
Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost - zachguo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/china-houston-rockets.html
======
spectramax
In this light of recent heat up of issues with China, I want to share a
positive story to contrast: I had a daily driver in Chengdu for over 1 month
who spoke no English, zero, none at all - not even "yes" or "no". We
communicated via Google translate (on VPN). He would play Chinese music and
then some days I would play some American rock and roll. We bonded in
inexplicable ways. I had always commented on how I love the carved wooden
letter that hangs on the taxi's rear-view mirror. The ride was almost 1 hour
in the morning and 2 hours in the evening back to the Hotel. We became
friends. On the last day, he took the wooden ornament off, cupped it in his
palm, held it against his chest, gave it to me with a glimmer in his eyes.
Fuck, that was the most amazing human connection I've ever made.

I've worked in China in the semiconductor business, stayed there and absorbed
some of the things the west does not even know. I recommend reading "Poorly
Made in China (2011)" by Paul Midler. It is _surprisingly_ good - factual,
objective look of deep issues with China's way of doing things. I resonate
with the book with my personal experience.

Diplomacy is about being able to negotiate well, build trust and foster long
term relationships, acknowledge mutual interests, differences and work towards
solutions to problems. China has lost the brand image, probably forever.
Despite a few positive experiences on the individual level, I hate working
with Chinese businesses and would never want to go there. Fuck the Chinese
government and its tentacles (Chinese corporations). The Chinese leadership
does not understand that leadership is about inspiring others, taking care of
the weak, keeping your promises and being able to independently think,
innovate and set an example for other nations to follow. The way it is going,
I can guarantee with certainty that they can have all the financial leverage,
moral leverage is what you need in the long term; they can never become a
superpower.

Edit: grammar

~~~
riffraff
> moral leverage is what you need in the long term; they can never become a
> superpower.

I do not understand what you mean by this, and what long term is to you. I
want to be convinced, but I fail to see this as true.

What would be a superpower in your eyes, and which of the past examples of
morally problematic powers (USSR, British/Spanish/Portuguese/French
empires,for example) do you consider not to meet the definition, or not to
have been "long term"?

~~~
augstein
I guess one thing that is obvious, is that an oppressive country like China
can never win the race to attract the brightest, most creative minds. Nowadays
people have options on where to live and from what I can see, these kind of
people mostly prefer to live in more liberal societies.

~~~
nearbuy
Would they even need to attract foreigners? They have more people than all of
North America and Europe combined.

~~~
AstralStorm
In fact they did attract foreigners, how many businesses want to cozy up to
them? Some countries would very much like to deal with their citizens the
Chinese way too.

They do not need anyone to migrate, which is entirely different.

------
erentz
One of the surprising things to me is how much China seems to have played
their hand too early (and too strongly). People have been sounding alarms
about China for a while but if they had played it cool everything likely
would’ve ticked along as it was. Everyone would still ignore the human rights
abuses, and IP theft, and creeping influence in our institutions around the
world, etc. Instead China has managed to really put it right in front of every
average persons face and now there’s a real chance things could shift away
from China. And what for? Ego? On the one hand I think the CCP bought a dud
with Chairman Xi. But maybe that’s good for the rest of us.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _One of the surprising things to me is how much China seems to have played
> their hand too early (and too strongly)_

China is a dictatorship, Xi a leader for life. That dramatically changed
Beijing's political profile.

Pre-Xi, one could argue China had long-term planning capacities. The rotation
of leaders and intraparty competition limited corruption and promoted
political fitness. Dictatorships have neither. They're cronyist, corrupt and
focussed on short-term political survival.

A strategic China would have waited until 2050 to deal with Hong Kong.
Instead, Xi got insecure about Winnie the Pooh or whatever. A strategic China
would have slowly accumulated technology, capital and soft power. Instead,
they're pivoting into a wall.

