Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

What a mess.

Nothing in the student's question can be construed as offensive -- she asked in a forum why the US hasn't responded to genocide and oppression of the Uyghurs (her brother has been detained since 2017 by the Chinese government).

In response, the Chinese students in the audience jeered, booed, and left the room. Through a representative group, which may or may not actually represent the students: "[w]e left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us . . . [a]t that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit."

If they were asked to personally answer for their nation's genocide, I could see this remark having validity. However, they weren't, but by rudely interjecting into a clear question they made it about them, and facts and morality are not on their government's side. In addition to this being extremely rude decorum, their response shows a loyalist's denial of reality.

This has been the Chinese MO for quite a while now. Always play the victim. Never engage in conversations, never answer anything. Just blame the other side to be offensive to Chinese culture. This is happening everywhere, all the way to the top.

So if they are always going to play the victim it's best that they actually are victimized?

Can you walk me through how you got from the grandparent's comment's point that they observed CCP leadership and loyalists play the victim, to your pointed question that they should be victimized?

I'm confused, because the grandparent identified a thought-terminating cliched approach, and your point seems to be unrelated, so I feel like I'm missing steps between.

It's the allegory of the boy who cried wolf.

Thank you for asking, instead of dimly downvoting. =)

Gotcha!

The CCP is offensive to Chinese culture

How so?

Makes you wonder how a person can get in such frame of mind that it is fine in their head te respond like that

If you believe the genocide claims are false and being amplified by a community with an agenda, that could easily result in such behavior.

"There was audible booing and jeering going on from the Chinese students partway through her question, and during the answer they started to get up and just walked out of the room,"

Let's not go over the top, the reaction is not uncommon in public events when a person or a group very strongly objects to what is being said. Whether this is rude or disrespectful is another issue but the point is that this happens all the time. It's not really newsworthy.

Now, a key issue here and in your comment is the choice of terms. China and the vast majority of Chinese people will object and be offended by the use of the term "genocide". The term really is pushed in order to frame the narrative, and it has proved extremely effective (as can be seen here), but is not established fact.

I strongly agree.

Words have meaning. Genocide is not “horrible mistreatment of a group I believe is sympathetic”.

The Chinese treatment of Uighurs is deplorable, and should be loudly condemned.

Russian invasion and shelling of Ukrainian cities is deplorable and should be even more loudly condemned. It’s much worse than Chinese treatment of Uighurs.

Neither are genocide. Genocide is slaughtering people with the explicit purpose of eliminating a particular type of person.

Attempting to suppress a culture is bad, and on a spectrum whose terminal point is genocide, but when we jump to the terminal point, we lose all ability to distinguish shades of grey in bad behavior.

Actions considered genocide[0]:

[A] Killing members of the group

[B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

[C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction

[D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

[E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1]

Links

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

Not according to everyone.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...

It was rude and incredibly offensive, but is it really newsworthy? What should the school do? Hunt down and reprimand these students? Prevent them from standing up during a Q&A? Send them to mandatory education programs on the subject?

I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues, no matter how one sided. Just provide educational services and a safe environment to learn (safe as in physically safe)

How about forcing them to sign a declaration acknowledging the genocide of their government or be expelled. We know it is happening we don’t need shitty people in our country if they want to deny it.

Yeah, I would be against that as well. That sounds awful, kind of like a loyalty test. It reminds me of terrible stories after 9/11 from Middle Eastern American's getting eyed suspiciously and having their loyalties questioned. Imagine being an Arab and some school making you sign something like "9/11 was bad"?

We already have companies cut ties with Russia I don’t see this as being any different. Cut ties with people with oppressive views. Screw them is my feelings.

Economic sanctions are a very, very different thing from coerced 'confessions' from individuals. There are governments that engage in such practices, but they have no place in a free society.

Nothing is coerced and there is no confession. If you don’t agree with the statement then just don’t go to that school. You talk about a free society but Uyghur are being rounded up and put in re-education/concentration camps that also has no place in a free society. We do agree they are being rounded up unwillingly right? A university could have a declaration of values that each student must sign. If they don’t agree with that political stance then don’t attend.

