Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate | Hacker News Reader

Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

axios.com

183 pointsleephillips185 comments

I just graduated from Cornell, and I'm not surprised. Some student posters around campus which read "Hong Kong stands with Ukraine" had the "Hong Kong" scribbled out by someone else. [1] I saw students point and laugh at a similar poster. On multiple occasions, I saw scraps left behind where posters criticizing Xi Jinping or the CCP had hung.

[1] https://i.postimg.cc/25LM9hZJ/7297-B1-DB-5-CB3-4019-BCF3-8-F...

I'm a current senior at Cornell and I'm conflicted.

> On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval."

I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions of these students (they have an organization and a secret group chat to coordinate stuff like this) absolutely fall into the toleration of intolerance paradox. On the other hand, walking out is just about the most polite form of protest you can conduct. Certainly better than the mob that tried to prevent the law school Boston Flag SC case debate from occurring this semester.

However, even without imposing actual consequences, the administration absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses. They should have done more to defend Rizwangul NurMuhammad.

> absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses

I have no love for communists (having been born in the Eastern Bloc), but that's not how free speech works. Either you're for it (and all the icky stuff that comes with it) or you're against it. There's no "splitting the difference" here. We've debated and litigated this since the Enlightenment (from J.S. Mill to Skokie, IL): if you start banning one type of speech, that's a train you won't be able to stop.

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is highfalutin nonsense.

If they are residents, I agree there is nothing you can do about it.

But since they seem to be exchange students, you could say "We don't welcome people with such views here in our country", and just send them back to the country that is ruled by their beloved government.

Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can't select foreigners based on their beliefs and values.

Even if they are residents, you can absolutely be expelled from university for bullying, hate speech and other abuses.

This could indeed be seen as bullying or discrimination.

When we're talking about fundamental rights, I don't think we should treat foreigners any different than citizens. That's cruel. Is that really the country we want to be? Humane only to our citizens? We say that the mark of a man is how he treats those he sees as lower than himself. I think the same applies to countries.

Now I'm not saying being a foreign national you should have "the right" to open a US bank account, buy a house, or even get a job. But if we're talking about what we call "basic human rights," then that's a different story.

Of course, Universities are different, but I think the point still stands.

They didn't break the law, so you don't lock them up. In the end, they still have that fundamental right.

But if you act as an idiot abroad, you shouldn't be surprised when they send you back.

I also want to bring Blackstone's Ratio[0] into the conversation. I think it resonates with engineers really well because it is essentially the legal version of failure design. You design failure into your programs, bridges, and whatever (does your safe fail with an open lock or closed?). Why? Because when the thing fails, we want it to fail in a specific way to do the least amount of harm. We all know how terrible bad error messages are and how hard they make our life. This is such a key principle to almost every subject that I'm not sure why it isn't discussed more or ingrained into our societal thinking (it was ingrained into many of our constitutions).

Blackstone's ratio is:

> It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

This is failure design. The legal system will fail. So when it does, do you want a guilty person to be set free or an innocent person to be imprisoned. We, of course, want to minimize the failure, but we have to ask which mode of failure is preferable.

The same is true for speech here. Who decides what to censor? The people in charge change frequently and with opposing views. What is the threshold? Explicit or implicit speech? There are limits on speech in America but the limits are low because that was the mode of failure that was planned.

I think one thing to recognize though is that there's ways to stop speech we don't like without banning it[1]. You just have to be creative.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/neo-nazis-tric...

From 1:

> Neo-Nazis are attracted to the town because Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess was once buried there. Though his remains were exhumed in 2011 and his grave was destroyed, far-right extremists still flock to the town year after year

And that's why all those dead after Nuremberg were cremated and their ashes were spread in rivers and seas. Nobody wants neo-Nazis shrines.

> Nobody wants neo-Nazis shrines.

Ironic, considering the Pyramids at Giza are literal monuments to slavery.

Free speech -- i.e. the free exchange of ideas, ergo the natural extension of freedom of thought -- is a fundamental and transcendental ideal, and it's a hill I've died on and gotten downvoted for plenty of times. Germany, Nazis, and the USA probably won't be around 200 millennia from now, but the ideal of free speech certainly will. We think too much of ourselves and of our times.

According to some things I've read, the latest view is that slave labor was not primarily used for building the Pyramid at Giza. Wikipedia suggests 'conscripted laborers' as the main workers.

Have you tried moving the pyramids? Pretty difficult I hear :)

On a more serious note, when I went to see the pyramids, the guide pointed out several rows of nearby tombs for the laborers who built the things, talked about how they were free skilled laborers, and in fact treated quite well (for the time at least).

Free speech isn't an absolute all or nothing. In fact, all countries that give the right of free speech, and the UN declaration of human rights, impose limits on it.

For instance, outright neo-Nazism is forbidden in most EU countries. Same goes for stoking racial or religious hatred, etc. Even in the US with their old constitution and "textualist" interpretations of it that really want to take it to the absolute, have restrictions on free speech (e.g. "obscenity", "speech that violates intellectual property law", etc.)

Absolute free speech is incompatible with a modern society of today. Maybe it isn't with somebody's utopia, but we're not there.

The paradox of tolerance, however, is real. You can see it in work the recent rise of mis and disinformation from far-right folks, Russia, etc. For instance in France there was a presidential candidate who was convicted of inciting racial hatred more than once, and wanted to deport all Muslims and migrants from France, of course with frightening stories about why that is necessary to save France from the Muslims/Blacks/Arabs/Jews/whatever.

You should watch this couse: http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/ .

Free humans are not free to kill or enslave. Free speech is not free to hate.

Seems like an Ethics 101 course, I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy. I am intimately familiar with arguments on both sides, and I think you should read some John Stuart Mill, specifically his seminal On Liberty[1] (maybe not as engaging as a YouTube video course, though).

Free speech absolutism is a pretty hardline position, but I think it's probably correct.

[1] https://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty.html

I assume, your point is that US government doesn't represent Chinese immigrants, right? This is true. Why this is a problem and what solution to the problem you propose?

