this argument is Switzerland, which has been a direct democracy (or as close as you can get) for more than 120 years.
Brexit wasn't caused by the system by which the vote was conducted. It was a genuine public sentiment that had been cultivated through decades of media propaganda and scapegoating by politicians. Yes, the fact it was a single-issue vote made the issue more prominent, but it's entirely possible that the same result may have occurred through a general election if the right parties had been galvanized in the same manner.
> There's a reason representative democracy is prefered to direct, it's just difficult to get a balance.
I wonder which group of people overwhelmingly prefers such a system. Political apathy is rampant throughout the world of representative democracies, with a prevailing sentiment that people's views aren't being represented. Two-party politics results in elites being able to control the scope of options available to the electorate.
> Odds are that the Electoral College will be gone in my lifetime.
We can only hope, but that won't solve the two-party problem (or any of the other problems in American democracy such as the rank corruption).
> Is the authoritarian Chinese system better? Of course not.
Is anyone arguing that? The whole point being made is that America is in no position to take the moral high-ground. The US financially (and usually militarily) backs 70% of the world's dictators.
... yeah, about that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
I'd pick a different spot to call us morally superior. Like, any other thread.
I never said anyone was completely superior. But in this specific case.. we are, because American citizens (and their families) don’t disappear for criticizing their government or for refusing to spy on other countries.
We have LOTS more prisoners, btw, 4x as many per capita, with a nasty racial bias. And that's before you get into all the dead Arabs and Latinos who dared to have a government that wasn't freedomy enough for us.
What's your exchange rate between those? Do you value the tiny number of people speaking out against the state's legitimacy that much, when were talking millions of other innocent lives?
Becoming suddenly sure that we MUST kneecap our rival for totally sound moral reasons is soooo American. I feel like I'm living in groundhog day and nobody else can tell.
I can’t change what my government has done, and I can’t really change what it’s doing besides voting, but I can have my own opinion.
A mob opinion that our chief rival must be kneecapped in the name of freedom and justice is super suspect, is what I'm saying.
Americans want American hegemony, and that's fine, but please don't preach about values while you're doing it.
I think we can talk without hyperbole, no?
>Americans want American hegemony,
Sorry if that's what you think.
As far as hegemony.. I'm sorry you don't believe that :) Why is specifically China the Big Bad Guy if it's not about hegemony? Why aren't we focused on cleaning our own house first if it's about justice and freedom?
Like, if this isn't about power, we could at least stop actively supporting the horrible regimes that are useful to us? That seems like a pretty easy thing to do. Why hasn't it happened?
There are significant online mobs dedicated to anything. That's not really a convincing argument. People who are advocating independence don't understand the situation, nor do they even understand what the protestors actually want (it's not independence).
> Why aren't we focused on cleaning our own house first if it's about justice and freedom?
It's almost as if America isn't comprised solely of 1 person! Not to mention, why can't people focus on both? This argument is basically "america has issues, so it can't point fingers". Not only is this an unconvincing argument, it doesn't make sense because what is "america"? Is it me, a singular US citizen? Is it Gitlab, a company headquartered in America with ~50% American employees? Is it just the US govt?
> Why hasn't it happened? Because people aren't informed and don't vote based on that. That is another complex discussion in and of itself, but most people that I know are against it, so I don't really get what your argument is.
It's also complex over there, where Americans don't speak the language or understand anything about the culture or history. Our lack of understanding does not make them 1-dimensional movie villains in reality.
1. I do not need to comprehensively understand a country's culture to know about security risks and totalitarian governments. In fact, both of my grandparents and parents lived in and fled from a communist country, so I know a thing or two about that. 2. I do not need to comprehensively understand a country's culture to understand when human rights abuses are happening.
This argument is a form of -gatekeeping-. "Only X people can really discuss this issue", except you can move the goalposts whenever necessary.
People often don't understand American culture or history (and sometimes don't English either) but that doesn't seem to phase them when discussing America, etc.
Don't be so sure of that. If you hold valuable information on a foreign state, you will be accused and quickly convicted under various national security laws if you don't co-operate.
You severely under-estimate the power of a state, especially one as powerful as the US. If they want something from you, they will get it. Have you broken a minor law? Maybe you've been stellar, but some member of your family hasn't. The likelihood of being in an entire family with spotless records is very very low.
Corruption and unfair things exist in every single country, but we do have the right to freedom of press, speech, assembly, and due process.
I do agree that the barrier for that may be lower in more authoritarian states, as they're not restricted by the system of laws in the US. Maybe that's the best we can get.
Or the infamous “signature strikes” that target individuals based on metadata? [1]
1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
This is done in China BTW.