Every cent of Cornell's federal grant money would be pulled for violating the 1A rights of these students.

Of course China is not a free society. The problem with what you suggest is, who gets to decide the political requirements on such institutions? Well, politicians will. So lovely, now we have bureaucrats and politicians deciding what must be taught, and what cannot be taught or even discussed in our educational institutions. What could possibly go wrong?

The only way to prevent such dictatorial mandatory opinions in education is to have no dictated mandatory opinions.

Free discourse is the only answer, and yes that means discussing abhorrent opinions and statements. The right answer to the darkness is to flood it with light.

Or the university could ask the students to take a class on how the oil rich middle eastern countries have spread their sects bundled with separatist and anti-national ideology in various countries by funding mosques for decades... and have students debate whether they agree with how it's handled in China or France or Germany.

- France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6DLKjDlORo

- Germany: https://www.dw.com/en/battling-salafism-on-germanys-streets/...

- China: https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/chinese-salafism-and-the-sau...

I am for free speech, but also just as vehemently against compelled speech.

That's consistent, because compelled speech is not free speech - more the opposite.

Cornell is a private university that _could_ do that, but they won't because every cent of their federal grant money would be pulled for violating 1A rights.

Given that the ICC doesn't acknowledge it, that would be a rather extreme step to take.

> I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues

For certain things there is no "not having a stance" -- existence forces a stance. To not be against genocide is to be a collaborator.

I consider it newsworthy as it highlights a growing trend of denying reality and pretending to be a victim when a loyalist's pet topic is discussed.

Fact: China is murdering Uyghurs.

Claim: it is offensive to Chinese culture to point out that China is murdering Uyghurs.

Conclusion: China doesn't want to be reminded that it is murdering Uyghurs.

No one is claiming people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. But that means allowing people to have opposing thoughts no matter how wrong-headed

A lot of people are just uninterested in foreign affairs and want to go about living their lives. In that case you're not getting them to "take a stance", you're getting them to be obedient. And for what purpose? You want to argue there should be a draft and we should fight this injustice? I may disagree but fine. But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief, then that sounds awful regardless of what that piece of paper says.

>But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief...

Where on earth did you pull that from? Nobody asked them to do or say anything, they chose to do and say things though. Surely that's on them?

The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.

> The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.

Does the 1st amendment come with responsibilities? Maybe that would have been a good idea, but I thought it was just rights.

Who guarantees those rights? Who acts to protect them and acts to stop those attempting to infringe them? Someone has to.

Your right are my obligation. That’s how that works.

A lawyer if you can afford to pay one.

> It was rude and incredibly offensive, but is it really newsworthy?

I think so. It's the first time I've heard of Chinese students in America, actively decrying the claim (regardless of the base reasoning).

Reprimand looks like exactly the thing to do to the people disrupting the event and putting the safety of the speaker into question.

Preventing them from getting in Q&A sessions looks like something to do with repeat offenders.

So shouting down speakers in college campuses should be reprimanded? Okay I'll remember that. Plus, the students left in protest. No one stopped the q&a

Gathering the students and telling them that what they did was wrong is exactly the kind of thing to do here.

But I am under the impression that some students left (no problem with that) while others stayed and kept disrupting the event. On retrospect the article isn't clear if they just voiced something and left or if they kept there voicing the complaints.

People are suspended for racist texts written years ago. This is no different

This is quite different.

Here, the Uyghur student is the one the mob (Chinese students) canceled.

Should the Chinese students be reprimanded, it may likely be due to violation of an honor code of behavior if Cornell has such a policy (many universities due), which would be a contractual violation.

news is exactly what it is.

News is in fact the appropriate alternative to "hunting down", "reprimanding", etc.

Thankfully, there isn't a binary choice between "imprison for life" and "never speak publicly about bad behavior".

> can be construed as offensive ... > loyalist's denial of reality

Uyghur student adopting State Department propaganda that XJ is genocide is offensive to PRC nationalist who doesn't view XJ as genocide seems pretty straight forward. One sides facts and morality is just another sides definition of useful idiot / propaganda. "Crimes they did not commit" is not about answering for their nations "genocide", it's denying there's any crimes are being committed at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com