By rebuked I don't mean actual disciplinary consequences. Instead, the university should (verbally/textually) condemn speech in favor of human rights abuse.

And there we are again: Demonstrating that an absolutist take on free speech tends to destroy free speech itself in the long run.

„The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.“

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I don't think it is a paradox. As soon as your practice of free speech limits other people's ability to practice free speech, you are not actually practicing free speech, but attacking people's freedom of speech.

I think you have failed to understand the paradox.

I just don't think it applies to free speech. And I don't interpret free speech as I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am free to express my opinion. This does not include freedom to attack other people's freedom.

So, "I think other people should not be free" is not covered by free speech?

I don't think that such a statement should have any legal (or other) consequences. It would (kind of) translate to "I don't believe in freedom", but it would not directly attack someone's ability to practice free speech.

Context matters here, I think:

If I said "The president should not be allowed to say this", this would most likely not affect the president's freedom of speech.

If the president said "ls15 should not be allowed to say this", this may more likely affect my ability to express my opinions.

And what's ignored about the so-called paradox is the commonly omitted second half of Popper's quote:

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

This already fits well within the realm of free speech, free association, and the retributive justice system. The intolerant and the tolerant (both of which are in their common parlance subjective terms) are not required to associate with each other. Either party has the right to speak its mind. Only when force is involved would intolerance be justified. And even then, such intolerance should exist only in an objectively assessed proportion to the prior intolerant acts carried out and no more.

https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-...

Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

This is where I find myself as well. You are free to say things, you are not free of the consequences.

I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things.

Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.'

ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility.

Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit.

edit- screw cancel culture though, that shit ruins lives over even perceived slights. I don't believe any adult hasn't said something stupid or asinine we regret now. The thought that can ruin a life or career is crazy. If you don't like what someone says don't listen. If they aren't inciting violence or something.

> Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility.

From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as an acceptable response to what is perceived to be distasteful speech. Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that.

Even if someone is hurling a monstrous slew of verbal insults at you, hitting them is both morally wrong and illegal.

Today's awareness of mental trauma and triggers is a good thing, but it blurs the line a bit between physical and verbal attacks. Personally, I strongly believe that words should be treated fundamentally differently than physical violence. Sticks and stones, etc.

That said, if you're the one hurling insults, you're intentionally trying to evoke an emotional response, and you should not be surprised if the person you're insulting responds emotionally and violently.

I think it's more about it making you choose your words carefully.

For the record I'm very against what will smith did (posters above mentioned it), but I'd have felt differently if it hadn't been a comedian telling jokes, but say someone got in will's face and called him the N word with malice. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to knock someone out over that. If the other person knows this is a good possibility, they may only use those words if they mean them enoughto accept the consequences.

I'm not saying my way is right, I'm just saying how it was growing up, and how that's shaped me.

In another thread I mentioned a friend of mine getting hurled insults at her abortion appointment. Had any of them been a man I'd have definitely gotten in some trouble that day. My belief is they have the right to say it, not protection from the consequences. But I'm also very against cancel culture. Am I weird for all of this? Alone in these beliefs? Totally wrong? Quite possibly, I know the world now confuses the shit out of me, and sometimes I feel like I am the only sane one for seeing some things (ie- trading our lives to the rich for a pittance, rules for thee but not for me, etc). Truly I could be very wrong, and if so I will accept that and try and change my views. I do try and live by the scientific method.

Especially when street fights can easily wind up a manslaughter or murder case.

"Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that."

Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman?

afaik it had nothing to do with violence but more against having personal honour or pride and thinking of one's woman as him alone and having a sacred relationship with her that anyone insulting / degrading her is directly insulting the man, and that idea triggers the feminists to the moon and back I guess.

"even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another." Then what is a man supposed to do? go to court over an insult? be rude and start a shitshow of exchanging insults? take it and move on? wait for the other party to initiate the fight? or what?

I am not a westerner by any means, just curious.

> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled"

Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS.

There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be drawn so cancelling falls on the acceptable side.

But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.

>> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled"

> Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS.

OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society.

> But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.

By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.

> By that logic

My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop.

So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.

> But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.

wesleywt seems to be against this too since removing a legal right like that would require government action and they are againts that as seen in:

> I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

It seems like you put cancelling on the acceptable side of the line when you say:

> So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable.

I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing.

While government action would not be acceptable, which I agree with, but I would not call cancelling.

> I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing.

Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence.

You can construct a case where social consequences for an expression of opinion do happen and no human rights are infringed, but I'm not arguing that such cases can't exist, so you aren't really proving anything meaningful there.

My point is, to put it clearly: The idea that the right to either free speech or freedom of expression does not guarantee any form of protection from social consequences is completely incorrect.

> In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

That's a cute way of spelling "mob rule". It sounds nice because it talks about avoiding "interference", but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.

> Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence.

I think people are saying that:

- The university should repudiate their assertions with the university's words.

- The university should strongly seek to enforce its rules when there are harsher actions than a walkout, such as the vandalism coordinated by group chats.

> but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.

If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy".

I mean, you seem to be arguing that the government should somehow force (someone?) to give the super racist person a job so they're not "cancelled."

> If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy".

If you put in active effort to lobby businesses (I mainly care about larger businesses like google & al. here) to not employ people of certain opinions, then that's definitely punitive action rather than personal consequence. And as I said: specifically punishing people for holding certain opinions, whether it is done through the state or not, is antithetical to freedom of opinion and expression.

Conversely, having lots of super-racist-dudes in positions of power is antithetical to economic freedoms of the groups they're biased against. Paradox of tolerance, et al.

Not sure what your point is, but I'm not suggesting any law that forces private entities to allow free speech. I'm also expressing my own opinion on the matter in a social context, using social energy rather than legal means toward the person who is telling me to shut up, using my own social vote to influence what standards are acceptable in society. Not out of line with what you are saying at all.

> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits

I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.

I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.

Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, which is why the same story told by two different people can have vastly different tones. It's why we have laws to draw lines, and courts to get around the confusion about where those lines lie.

Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant.

Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.

No, it's not semantics. You can't say something that is not logical then argue that it's semantics when someone points that out. I don't know what you mean. There really isn't any situation that has an objective moral grounding. Just look at abortion. Both sides have pretty strong and reasonable narratives why their stance makes sense, and they both believe themselves to be objectively morally in the right. What is really happening is that both sides are small minded, thinking the other side is blind and nuts, and making the same mistake that you are.

> No, it's not semantics.

It is easy to interrupt you argument as semantics, because you can remove 'objectively' from mariusor's statement and the intended meaning does not seem to change much:

'I am arguing that someone that supports an immoral act is immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.'

The main point of the statement does not seem to revolve around or or depend on 'objectively', so your argument can come off as arguing over an irreverent detail, which is one definition arguing over semantics.

It wouldn't have been confusing if not for them changing the subject and move the goalposts from their original statement, where the use of "objective" was absolutely material to their meaning, which was that the act is unquestionably immoral:

>> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits

> I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

It looks like mariusor gave you a statement, with no direct connection to a real group of people, that is almost tautologically true.

> Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

To reword a little bit, it is immoral to persecute(or support the act) a group for arbitrary and trivial detail(s).

So if you agree with that then you and mariusor would have some common ground and could build from there.

I don't agree with the characterization that there's no direct connection to a real group of people with this statement, as it would be a non sequitur at best, and an intentional misdirection at worst. I, and probably most people reading this thread, are under the impression that we are talking about the Uyghurs of Xinjiang considering the topic of the post, and it's kind of absurd to assume otherwise.

It is a common technique, in my experience, to generalize parts of an argument to make it easier to find a shared philosophy or principle. Then Shared understanding can cooperatively be built on the common ground formed by the shared philosophy or principle.

mariusor generalized their argument, tried to separate his argument form any specific group, with:

> I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.

After common ground is found the next step is to apply the shared understanding or philosophy to the specifics of the issue at hand. This often allows both parties to separate themselves from their biases, at least some, and think more clearly.

Moral arguments are used by US state propaganda ALL THE TIME to get rid of the bad guys. I no longer trust 'objectively moral' arguments now. Folks who believe such are generally in the camp of the young, the brainwashed or the true 'change' fanatics who don't care about body count in pursuit of beliefs.

Saddam is a bad guy with WMD - let's get rid of him with shock&awe. Oops, we lied to the world and caused 200k deaths, but we are really moral!

Gaddafi is a bad guy who's oppressing the Arab Spring revolution (and threatening the USD). Let's get him with air-strikes and 'freedom-fighters'. Oops Libya fell-apart from a state that had guaranteed healthcare and education to a mess of conflicting factions and a multi-million casualty count. But hey - we are the good guys doing war for 'morality' and freedom. "We came, we saw, he died!"- Hillary Clinton.

Assad is a bad guy who's killing rebels (and siding with bad Russia). Let's get rid of him by giving his opponents (Obama's moderate rebels) infinite ammo, arms and armour. So what if they chained and raped women, united and transmogrified into the ISIS and invaded Iraq - we get another opportunity to bomb the bad guys!

All these 'moral American arguments' are responsible for multi-million deaths and casualties in the world - but doing it for morality makes it OK.

It starts with your campus culture, then those same folks become members of the US state department and want to change the world by through cancelling nation states or enacting sanctions that cause economic collapse and famine.

I feel that is a really bad example. I was an adult at the time and it was really clear back at the time that the Iraqi wmd was made up allegations, or at least the evidence we got to see was not worth anything.

It's pretty clear to me that Xinjiang is not as bad as the US is making it in their propaganda war. I haven't seen any concrete evidence of genocide.

The thought process that taken hold over the last several years... like the last 250?

The thought process that using various means to try to achieve human rights goals?

Oh well maybe you think the civil war was fought on a nice delightful afternoon between tea and cake, and folks shook hands after, slaves were freed and everyone went home, and the president recommend soldiers to go get some tan in the south for the photo op next year.

Yes, keeping slaves and saying words you don't like are equivalent crimes worthy of warfare.

Right wing activists have been doing this kinda stuff wrt Israel on campuses for decades. I agree, this kind of intolerance should be stamped out. The question is: whose morals become law?

If you're in the US:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis mine.

There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It makes me proud of this place:

> The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.

Citation: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALD...

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of American politics (at least).

> the spirit of the document

What do you mean by this?

> It’s a shibboleth

It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"?

> It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman...

There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.

If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this.

And as for shibboleth:

> The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.

What? The interpretation of the document by the highest court in the land changes according to the political affiliation of whoever happens to be on the court at the time. The very fact that it has to be interpreted means subjectivity is there from the beginning.

The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point.

* different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics

>...is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government

This doesn't seem right. Firstly, we generally operate under the principle that laws are created by the populace, not "one man", the censor. That seems to contradict the idea that a control on freedom of speech would be up to the whims of one person, if the censor is restricted in his activities by the voting populace and the lawmakers they elect. Secondly, this type of restriction has precedent in several other important areas of life, such as food and drugs. While many people disagree with the FDA's decisions, very few people argue for its abolition in its role as a 'censor' of which products can be sold and in what quantities on the American market.

Of course, the usual retort would be "I trust the state to regulate food and drugs more than I trust it to regulate speech", but to convince someone else of that point, you'd have to also provide evidence and reasoning that our hypothetical censor cannot be trusted to censor according to the law that the citizens vote for via their representatives. Another retort would be "Free speech is more important than food and drug availability", but that statement implicitly admits there's an issue with any food regulation, it's just not as important as speech, which leads to the question of why so few free speech absolutists care about abolishing the FDA.

I haven't really seen any convincing argument for a slippery slope when it comes to regulation of speech, nor any reasoned argument on why there ought to be an absolute constitutional protection on speech. That said, I'm not personally in love with the idea of a censor, as I've seen that censors in other countries have practiced unjustified censorship - but that seems like a problem with the democratic process and oversight rather than the idea of a censor.