> _On the one hand I think the CCP bought a dud with Chairman Xi. But maybe
> that’s good for the rest of us._

In the short term, sure. In the medium term, it's a security nightmare. In the
long term, we're going to watch billions of peoples' humanity and productivity
get squandered. That's a loss to everyone.

~~~
gaukes
Good points made above. Out of curiosity, is there a route to a return of
rotating leaders without a voluntary abdication by Xi?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _is there a route to a return of rotating leaders without a voluntary
> abdication by Xi?_

History has limited examples of such peaceful ( _i.e._ no civil war)
transitions of power. (Most are from the modern era.)

My guess is the CCP’s senior guard would need to orchestrate his “illness.”
But Xi has done a good job of purging the Politburo of able competition.

If I were giving this question serious study, I’d look at the PLA.

~~~
mortenjorck
There has to be a faction within the Politburo, or at least within the Central
Committee, that is becoming increasingly skeptical of Xi’s hardline policies,
even if all those with pre-existing loyalties were politically purged before.
I suppose the question is whether they all find themselves suddenly facing
corruption charges one day before they have a chance to consolidate any power.

------
paxys
Everyone is only talking about the issue from a moral standpoint (which is of
course important), but there are real financial risks as well. The government
controls every aspect of business in the country. Deals can be altered or
nullified at any time without recourse. No contracts can be enforced since the
government will always be on the Chinese business's side. There is zero IP
protection.

You could invest a billion dollars in the country and be kicked out for no
reason without seeing any returns, as the NBA just found out. Yes there is a
lot of opportunity in China, but relying on the goodwill of an authoritarian
government is always a mistake in the long term.

~~~
xiphias2
Tesla is doing just this right now. It looks scary actually that they got so
much freedom in theory. It will probably bite back some time.

------
ridaj
Hindsight 20/20? Xi has only been a leader for 7 years. The trajectory that
China was on previously was markedly different - more openness, more freedoms.
Xi's turnaround hasn't been immediate either. The fact that businesses went
into China a decade ago shouldn't be taken for shortsightedness — the future
did look very different back then.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The trajectory changed under Hu in 2009 just after the olympics. Xi
accelerated the trend, but didn’t start it.

------
geowwy
It's scary how effective the US and China are at propaganda warfare. It seems
like only yesterday everyone was on friendly terms, now we hate each other.

As someone with family all across Asia and the West I really hope the US and
China can resolve their disputes soon. This is really not a nice position for
us to be in.

~~~
point78
Hopefully, the west doesn't budge until China stops commuting human rights
violations (won't happen but would be nice)

~~~
geowwy
Maybe I'm a cynic but I don't believe that's the real issue. We're friendly
with plenty of countries that do far worse. I think it's about economics and
strategic interests.

~~~
daliusd
What other countries USA is friend with has concentration camps? Turkey and
Saudi Arabia have problems but I believe human rights situation is better
there than in China. What else?

~~~
stonith
Australia has one on Nauru despite repeated condemnation from various
international bodies.

~~~
valtism
Nauru isn't anywhere close to that. According to a close friend who visited,
it's not really that bad of a place. I think that there has been a lot of
political play around it to drum it up as worse than it is.

~~~
oefrha
Interesting perspective. Do you also have a close friend who visited Chinese
concentration camps for comparison? Why do you think one is drummed up by
political play while the other is not?

~~~
point78
At least we can view the detention centers on AU without a satellite....that
says more than enough

------
rdlecler1
If China paid the CEOs of these companies to stay quiet we’d call that bribery
and corruption. Add in some market separation in the transaction and people
just say that China is too big to ignore. CEOs get a free pass.

------
reilly3000
Thanks to South Park. I really credit them with changing minds.

~~~
felipemnoa
What episode? Sorry, I have not kept up with it for a while now.

~~~
chillacy
Band in China: [https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-
china](https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-china)

The one before that was pretty good too, that one was critical of the US

~~~
odiroot
Damn, cannot watch it in Taipei. Copyright issues.