No, Germany, which also faces massive problems with Chinese buy-outs and industrial spionage.
> Should other countries refuse to employ USA citizens because of actions of the government - things like pulling out of Syria to enable the Turkish murder of the Kurds to continue.
I would wish so, but I'm realistic enough to know no government wants to put themselves into the spotlight of Trump's Twitter account and trade war threats.
>> China has been using our money ...
> The best way is to vote with your money then?
We as individuals can't do shit about international trade. No matter if I live vegan or not, pigs will be slaughtered in inhumane conditions. No matter if I drive an SUV or not, climate change will grow. Systemic issues need to be dealt with those who have been elected for this job.
That's an incredibly disingenuous take. America has no business being there in the first place, so there is nothing wrong with having US troops leave that region.
By your logic, the US is responsible of all the atrocities in the world where it doesn't have special operators acting as human shields.
Besides, your FUD is a bit dated. Kurds simply went seeking protection with Syria and Russia and in the end, not much happened.
I believe people have a right to self determination. Borders are just lines on a map. I know America doesn't believe that, and that's a valid viewpoint too, just one I disagree with.
This is an old story
I don't have an opinion whether this is the right thing to do or not.
But regardless of my opinion, how does not hiring chinese citizens help with that? This just sounds like harassing chinese people because of their government.
If you really wanted to change something, hiring chinese people and showing them what the western world is like would be the best thing to do.
Harassing chinese people because of their government, and at the same time buying all the stuff their factories produce, sounds like the most idiotic course of action if you want to change the status quo.
If you are known to directly or indirectly provide assets to a government and said assets are a critical part of the infrastructure, you're responsible for the safety of the government in your dealings.
An American company refusing to recruit people from China is just the US government refusing to hire the Chinese government to run the country, not companies discriminating against individuals. This holds true even if you swap the states in the previous sentence.
For the record, I'm not a citizen of either of the aforementioned countries but my home country has a similar relation with its neighbor.
You are putting collective blame on a billion people for the actions of their dictatorial government. This is not a reasonable position to hold in a supposedly enlightened society, it is rather just a thinly veiled excuse for run-of-the-mill xenophobia.
Harassing : the action of subjecting someone to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
Where do you see any harassment ?
Gitlab has no Chinese or Russian employee so far -> so nobody got pressure or intimidate, ffs.
China is harassing the rest of the world. China is systematically spying with state wide support. China is bullying with military, economic or soft power. China is a threat.
* Recently, in France, concerns were raised by the intelligence community about the outsized number of young Chinese students flirting / marrying with military & defence engineers. You don't even need to spy, really, just marrying people to stop any aggressive ideas toward China spreading. I mean, you would not push to war against your wife's birth place where you are now visiting every year, right ?
* Apple spotted 2 cases, how many are missed ? https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203718/apple-self-drivi...
* Lol, there is a whole wikipedia page on the topic, just for the USA : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_espionage_in_the_Unite...
* In the European Union, they buy big companies from small countries to get leverage on EU decision making process. https://www.ft.com/content/d7145792-4743-11e9-b168-96a37d002...
Gitlab is simply pragmatic and clear-minded, their teams works in transparency and trust, they can't handle potential threats without a deep rework. I think it's much more than just having permissions baked in their systems, it's the whole defence industries layering that they would need to acquire.
Western players are now actively reducing their Chinese exposure (buying less critical stuff from their factories, cf. Huawei's affairs, moving factories to others countries). I am afraid it's too little too late.
While western people, and even more highly educated western people, have low levels of nationalism, Chinese people are brain-washed into thinking it's the best country in the world, best ever. Helping China is very important and their authorities have lots of leeway to push this.
Currently using Gitlab, I am glad they are aware of the issue and of their limited capacity to stop it from inside. Putting the fox in charge of the hen house, am I right ?
> if you really wanted to change something :
It's not West mission to bring democracy in China, it's not our country, they are grown up already and will keep finding their own way. It's typically USA ego to think the whole world must be awoken to USA values. The rest of the world is fine, thank you very much. We witness South America's fate in the XX century and Middle East's fate in the XXI. China just want western technology : buying, trading or spying it.
The most idiotic course of action has been followed already by moving the whole factories chains to China and thinking we could keep the knowledge here while it is applied there.
Actually, they do have employees there. There are at least 5 Russians and 1 Chinese listed here: https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/
There are no Russians at the role that had been debated though.
The Western world has tried this and ended up with Chinese students harrassing and intimidating pro-Hongkong protestors. This path has failed.
Has it? Not convincing 100% of Chinese students is not automatically a failure. What about Chinese pro-Hongkong protestors?