This reminds me of the time a university student in Australia was expelled for criticising the Chinese Government: https://www.wsj.com/articles/australian-student-critical-of-... https://twitter.com/DrewPavlou/status/1256505548314296320/ph...

He has since try his luck on the recently held 2022 general election as a new party but lost.

Reminds me of a time the comments section of my university's student newspaper practically melted down with angry criticism from a mixture of Chinese students and random Chinese people who had read Chinese social media when a student wrote a not-particularly-great but also pretty mild article about not trusting Chinese foreign policy.

(The writer of the original article became a well regarded columnist at the FT)

Let these students keep embarrassing themselves and their country. The more people can see how the CPC thinks of others, which is exactly what these kids are expressing, the better. Shame and losing face will be the only thing that'll make the CPC change.

When did that ever work?

Exactly. Reminded me of this tweet: https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1534969496724807680

Thank you so much for sharing this.

"And at the same time it is stated on behalf of Chancellor Hilter that these acts of violence [against Jews] by Nazis have been condemned and that official order haves been issued to prevent their recurrence"

Telling X and doing !X is not a recent invention.

that's an attitude that seems to accepts the consequences for those being harassed as collateral without giving it much thought, though

As a Cornell alum from India , I’ve seen so many these sorts of political storms in a teacup. Especially, of the India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine variety. If you’re a foreign student, just don’t engage with this stuff. You are a guest in a foreign country. So even if you disagree with the views of your hosts, keep them to yourself and be polite and gracious. Your home country’s government is more than capable defending its point of view in the appropriate fora. You are at Cornell to learn, not engage in political brawls.

That is very non Western approach. Just because you're foreign doesn't mean you shouldn't engage in political discourse. It's wrong to bully the victims of China, but not to verbally defend China, as messed up as it is.

The cries of racism really ring hollow when they're talking about actions of a government, not a people or a culture.

Wait, what? So Jim Crow or Apartheid were not racist because they were promulgated by governments?

For context, in the article the mainland Chinese student association leader mentioned that by the mere mention of Xinjiang and the CCP’s culpability was seen as being racist toward them as Chinese people.

Did we read the same article?

William Wang, president of the program's student government body, drafted a letter that was signed by more than 80 Chinese students in the program and sent to the administration on Thursday evening, then sent to all program students on Friday.

"We left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us," the letter stated. "At that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit."

Yes we did.

“we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit.”

These students are confusing criticism of a government and leadership with criticism of an entire race of people. Either that or they’re being disingenuous.

Saying that Xi Jinping and the CCP have terrible policies is not racist.

For the record I am also Chinese.

Since we’re on the subject, Jiang Zemin is more fit to rule. That’s something a lot of different factions both inside and outside of China can agree on. Xi Jinping is a disaster not just for China, but the entire world.

I think you've misunderstood the GP. The Chinese students are claiming the people criticizing the Chinese government are being racist. The GP is saying criticizing a government (and not the people) is not inherently racist.

GP is saying that if some is criticising the Chinese government, it does not imply that they are being racist towards Chinese people. But these students try to muddy the waters by conflating the two issues.

Sounds like the “criticise Israel and you’re anti semetic” thing

Different people have different motivation: among people who criticize Israel there are people driven by antisemitism. Of course not all critics are antisemitic. The same with China - some can be right (in critics of CCP) for wrong reasons (xenophobia/nationalism). Or one can criticize specific policies for good reasons and be labeled as a racist.

Not really. When someone is very anti Israel, more often than not, if you dig a little deeper you find an antisemite.

But when people criticize China, they criticize the politics and you almost always find them praising Taiwan and Hong Kong, invalidating the idea that they're racist.

No, it's more like this:

    if you criticize certain policies of the Chinese government:
      if you are not ethnic Chinese:
        you are racist
      else:
        you are treasonous

Remove the negation from the else please, otherwise LGTM

I think this is explicitly the danger of nationalism. It has always been odd to be, because criticism seems the cornerstone of a democracy. You need to recognize what is wrong (because you're never perfect) and improve upon that. You can do this and have pride in your country too. But we need to disassociate the idea that a people (or race) and their country are one in the same. There's relatively little difference in people due to their race. But similarly we need to be able to allow others to criticize our country without taking it personally. An outside perspective can be valuable.

But I think we end up making it a family issue. I can make fun of and pick on my brother, but you can't.

>"we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit"

They don't mean for crimes they personally did not commit, but alleged "genocide" that plurality of UN members who has formal position on the matter states PRC did not commit. When the dominant narrative is PRC government actions in XJ is counter-terrorism/deradicalization, the anti-China racism being complained about is "false" western propaganda, i.e. completely opposing foreign policy. And TBH some of the past alleged racism is pretty apt, like posters of Chinese curlers throwing a corona virus for the Winter Olympics. Rest is just Chinese idpol finding their place on Western campus culture, foreign students protest over diasphora shit all the time. So why wouldn't Chinese play the racism card.

I think leaving en masse from a lecture/speech that you ideologically disagree with is likely one of the few permissible forms of protest in a university context.

It’s certainly better than many alternatives; however, universities are not meant to be places of ideological dogmatism; a better response to a lecture you disagree with is an open, rational debate/discussion.

Agreed, but the same group also do this

> Some Chinese international students at universities in the U.S. and Canada have reported anti-Beijing speech to university authorities as a form of anti-Chinese racism, or they reported Uyghurs and Chinese dissidents on campus to Chinese diplomatic officials.

Can you have freedom of speach while trying to take it away from others?

> Can you have freedom of speach while trying to take it away from others?

Ah, the paradox of tolerance at work.

You don't know that they are the same group.

This links to an article about Chinese students at GW. Do you mean to say this group of students transferred en masse from GW to Cornell or are you just saying they are the same group because they are both Chinese?

There is a connection, the article discusses it.

Please read it again :)

Point it out to me?