~~~
ddeck
It was discussed extensively at the links below, where some users have also
posted links to other sources for those that don't mind bypassing the
copyright restrictions.

 _After 'South Park' Censorship Episode, China Deleted the Show from the Web_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189899](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189899)

 _South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21186916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21186916)

 _' We good now China?' South Park creators issue mock apology_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21189967)

------
umeshunni
Surfacing one of the comments from the article here since HN commenters (being
primarily US/European) seems to exhibit similar views --

The thesis here bespeaks of the very arrogance we have regarding "dealing"
with China. China is a major world power. Its existence and growing economic
prowess are not dependent upon our acceptance, investment or "good will".

We continue to deal with China in an extremely condescending manner. To "deal"
with China means we have to accept China for what it is; including that its
political system is different from ours. It is not going to bend to our system
of liberty and individual civil rights because we think that's the natural
order of things. And in all frankness, our current political morass is hardly
a paragon of virtue to which other should strive.

We can choose to ignore China and attempt to isolate it. But that didn't work
out so well when we tried it after 1949 did it?

All these tariffs are accomplishing is incentivizing Chinese corporations to
rapidly expand their production capabilities in facilities located in other
nations. So in fact, we are financing China's increasing power and influence
over both its neighbors and within the global economy.

We're now at a point where China doesn't "need" us. So we simply have to
decide whether we want to interrelate with another major world power as it is
or move towards confrontation and chaos.

~~~
jimbo1qaz
Issue is, China is attempting to to force its viewpoints on other nations, eg.
by denying prize money to the winner of a tournament for speaking about Hong
Kong, and something about NBA I didn't follow.

~~~
chillacy
To be fair the US throws its weight around quite a bit on exporting its
morality (human rights, democracy, freedom of speech, etc), and sometimes not
to the best of results.

I don't know if there's been any large political organization that wasn't
super pushy about its world view.

I think the issue is that its viewpoint is so different from America's. It's
sort of like US politics, depending on who's in the white house the government
can have a very different idea of reproductive rights, climate change, and
religion/secularism.

Those are big changes but China's morality is even more different. Suddenly
criticizing the government is treated like hate speech.

~~~
remontoire
I 100% prefer the US pushing it's agenda over China.

------
pimmen
My grandfather ran a company that designed sawmills. During the 70s and 80s,
he did a lot of business in the USSR and he has told many stories from that
crazy time. I don't know if he ever was involved in bribery (he has
alzheimer's now so even if I asked him I don't know if I'd get an answer that
makes sense, and my grandmother has no idea) but he did however experience the
corruption of the communist party first hand. Some of the people he did
business with became the oligarchs of modern day Russia, leveraging the power
and influence they gained from the forest industry to move in on the energy
industry.

I'm a bit conflicted about what my grandfather did. As a child and teenager, I
always heard the stories as bringing propserity to a poor country, one sawmill
could supply tens of thousands of jobs. However, the people he did business
with was some of the most dishonest and bad people ever, and my grandfather
went into great lengths to make sure that they were never too dependent on the
Soviet market and always travelled to Moscow with a lawyer. He never trusted
them, and in the 90s and 00s when it surfaced that some of his old clients had
become wealthy off the breakup of the Soviet Union, and was now using that
wealth to suppress and gouge working people, my grandfather just reacted with
"yeah, that sounds like something a shifty guy like him would do".

I still don't know how I should view my grandfather's role in this. The deals
he made supplied the USSR with jobs which helped the people, but it also
empowered really bad people. I think the same way about business in China, on
the one hand the billions of Chinese deserve global abundance just like the
rest of us, on the other hand fuck the CCP.

------
shane369
just another propaganda brought up by trade war

~~~
throwawy4trueth
I would say it cannot be categorized as propaganda. NYTimes editors seem to be
decent people. However, that's very dangerous because its more deceptive to
spread fake information(i.e. the civilized internatinal communtity is fighting
against a evil regime abusing human rights) unintentionally that eventually
will cause more conflicts.

It's quite insteresting that while most English speaking community blame
Chinese censorship, there's an invisible censorship of political correctness
that prohibit the other side of the story which might be truth. The same
invisible "censorship" makes me use current throw way id because my opinion
based on what I know seems very evil motivated or might take money from CPP.

Chinese speaking media have different stories which lead majority of Chinese
having different oppinions than Westners' naive human rights view based on
their moral superiority. To them the the narrative of HK events is another lie
just like WMD. The response to Morey is an angry response to defamation , not
bully to freedome of speech that US politicians and journalist love to describ
about Chinese government.

Ironically it's also NY Time disclose some information about the other side of
story[0].But thats a very small piece. There are much more than that.
Westeners just don't know because of invisible collective censorship. The
people under visible censorship some times know 2 sides stories while the
other side are easily fooled by the "independent" journalists who distort the
reality based on own their values and invisible censorship. I'm also using the
opportunity to see how many downvotes I can collect as an observation of
invisible censorship.

[0][https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/asia/hong-kong-
prot...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/world/asia/hong-kong-protesters-
masks-violence.html)

------
adultSwim
Is dealing with the US worth the moral cost?

------
kresten
Is depending heavily on China for critical business functions such as
manufacturing seen as a risk by big companies?

------
jorblumesea
It's interesting to see the zeitgeist of this evolve. Just 6 months ago much
of the public was very blasé about China, but experts in many realms were
sounding alarm bells. A few months later, now look at it.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _It 's interesting to see the zeitgeist of this evolve_

This is how systems exhibiting punctuated equilibria evolve.

The physical analogy is a pile of sand, accruing by one grain at a time. It
will eventually collapse, that is known. And it will do so suddenly, anyone
who made sandcastles knows this. But knowing _when_ it will collapse is
strikingly tough.

With sand, the correlation comes from friction between grains. With people,
the correlation comes from social pressure. Once the friction is overcome, the
social pressure breached, the system changes rapidly.

~~~
Ambele
I wish I could recolor the usernames of the smartest people on HN like you, so
I'd be able to quickly discern in future articles whether a bright and smart
person like you is commenting.

------
throwaway122378
Should China split into smaller localized manageable regions?

~~~
munmaek
Should the United States be split into smaller localized manageable regions?

I would argue yes, personally.

~~~
fastball
...

it is?

~~~
munmaek
It is, but on a federal level I think it still needs to be split up into
multiple regions. I.e. the north-east, south-west, etc. Choosing to subdivide
further at a state level would be optional.

------
remarkEon
In a perhaps humorous way to look at a difficult situation, this was all
started because of some memes about Pro Basketball. It's sort of snowballed
from there, but maybe this is a good cultural touchstone to comment on.
American culture permeates _a lot_ of world culture. It dominates pretty much
everything. China thought it could import some of it, and then export some of
theirs back when the taste of what they'd brought in started to sour. Not so,
it seems. Americans like their crass free speech and their memes.

...

I'm actually fairly amenable to arguments about national sovereignty and am
willing to hear ones about how we (read: the West) need to back off about Hong
Kong because, well, we made that deal and China wants to follow through with
integrating them into the Mainland. That has been the plan since 1990s. But is
_this_ the price I have to pay? Importing Chinese cultural norms to _my_
country? _My_ pro sports stars literally kowtowing to insistence that we
"respect" the wishes of an authoritarian Communist government? Fans at games
getting kicked out for waving Hong Kong flags? Well fuck that, and fuck anyone
who thinks that's just "the cost of doing business". We've let this charade go
on long enough. Since the 1990s we've pretended that the more their economy
"liberalized" the more they'd become "open" to "democracy". This is a
rhetorical ploy, used by elites to mostly just enrich themselves in the
process of selling out the rest of us - via IP theft or moving the
manufacturing base elsewhere to save some basis points. Free Trade Maximalism
is what got us here, and yeah you get cheap goods from China ... but is it
really worth it. No really. Is it worth _this_?