Hmmm, if a group of white supremacists booed someone talking about their experience of racism, then got up and walked out, what would the administration’s response been?

If that group then sent an email saying that they left because they did not feel comfortable and were subjected to hostility by the surrounding audience, would that be given a moment of respect?

What if that organisation was giving large amounts of funding to Cornell, would that have impacted the response?

These seem like reasonable question, variations of which come up every time students of some country committing crimes against humanity come out in support of said crimes. The response is always silence.

I don’t really expect anything different this time.

Indeed. Similar things have occurred in universities here in Australia. And as far as I know, universities bend over backwards because a large amount of their money comes in from international students. A lot of which happen to be Chinese.

Legally speaking, the University admin cannot do anything to Chinese students who boo and walk out, and also cannot do anything to white supremacists who boo and walk out.

In the US, Students have First Amendment rights to express themselves. The critical point here is that by walking out they did not prevent any speakers from exercising their own First Amendment rights.

It does not mean we have to respect them for that or be polite about it. That's our First Amendment right.

That's not how the First Amendment works. Cornell University is a private organization and it can choose not to do business with people if it wants to, provided that it's not breaking other laws by doing so. Students get suspended or expelled for speech all the time. (I would guess public universities can too - the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." - not sure where its boundaries are drawn though.)

Private universities can be subject to free speech rules: states could mandate them, and if they take federal grants or otherwise do business with the federal government they could be subject to additional rules. See https://campusfreespeechguide.pen.org/the-law/the-basics/

A public university is restricted by the first amendment. That doesn't mean they can never have speech limitations, but political speech is very heavily protected.

Cornell is a private university, but it does receive significant government money and some of it's underling colleges are state funded. If it was acting in a way as to obviously disrespect the first amendment, that funding could be revoked.

Cornell isn’t a fully private university. I really doubt it can do any more censorship than a fully public university.

> Although it's an Ivy League university, chartered as a private institution, it includes undergraduate colleges and schools that receive some funding from New York State. They are sometimes called state contract colleges. The state subsidy results in lower tuition for students who have New York State residency and are enrolled in these colleges or schools

https://cornelladmissions.happyfox.com/kb/article/217-is-cor...

That's not really correct. The First Amendment doesn't necessarily prevent private schools such as Cornell from disciplining students for legal speech. This is one area where public universities are generally superior.

https://campusfreespeechguide.pen.org/the-law/the-basics/

There may be state laws that bind the private schools like in California.

Stridently confident and 100% wrong.

What I find really interesting is that if these were conservative students that did the same (for any topic) the other students would have gone ballistic, the school sanctioned them, and every Twitter warrior under the sun blasted them to pieces, but due to some magical reason, none of this happens when it comes to China/CCP (this is not the first time)

Then people have the balls to claim that US liberal organizations don't bow down to China (or their money I guess)

Conservative students have been doing this for a while now without much, if any, notice or sanction. Hell, they've been doing this on the UC Berkeley campus since I was a student and the Daily Cal doesn't even bother cover their protests anymore because it's the same old victimhood shtick conservatives have been playing at for decades.

(But note that that the seniormost U.S. GOP senator is married to a CCP senior official and ask yourself which party is in bed with the Chinese government.)

> The big picture: Uyghurs and other marginalized groups with ties to China can face intimidation, state surveillance and threats to their family members in China when they speak out on U.S. campuses about oppression by the Chinese government.

> Multiple people present at the event described the Chinese students' reaction to NurMuhammad as "jeering," "taunts," "snickering" and "booing.".

As much as I love long discussions when it comes to technical topics I think this issue is pretty simple to solve, send them back to China. Is it unjust / unfair? imho, no it's not.

Because they won't be prosecuted or hurt anyways in China, they can complete their education and live a happy ever after under the CCP they so much -obviously- support.

And make an announcement, that any show of support for authoritarian regimes / bullying or any such behaviour would get them expelled.

They can just leave in silence if they fear the CCP might actually hurt their close ones, there is no need to taunt or show any symbol of aggression.

On the other hand, the Uygurs has been the actually oppressed ones, a Chinese person isn't going to die in China especially after the show they made in the University according to the article, they can go and support the CCP in China and they will probably even have more privileges than the average Chinese person.

If they're going to support the CCP anyways, why not support it in China?

at the very least, anyone acting with malice and a clear unexcused support for the CCP, such as taking down posters alone when nobody is watching etc, should be expelled and sent back to China. Even in the case of them being actually victims almost forced to preach the CCP, what good is it going to do if they're taunting others who are publicly speaking out in other parts of the world? If they do that in China they will actually be celebrated by the govt.

so I see no point of letting them stay personally, unless they do speak out against the regime or stay silent and mind themselves.

If I lived in a major city I'd probably take a couple of classes so I'd have an excuse to be on campus irl trolling these pro CCP losers

I am a Chinese-American, born and lived in California my entire life. The past few years has seen an explosion in racism and Sinophobia against Asians, against Chinese people in particular. The hate has motivated far more people to sympathize with the CCP than they could dream of. So I can understand the Chinese students actions here.

Also, despite what they spoonfeed you on American media, the Chinese government is not committing genocide in Xinjiang - they are not killing people in mass. The amount of misinformation that's being spread is amazing, and scary, as it this is literally the same tactic used when they fabricated justification for war against Iraq with WMDs. The evidence we have is the Uyghurs (who are deemed a national security threat in China) are indeed put into internment camps - but this is more similar to Japanese internment camps US did in WW2 rather than genocide.

I believe the West is threatened by China's progress, and the fact that China is an Asian nation. Westerners cannot fathom that Asian faces can lead the world. As a corrollary of this, China has done more to dethrone white supremacy than Black Lives Matter could ever have done.

Also relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/asianamerican/comments/v8k0p1/it_an...

It feels like the history is repeating itself. The people of Nazi Germany probably thought they were doing the "right thing". These Chinese students have been brainwashed enough to believe everything their government says. Or may be even paid well enough to act like that!