Here's what this is really about, and what people who are upset about this are
really getting at: we're pretty dissatisfied with how US corporations (and our
own government, frankly) have behaved for the last ~30 years or so. It's
manifesting with the NBA and video games in China because that pulls in a lot
of cash right now and it's run by a lot of characters we don't really like
(video games more so than the NBA, if I'm being fair). So, yes, people should
be mad at the behavior of Chinese corporations and the Chinese government (but
I repeat myself) ... who they should _also_ be mad at is leaders of US
corporations who haven't had anything else as a goal but maximizing
shareholder returns on a time horizon that matters for no one but themselves.

------
siculars
Nobody cares about wonk trade policy

Nobody cares about economic spreadsheets.

People do care about the NBA, like in a real way. The average American will
not allow a beloved American institution to cowtow to ChiComms.

China has overplayed and has done it with the wrong President in the office.
Trump is looking for anything to move the needle for him on China and they
just gifted him something amazing.

------
throwaway667543
I’m having a hard time reconciling this uproar when everyone is fine with the
sanctions on Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela.

I do find it interesting that all of this is happening during thr president’s
possible impeachment along with the recent ruling that Americans were
illegally spied on.

------
AFascistWorld
> Clinton began his term believing that trade sanctions could pressure China
> to improve human rights conditions. But after a year of debilitating debate,
> he was forced to reverse his policy of link- ing trade to human rights. >He
> was right to do so. By continuing to grant MFN to China, Clinton will help
> advance the $38 billion trading relationship which the U.S. now enjoys with
> the world's fastest growing economy. Moreover, by increasing prosperity in
> China through greater trade, the U.S. can help to create the economic
> freedoms that are the foundation upon which political freedom will someday
> emerge.

>Clinton began to end this spectacle of confusion last week when he decided to
renew MFN almost with- out condition. Perhaps the most important aspect of his
decision is philosophical; the President has now adopted the view that trade
relations must be separated from U.S. political goals with China. Moreover, he
has endorsed the view that increased U.S.-China trade can promote economic
freedoms, which in the long run will spur the growth of political freedoms in
China.

>This step alone will help to reassure Asian friends and adversaries that
Clinton plans to get a better grip on foreign policy.

>Now that Clinton has reversed his policy, he should move quickly to exact a
price-of Beijing's cooperation in two areas of critical concern to the U.S.
They are:

* Ending North Korea's nuclear threat...

* Better treatment for Hong Kong and Taiwan... -

[https://www.heritage.org/report/the-collapse-clintons-
china-...](https://www.heritage.org/report/the-collapse-clintons-china-..).
June 3, 1994

------
silentbeat
The communist is using profit to control the capitalist, the irony is painful.

~~~
drharby
I heard a cute phrase a long time ago. "We will hang the capitalist with the
rope he sells us"

~~~
conanbatt
By Lenin.

------
burke_holland
It only took 3 paragraphs for capitalism to end up under the bus. Which -
sure. There’s much to dislike in the inhumanity of extreme consumerism. But
that same consumerism has transformed that nation. Even the NYT has extolled
the virtues of China’s rise.

“The world thought it would change China, but China’s success has been so
spectacular that it has changed the world.”

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-
rules.html)

Yes. We should stop giving them a pass. Who is going to be first to give up
their iPhone?

~~~
solarwind
The New York Times must have a policy that it will not publish an article if
it doesn't have at least a couple snarky digs at "capitalism" and Trump, no
matter how tangential to the subject matter.

~~~
burke_holland
It does seem that way. Which, I get it. That’s an easy target. I just think
that kind of thing undermines the legitimate point this guy is making.

------
petre
Wow. Now that's a heavy worded article. I recommend watching _The Coming War
with China_ documentary on Al Jazeera for a more balanced perspective.

------
seibelj
It’s not a bad thing that American citizens are heavily armed. If everyone in
HK owned a firearm I think the situation would be far different - or at least
give the government a second thought before acting.

~~~
spectramax
Don't you think the Military would step in with all these guys look like
they're toys shooting 8 inch thick steel armor?

In my personal view, violence is the last resort for protesting and even then,
sometimes I disagree with HK approach (beating officers with pies) despite of
the fact that I support the HK's cause.

~~~
russler23
Yeah, violence should be a last resort. I think his point was deterrence,
though. If the British had allowed HKers arms under colonial rule, would
things be different now? I’m guessing China would have attempted disarmament
as soon as Hong Kong returned under their control, and today’s situation would
be the same.

~~~
fspeech
This was how the British handled the last HK riot
[https://m.facebook.com/WeNewsHK/videos/2622449657812763](https://m.facebook.com/WeNewsHK/videos/2622449657812763)

------
crimsonalucard
Morality is a complicated thing.

More people die of murders by gun in the united states then in china.

Is it moral to deprive man of his right to own a gun in order to allow another
man to keep his right to life?

There's hatred raging against China due to hong kong, but the truth is far
more complex. A hundred times more complex than even the example I gave.

Centralized control has a cost, but it also has a benefit.

~~~
carapace
FWIW, I grew up in a city on the Pacific rim (San Francisco) and Chinese
people have always been a part of my culture. Our first Chinese New Year
Festival and Parade was in held in 1858. (California was still part of Mexico
only twelve years earlier.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Chinese_New_Year...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Chinese_New_Year_Festival_and_Parade)

I don't hate China, but I fear the CCP.

I was reading a book about China written by an American journalist who was
invited to visit in the 70's, when the Middle Kingdom was still literally
mysterious to the West, and it dawned on me that there is no way a barbarian
like myself could ever understand China. It's too vast, too old. My culture
looks like an adolescent compared to yours. I'm not ashamed to admit it.

For example, the persecution and repression of the Falun Gong seems obviously
wrong. But then I read about the Taiping Rebellion...

> For over a decade, the Taiping occupied and fought across much of the mid
> and lower Yangtze valley. Ultimately devolving into total war, the conflict
> between the Taiping and the Qing was the largest in China since the Qing
> conquest in 1644 and it involved every province of China proper except
> Gansu. It ranks as one of the bloodiest wars in human history, the bloodiest
> civil war, and the largest conflict of the 19th century. Estimates of the
> war dead range from 10–30 million.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion)

I still believe that what the Chinese governent is doing is wrong: Tibet, the
Uighurs, the Falun Gong, the censorship and rewriting of history, and so on.
But I also have to admit that I see some truth in what you said:

> the truth is far more complex. A hundred times more complex than even the
> example I gave.

> Centralized control has a cost, but it also has a benefit.