The brainwashed cannot know they are brainwashed. So they feeling might be in the other way: They know the truth and you are brainwashed.

I bet you and many HNer's won't be able to understand what I said. There is another saying: The new version of Nazi will be reincarnated as anti-Nazi which might or might not be true.

Human has nature cognitive defects caused by the evolution not being able to catch up the pace of changing society. It causes conflicts, war and even self destruction.

Edit/Fix:was

Human has nature cognitive defects caused by not being able to catch up the pace of evolution.

Both are brainwashed.

Basically all Americans are completely incapable of sympathizing in any way with Chinese perspective. Nobody agrees with the Chinese government but at the same time basically no one is also able to explain the reasoning from the Chinese perspective.

The lack of the ability to disagree while at the same time understanding the Chinese perspective indicates a huge amount of bias.

It's very easy to see this. Literally ask the person you responded why the Chinese government acted the way they did. What motivated them? Likely he will give simpleton answers like "power corrupts" or dictatorships are evil without ever understanding the complexity of the situation.

>What motivated them? Likely he will give simpleton answers like "power corrupts" or dictatorships are evil without ever understanding the complexity of the situation.

The motivation is very simple: the Uighurs started a separatist movement, and there's little the Chinese government hates more than separatist movements. Now, many governments in the world don't like separatist movements, but you don't see the Spanish government putting Catalonians in concentration camps and forcibly sterilising them.

It's not brainwashed to believe forcibly sterilising people is unacceptable, it's basic Judeo-Christian/humanist values.

Comparing what is happening in Xinjiang to the Holocaust is Holocaust trivialization. They are not engaging in the organized murder of 11 million people. Not even close.

Wish these gross comparisons for obvious political reasons (because we feel a rivalry with China) would end.

GP did not mention the Holocaust. You did! He metioned the Nazis, and the Nazis did not start with the Holocaust. They started with smaller antisemitic policies and ended with the Holocaust.

China hasn't executed millions of Uyghurs yet, but there are no signs of them relaxing the persecutions so it could get a lot worse.

Yeah, how silly of me to think that a reference to "history repeating itself" (commonly used in reference to the Holocaust) and the Nazis, would refer to their most notorious and infamous action.

I'm sure they were referring to the Nazi's road construction initiatives.

looks like educated in west world doesn't make these folks more........democated?

maybe one day chinese people will be like Uyghur people, hated by most of the world, force to leave their country, seeking a land to live, and this DID happens before.

(Let's remind to people don't know history of china, lots of regime in mainland china are foreigner from outside, ex: 唐(dang), 元(yuan), 清(ching), and its close to be fully occupied by Japan in last centry. If not Japanese gov decided to hit Pearl Harbour, there will be no CCP dominated in mainland China now, and we may speak Japanese and rest of mainland China will be like a giant colony of Japan)

Do you mean "tang" or is it "dang"

It really bothers me how people foam at the mouth about this when there is far more direct evidence of much worse abuses in Israel/Palestine than Xinjiang, but somehow Xinjiang is the next holocaust and China is Nazi Germany. CIA and State Department propaganda at work.

Give me a break. Just because people point out that something is not good, it isn't invalid because worse things exist. Take off the conspiracy hat.

Oh but you can absolutely see hypocrisy in what people care about by what they spend most of their time discussing. There is no conspiracy hat, it's just obvious.

You need to lay off yourself. People didn't just point out that something is not good. They are claiming that it's the same as Nazi Germany and that you shouldn't even be allowed to discuss it or protest.

In response to your other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31691085 claiming that "No concrete evidence has ever been released that there is mass incarceration in Xinjiang."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180921114505/http://www.xj.jcy...

> 五年来，全区检察机关共批准逮捕各类刑事犯罪嫌疑人330918人

https://web.archive.org/web/20210811151913/https://www.spp.g...

> 2013年至2017年，全国检察机关共批捕各类刑事犯罪嫌疑人453.1万人

Of 4.5 million arrests in all of China during five years, more than 7% were in Xinjiang according to Chinese government sources, even though less than 2% of the population live there.

If you focus on 2017 alone, more than 20% of all arrests were in Xinjiang https://www.nchrd.org/2018/07/criminal-arrests-in-xinjiang-a...

Yes, but those stats are not too different from black people in the US. Is the US a Nazi country executing genocide? Read the rest of my other comment. I said that bad things were happening there, but that it's being exaggerated. You seem to agree.

Can't edit my original comment, but I looked it up. Out of 10 million arrests in the US, 2.5 million are black, or 25%, which is double their population. The US also has both the highest prison population in total, and per capita. You better be calling this a genocide of blacks if you aren't a total hypocrite.

No, I'd call it mass incarceration.

But good on you for looking it up. Hopefully you'll also remember to look up stuff about China before commenting in the future.

I don't see what so special about that, there were many such protests against people from the right side of the political map or even people who just perceived as such. There are such protests against Israeli speakers or students and other issues where you got a billion of people on one side of the argument and only few millions on the other side. Sometimes it is just a numbers game and there are much more Chinese than Uyghur.

I know this way of thinking is horrible, but let me play devil's advocate for a while:

What if the CCP puts Uyghurs into prison simply because the majority of Chinese citizens want Uyghurs in prison?

1. That would explain the behavior in the article.

2. That would explain why studies report that people in China feel like a democracy. Their government works in the way that benefits the majority of its people, so for some definitions of it, that would be a "democracy".

3. That would explain why some presumably Chinese citizens vandalize posters criticizing Jinping or the CCP. Try showing up with a "Trump is an idiot" poster at a MAGA rally ... and you'll see the same effect.

Yes.

China is like this because Chinese are like this, and they want it to be like this (for all possible values of "like this"). Same with Russia (who is invading Ukraine because Russians want it), Saudi Arabia (who is beheading gay people because Saudis want it) and other places.