My problem with the CCP is that the stability and prosperity of the Chinese
people are too important to be bungled. I don't feel that I'm qualified to
tell China what to do, but I do feel that I'm not too dumb to see that some
things are obviously wrong.

~~~
crimsonalucard
I'm born and raised in the Bay Area. I'm what you call an ABC an American Born
Chinese. Basically American, but with huge roots and connections with Chinese
people from the mainland. My parents are 100% born in China. If I can
understand them then anyone, including you, white devil, can too.

Don't think of China as some mystical culture that's old and wise that needs
to be treated with the utmost respect like an antique vase. They are Human
just like you and me and prone to the same biases, stupidity and greatness any
person is. Nobody cares that China is a far older culture than the united
states, don't let that cloud your judgement, China can be really stupid just
like how people in the united states can elect trump as president.

Look, I'm not saying China is right. But reality is far more complex.

For Falun Gong which is basically a cult akin to scientology from the view
point of the Chinese what is the correct course of action? Freedom of religion
or total elimination of a cult that can harm the people?

For Hong Kong they view it as a state like California or Texas saying that
they have rights and the freedom to secede from the country. What is the right
course of action here? Americans once asked the question about preserving a
union and went to war for such a cause when half the country wanted to leave.
What is the correct course of action for China? Do the Chinese have the right
to preserver their union?

Tibet is also controversial. [https://www.quora.com/Why-does-China-want-
Tibet](https://www.quora.com/Why-does-China-want-Tibet) But this is not the
full story. China is not some moral do-gooder out to save people from
subjugation. The government is human and self interested in itself and its own
people. There's economic advantages of having tibet as part of China, but
Tibet will benefit overall from cultural assimilation.

Cultural assimilation has a bad connotation to the term and it deserves the
bad connotation. But the complex morality comes in when you think about what
Cultural assimilation is doing. In cultures that contain poverty, slavery, or
even cannibalism, is the elimination of these cultures through assimilation a
good thing or a bad thing? Hard to say.

For the concentration camps of the Ulghurs. Unfortunately I don't know enough
to comment on it. It looks though from the little I do know that you are 100%
right and that this is wrong. Again, I need more information from unbiased
sources. It is obvious to me, however, that the situation is very very
complex. Concentration camps are not being set up to assimilate ALL of the
miscellaneous cultures that make up China, what is the reason why they only do
it here? I'm going to look into it. The reasoning and moral compass of most
situations like this is never clear.

We are lucky to have freedom of speech, living in the united states but we
still can't talk shit about our bosses unless you want your ass fired. Living
in China is similar. The government is a good boss that's interested in the
economic prosperity of the country and therefore your prosperity as well, but
don't talk shit about the boss of China. Makes sense right?

~~~
carapace
Dude, well met.

I don't mean that Chinese people are mysterious. I know they're human just
like you and me. If anything it's the intense _humanity_ of China that makes
it so fascinating (to me.)

I'm basically agreeing with you that "reality is far more complex."

I'm saying that reality is hard to grasp because of the size, duration, and
intricacy. Trying to understand China is like trying to understand Europe only
without all the history books. (Chinese history has been relatively sparsely
known in the West until quite recently.)

I used to be like, "Damn the evil CCP!", and now I'm more like "Just stop
doing the really fucked up stuff, okay?". I still believe that Communism as a
world view is barren due to its denial of God, but that is a whole 'nother
story. I'm willing to withhold judgement of the CCP's legitimacy as a
government provided they stop oppressing people.

Really, I'd like China to put itself in a better position to criticize the
USA's mistakes, so we enter a virtuous circle where we are challenging each
other as nations to be better than we are. There is all of the Solar System to
explore if we can stabilize things here.

(In re: Tibet, are you aware of the history of how Hawaii became a state? The
Queen of Hawaii didn't exactly volunteer...)

I will say that despite the very human problems that China has had over the
centuries it still encompasses tremendous wisdom, both in practical affairs--
Confucius --and metaphysics. In my opinion the wisest written document in
history is the Tao Te Ching. For example, Ch 17, in a single sentence,
devastates all Western ideas of political power (and most Eastern ones too.)

> With the best leaders when the work is finished the people all say, "We did
> it ourselves."

G. I. Gurdjieff wrote, "The energy of the West must be guided by the wisdom of
the East or the world will destroy itself." He meant more than China by "the
East", but certainly included it.

------
thewholeview
While I've always respected the West's stance on their own judgment of values,
and the continual holding of it, I'm saddened by any narrative that it's in
the face of morality.

Morality is an entirely subjective concept, and should not be used as a
weaponry. The West has developed for many years and have ascended through
times from ancient religious principles to the notion of modern basic human
rights. However, I'd like to address that by saying the notion of "basic human
rights" isn't universal, it's a standard of the West. The East doesn't do it
perfect, but neither does the West. This whole affair is an eventual reality
that happened to spark in the era of our existence, due to an inherent
ideological difference. This is no right or wrong here, only a side to take,
but to attack the opposite side of being immoral based on one's own judgmental
system is simply not constructive.

As humans, the least we can do is to be aware of the situations and stay open
minded and be respectful of each other, and our differences. That's how we can
together evolve to a possibly harmonious future, at least to the extent of the
upper-bound of humanity. There isn't a single standard of morality, and a
heavy indulgence on one single side will eventually run yourself into a corner
of being seen as practicing double standard.

Let's call it for what it is, a challenger to the current supremacy and that's
that. Conflicts arising due to ideological differences is hard to resolve, but
to only address the other party as immoral is an extremely short-sighted
strategy to addressing any differences between the two. It's a greatly sad
affair to see the propaganda machine on both ends flexing their muscle. Either
the challenger will be defeated and we accept a new reality, or the existing
supremacy loses and accept itself as a second. Bringing in a self-righteous
morality to the mix is only going to incur permanent damage to humanity as a
whole by prolonging the battle between ideals.

~~~
flukus
The problem isn't that China has different values, it's that it's trying to
apply those values in the west and to spread it's influence. This crosses a
hard line that is unacceptable and if cutting off all relations with China is
the only solution then so be it.

~~~
thewholeview
China never tries to spread its influence, China is in a purely defensive
position and the West continues to tap into China's business and then leverage
whatever reaction received as China's evil deeds.

China doesn't invade the Middle East, China doesn't preach Communism globally.
It's a really good question to ask who always really tries to spread their own
influence.

~~~
flukus
Then explain why pro CCP demonstrators are intimidating Honk Kong protesters
the world over? Explain why their are so many new accounts astro-turfing for
China? Just because they don't have the military might to do it directly
doesn't mean they aren't spreading their influence. They're busy buying
influence wherever they can and using their citizens and former citizens as
soft influence in other places. Of course they aren't preaching communism,
they abandoned communism decades ago.

~~~
thewholeview
You have it backwards. China has the military might but chooses not to,
because what the CCP wants is a peaceful resolution within its own region. On
the contrary, the West's supposedly moral support of the "peaceful"
demonstration is seeing 48/58 subway stations closing due to vandalism, many
banks and phone stores getting robbed. These aren't pictures that Western
media would portray, but that's the closer to truth reality that's occurring
in HK. My friend in HK are evading to Shenzhen for protection, and other
friend is attempting to understand the immigration process better to leave the
unstable HK. Is this the real meaning of liberating HK? Just because other
states, AKA Middle East hasn't gotten enough soft influence to show the world
what "liberating" them means (destroyed states that cannot recover in
decades), China will not take the soft course and actually stands to protect
its own territory.

~~~
flukus
No, they don't remotely have the military might to invade the middle east, not
that this is a bad thing, but to argue they do is just silly, they can't even
invade Taiwan like they've wanted to do for 60 years.

As for peaceful, from Tienanmen square to how they deal with the Uyghurs to
what is likely to be the case for Hong Kong they are anything but peaceful,
even with their own citizens. If they were truly peaceful they wouldn't have
to censor their own actions from their own citizens. If they wanted a peaceful
solution they'd be happy keeping Hong Kongs current autonomy. Externally, they
invaded Tibet, they would invade Taiwan if they could, most of their
peacefulness comes from inability and not lack of desire.

------
DiogenesKynikos
Yet more propaganda by people itching for war.

Call me when they write an article warning of the moral hazards of dealing
with a country that invaded Iraq without provocation, causing hundreds of
thousands of people to die; which overthrew the government of Libya, plunging
the country into chaos; which armed Sunni extremists in Syria; which has
backed Israel's occupation of Palestine for decades; which ran a global
kidnapping and assassination program; which operates a vast, unaccountable
global surveillance network; where tens of millions of people go uninsured or
under-insured because profits are paramount. Once the NY Times publishes that
Op-Ed, maybe I'll consider their moral posturing as something other than
propaganda.