I have even heard following argument: it takes surprisingly little people to overthrow a dictator, so counterintuitively dictators have much higher support than democracies. In democracy, you need support of majority of voters (or whatever, depending on the voting system) while for a dictator to stay up (assuming no outside help) 90 % of people have to stand behind the dictator. A dictator is not someone who took power, but someone granted power by the masses as long as they do what the masses want.

In any case, the real problem here is that the Western nations continue to let people "like this" (for all possible values of "like this" opposed to Western values) in and let them terrorize others, because money is more important than _not_ having people terrorized.

Stop letting the pro-CCP Chinese study in the West and the problem solves itself. They are not in any way entitled to come here and hurt people.

> it takes surprisingly little people to overthrow a dictator, so counterintuitively dictators have much higher support than democracies.

That’s a very unique perspective I never thought of it that way. I wonder though if some or most of a dictator’s power come from having a tight control over means of suppression, from controlled media to the military. The latter 2 would seem to require a much smaller percentage of support than 90%

That is likely true.

I think people can also be misled and don't always think rationally - there has been a lot of "glorious empires" where the people were more invested in their country being "glorious empire" than actual prosperity and development of their country.

I'm honestly not 100 % convinced of all this. But I don't have better answer for "why are there so many people who support their dictator and let them do all those things".

I am not sure what your point is...

Your example is the same as treatment of black people in the U.S. at the time when they did not have equal rights. Your example is the same as treatment of Jews in the Nazi Germany.

Things like that happened and happen. Sometimes the majority of population wants to do horrible things to a minority. That's true. Still not sure why you brought that up.

This is the ongoing treatment of black people in the US.

It's a lot simpler than that.

PRC's XJ security architecture is publically about counter terrorism and deradicalization through forced reeducation (with mass interment) and poverty alleviation. While forced sterilzation for women with 3+ kids is XJ catching up to family planning policies with rest of PRC. Years of consistent Uyghur terrorist attacks stopped in exchange for repressing minority consisting 0.02% of population. Majory Han is AOK with this. Plurality of UN position endorses XJ as counter terrorism narrative (with overwhemling support from Muslim countries), minority as human right abuses, and fringe as genocide. So when PRC students say:

>"we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit"

They don't mean for crimes they personally did not commit, but alleged "genocide" that the global political UN community majority states PRC did not commit. And in fact the opposite position is true, to them PRC has found a relatively "humane" method of eliminating radical terrorism versus US bombing the shit out of the ME.

As for being vocal / belligerant about it on campus, that's what what happens when complex diasphora drama between PRC and other anti-CCP minorities happens abroad. Especially in for profit "education" institutes (really prestige diploma mills). They're paying 50K USD + board and enjoying their customarhy campus freedom of expression perks. Foreign student enjoying western campus culture doesn't mean they also get brainwashed endorse western foreign policy instead of their domestic ones. Especially when the gap in perspective is so antithetical.

>They don't mean for crimes they personally did not commit, but alleged "genocide" that the global political UN community majority states PRC did not commit.

The "majority" of UN are poor countries on China's payroll; facts are not a matter of majority opinion.

>And in fact the opposite position is true, to them PRC has found a relatively "humane" method of eliminating radical terrorism versus US bombing the shit out of the ME.

So completely annihilating an ethnicity through sterilization and banning their cultural practices is more humane than indiscriminate bombing? In fifty years' time there'll still be an Iraq and Iraqi people, but if the current practices continue then in fifty years there'll barely be any Uighurs in China.

Fortunately the Chinese people are beginning to see that what Xi did to poor Uighurs in Xinjiang, he can just as easily do for rich Hanzu in Shanghai. A taste of their own medicine, so to speak.

There is no annihilation of an ethnicity and Uyghur birth rates are still higher than Han.

Citation? besides CCP / China's govt sources please

Facts are majority of poor country own more to west cumulative and have greater strategic support. Including near unanimous ME who depends on US security architecture. It costs nothing to defect from PRC but they still CHOOSE to endorse antiterrorisn because that's the most relevant lens. CCP money is stupid cope argument to deny countries with their own agency, again reflected in global south not giving a fuck about RU. They see through about liberal order propaganda. Most countries are much more suborn to US/west pressure but still collectively endorse PRC position becauce the leadership wants what PRC is selling, a securitization system that eliminates radicalism.

>more humane than indiscriminate bombin

Of course. In 50 years Iraq will likely still be a secretarian shithole that haven't fully recovered from US destruction. Meanwhile in the the past 7 years of XJ securitization alone, XJ infra has improved dramatically, and within a generation the kids will be properly sinicized to particpate in broader PRC society/economy. Of course there's still going to be Uyghurs in PRC in 50 years, for the sinmple reason that reducing recognized ethnics groups from 56 to 55 to look bad. They'll certainly have a relatively better existence than indigenous peoples in North America post cultural genocide.

>rich Hanzu in Shanghai

Meanwhile majority of PRC not hard locked down thinks it's was overdue for shanghai to get a taste of the XJ medicine for trying to deviate from zero covid in the first place. Did we forget Wuhan bitterness subsided in relatively short time when they realized how fucked the rest of world handled covid. Right now that's seeing the shitshow of living with covid on TW with their "fancy" mRNA vax.

It's really as simple as, they can go back to China if they want to disrespect the hosting culture with no proof or evidence to support their claims, just taunt and probably mob or bully others who've been probably through horrors caused by the very good CCP, then play the victim card.

If the USA did something wrong doesn't mean you can do something less wrong than the USA and get away with it.

it's exactly like saying well, I should be able to kill someone and not go to prison because you know there are people who torture others before they kill them and they get away with it.

Also one should really keep a good will when speaking about the CCP because authoritarian regimes are usually very transparent and honest, not to mention that they care a lot when it comes to human rights.

"Foreign student enjoying western campus culture doesn't mean they also get brainwashed endorse western foreign policy instead of their domestic ones. Especially when the gap in perspective is so antithetical."

I think you don't have to be brainwashed, all you have to do is to respect and disagree without trying to intimidate others, maybe debate and bring evidence to support your claims, but trying to blindly intimidate someone who's been through hardships when they speak out is really the unethical part.

>they can go back to China

Why? PRC nationalist paid ~50K for the right to play campus idpol. US free to reduce enrollment of PRC students or academic exchanges. They're already shutting down Confucius Institutes. But if US wants to braindrain PRC talent, they're going to have to deal with the diasphora drama (like they do every other beefing groups), because they lost the soft power to convince PRC students CCP bad.

>something less wrong

Well within CCP framework, Sinicizing XJ is not so much less wrong as more right. It's not contextualized in western "human rights" preoccupation with negative rights, but ensuring positive rights by integrating restive minority into broader economic development so they wouldn't have to cling to destructive religious impulses. Enter reducation, poverty alleviation. Plus entire stopping terrorism thing. That's not even about morality, a government with state capacity to stop such things, will. Political suicide / lose legitimacy otherwise.

>respect

Some ideological chasms are so broad there's really no compromise or respect. You can't "respect" someone alleging your country is committing genocide when you firmly believe it's not. Nor will PRC students get the forum to host "genocide denial" debates on campus. In lieu of that, the response is to react to people whose position abursdly antithetically to theirs with incivility. Groups on campus and in broader society go full stupid over divisive idpol issues all the time, this is simply one that seperates PRC nationalists students with almost everyone else. Like how are they suppose to react when they paid 50k to goto a school that entertains, in their perspective, yellow peril. US/PRC drama means this issue gets much much traction vs other diasphora campus politics, even in places like HN. Chinese students have right to gelopolitical idpol over dumb shit.

While I do sympathize with this student, you have to be careful when criticizing a hostile government you are a citizen of. Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion.

> In the United States, and many other countries, we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion. The same cannot be said for countries like China, Russia, Belarus, etc.

There, I fixed it for you. But it's also naive to think that the government cannot make your life impossible if it's really motivated to do so, even in the US, despite the principle.

Well, that's what the US is currently weaponizing the USD to do. Like when they froze Russia out of the global financial system, but France and Germany kept paying them for natgas and oil.

I might be wrong, but I think it's the EU (along with US and UK) that blocked Russia from Swift.

Most EU countries keep paying Russia for gas and oil (as an exception to the banking sanctions) because they are really dependent on it, not because they don't want to weaponize the Euro. France is not much dependent on Russian imports though, but Germany is along with Italy, the Netherlands and Hungary mostly.

Is it allowed now to talk about laptop from hell? US is a joke!

It was always allowed, but what people believe about it is up for debate. But even then just barely, due to the deliberate burying of the story by some very powerful people

> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion.

Uh no. Here’s a list of people incarcerated by President Obama for criticism of the USA: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/employee-speech-and-wh...

Leaking classified information entrusted to you is a fair bit different than voicing a critical opinion.

Constitution doesn’t distinguish between them. Did you approve of Daniel Ellsberg being jailed.

> Only in the United States do we have such protections in place to prevent the government from retaliating against the individual for voicing a critical opinion.

I'm sorry, but were you educated in the US? That's just blatantly false, and on the level of a Russian praising their army's success in Ukraine.

In the EU, Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand and some other countries individuals are protected from retaliation if they're critical of their government. In fact it's the norm for democratic countries. Of course some pretty government officials might try to abuse their position in personal retaliation (happened in Germany recently) but that's why all those countries also have an independent judiciary to control such potential abuses.

You can absolutely get legal action pursued for voicing an opinion (probably a bad one, but an opinion nonetheless) in most of the countries you named.

From an individual for defamation? Yes.

From the state for some very specific opinions (we should gas all the Jews)? Yes.

But that's literally the same everywhere with free speech. The specifics vary slightly, e.g. in the US being a woman and topless, or saying you want to murder the US president is a crime, in France insulting Jews is a crime. There is no place on earth with absolute free speech.

You are drawing a false equivalence.

1. Being topless is both legal in plenty of states and also not a matter of speech.

2. There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology. For instance, in Germany, the Communist Party is illegal - it is banned. In Germany, expressing an (awful) opinion that the Holocaust did not occur is illegal and you will be charged. In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned.

The approaches to speech are very different, I am not sure why you are trying to draw an equivalence that does not exist.

The approach is the same - speech is free* (* - exceptions apply).

The specifics of those exceptions are different. Germany's heavy-handed approach for some things (around Communists, Nazis, Holocaust) come directly from terrible historical experience they do not want to repeat. And that experience includes allowing Nazis to exploit the democratic system to seize power.

> There's a difference between directly saying you are going to kill someone or incite violence and expressing support for a political ideology

How big is the difference if the political ideology in question is violent by nature(e.g. Nazism)?

> In Germany, video games that even included the Nazis in any way were banned

That's untrue. Art and history teaching are explicit exceptions to the Nazi bans. It's just that some historical games, like Hearts of Iron 4, thread a fine line (is conquering the whole world with Nazi Germany glorifying Nazi Germany and their violence? No, but for some probably yes) and prefer to self-censor to avoid any potential issues.

What do you expect people to do? Abroad in a nation and culture which is quite hostile and dismissive of your own, most people would tend to be standoffish about anything that could be perceived as a slight against their home. American culture is and has been extremely biased against China, and not always with proper justification. Did anyone really expect to win over Chinese students with a harsh, aggressive, and, frankly, hypocritical, foreign policy stance interspersed with large amounts of good old-fashioned "dey tuk a jubs!" racism?

I expect people to treat others with respect. That's what I expect people to do.

Ah yes, the casual defense of cultural genocide based on the fact that other governments have done bad things too.

And seriously, when tf did criticizing the obviously malicious actions of a government become racist.

> Ah yes, the casual defense of cultural genocide based on the fact that other governments have done bad things too.

It's not cultural genocide. Forcibly sterilising people of a specific ethnicity is literal genocide.

These students chose to come to the US for an education. It’s a bit arrogant to come and suddenly decide that the rules at home should apply in your guest country.

I have zero issues if they want to debate and argue for their own country. But you don’t get to break the rules.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com