With new security law, China outlaws global activism
axios.com
axios.com
I'm not likely to go to Hong Kong, so I don't need to worry too much about setting foot there and having to face consequences.
But I am married to a Chinese national and we tend to visit Shanghai and Anhui every 2-3 years, and I'm not sure how much safer, if at all, that is.
But you'd still have to worry a little bit -- if you're flying in the region your plane could possibly get diverted there due to weather or all kinds of other reasons.
> But I am married to a Chinese national and we tend to visit Shanghai and Anhui every 2-3 years, and I'm not sure how much safer, if at all, that is.
If they care about complying with the letter of the law, I suppose they could transport you to HK for prosecution under this law. But given this is China, they undoubtedly have many similar laws on the mainland, and if they decided to prosecute you it doesn't really matter if their legal justification is thin. IIRC, in the Soviet Union, the prosecutor not the judge was the one really calling the shots in the courtroom, and I wouldn't be surprised if China was similar.
IBM dealt directly with Holocaust organizers, Apple benefits from forced Uighur labor at its iPhone supplier factories.
It is a good rule of thumb to assume that companies will _always_ stand on the side of making money.
Happened before, will happen again.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161343395/why-does-china-want...
NBA forbids all its employees from speaking in support of HK.
I wonder how that could be changed. Could the US just pass a law banning exports of movies to China or banning cooperation with their censorship process? It's not like the censored movies are going to do much good, the censorship plus profit-seeking has a pernicious effect on the US domestic market.
You're talking about a country that has active concentration camps, runs its citizens down with tanks, and harvests the organs of political dissidents. I think I'll take my chances that democracy will prevail, thank you very much. As a gay man, I'll be first up against the wall if freedom dies. I don't belong in that other version of the world anyway.
As opposed to countries that wiped out indigenous and stole their lands, enslaved people based on race, killed protestors, experimented on people without knowledge or consent, dropped nukes on civilians, etc?
> As a gay man, I'll be first up against the wall if freedom dies.
I guess you haven't heard about what democracy did to alan turing? And no, natives, jews, blacks, chinese, etc will be lined up far ahead of you.
> “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Like all quotes, it's superficial nonsense. Every evil doer thinks that they are the "good guy". Pretty much all evil is done in the name of "good". The nazis, islamic terrorists, japanese imperialists, british empire and the people who nuked innocent civilians all think they are doing good. They all use your quote.
The true evil are the ones who portray themselves as good and the other as evil. Those people who are so ideologically brainwashed as the ones capable of true evil.
You must live in a different USA than I do. The multiverse in real life.
> Your argument is pure whataboutism
No it isn't. If you only wrote "china does some bad things" and I responded with "X does bad things too". That is whataboutism. When you say "china bad" and "democracy good" and I show you that democracy does bad too, it isn't whataboutism. It's debunking your claim.
> a term coined to describe Soviet propaganda in the 60's.
Right. It's also a well worn propaganda term used by think tanks/propagandists/"journalists"/coworkers/etc to stifle discussion for a few years now. I'd avoid using that term if you want to be taken seriously. It gets tiresome and obvious.
> The reason it's still legitimate to bring up Tiananmen Square is because it is still denied, censored and unaddressed.
Even if it wasn't "denied, censored or unaddressed", I think it would be legitimate to bring it up. Not sure what your point is.
> The Nazis killed the gays right along with the Jews and I would face the death penalty in many countries today.
The nazis killed a lot of people. So did the british, soviets, chinese, japanese and the US. But they singularly targeted jews, like you and the author target china. Also, I don't think china executes people for being gay. Though I may be wrong. So one for the bad guys?
> By your argument, we can never call out evil when we see it.
Where did you get that from my comment? The difference between you and I is that I called out all evil. You call out evil to suit your political agenda. But what upsets you is I called out your propaganda.
> My gauge for evil is what the powerful are willing to do to the weak to increase their own power.
The most powerful nation is the one we are living in. The most powerful bloc in the world is the western bloc. Once again, not sure what your point is and how it applies to china?
> Instead of silence in the face of the evil we personally recognize, let us all speak!
There is a neverending cesspool of anti-china propaganda everywhere. Who is preventing you from speaking?
From whataboutism all the way to victimhood in one paragraph.
> ...I guess you haven't heard about what democracy did to alan turing? And no, natives, jews, blacks, chinese, etc will be lined up far ahead of you.
Oh, come on. All of that stuff is now roundly condemned, or at least very controversial.
What makes liberal democracies better is not that they've been perfect and blameless throughout history, but they're structured to work through their faults and allow progress. If the US had been run by an oligarchical one-party state of Southern elites (a la the CCP), it'd still probably have literal chattel slavery.
>> “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
> Like all quotes, it's superficial nonsense. Every evil doer thinks that they are the "good guy". Pretty much all evil is done in the name of "good". The nazis, islamic terrorists, japanese imperialists, british empire and the people who nuked innocent civilians all think they are doing good. They all use your quote.
> The true evil are the ones who portray themselves as good and the other as evil. Those people who are so ideologically brainwashed as the ones capable of true evil.
You're confusing righteousness with self-righteousness and a kind of deluded evil. They're quite different things, and it's important to know the difference.
And? Does it make the past disappear?
> What makes liberal democracies better is not that they've been perfect and blameless throughout history, but they're structured to work through their faults and allow progress.
That applies even more to china don't you think? No country has changed or progressed so drastically in the past 70 years. Also, democracies don't always progress. After all, it was a democracy that gave us nazi germany.
> If the US had been run by an oligarchical one-party state of Southern elites (a la the CCP), it'd still probably have literal chattel slavery.
But instead it was a democracy with slaves? So aren't you really attacking democracy here and actually agreeing with me? Also, the same two parties running the US in 1860 are the same ones running the US today. The US was never run by a one-party state of the South. The US has been run by the same two parties for nearly 2 centuries. China has been run by the same party for 70 years. Your argument is actually defending political stability and consistency.
> You're confusing righteousness with self-righteousness and a kind of deluded evil.
No I am not. You are. That's why I am calling you out.
From ancient greece to the founding fathers: democracy is bad. You: democracy is perfect and always progressing.
Slaving owning Southern elites are bad. Oops it was created by a democracy. Nazism is bad. Oops it was created by a democracy. Genocide is bad. Oops democracies have exterminated more nations than the nazis.
As I said, people who think they or their system are perfect are the evil we have to watch out for. After all, if you believe you, your system, your god, your whatever is perfect, then it means others are not and hence gives you an excuse to commit all kinds of horrors.
So what is your position anyway, at least vis-à-vis Westerners and China?
>> You're confusing righteousness with self-righteousness and a kind of deluded evil.
> No I am not. You are. That's why I am calling you out.
I'm no so sure.
> From ancient greece to the founding fathers: democracy is bad. You: democracy is perfect and always progressing.
Huh? The founding fathers thought unchecked direct democracy was bad, but that's not what we're talking about. They developed a system in response that which is frequently also called democracy.
> As I said, people who think they or their system are perfect are the evil we have to watch out for.
You're dealing in straw men: neither of your interlocutors are actually claiming "their system is perfect."
Why do I need to have a position? For all the complaints about foreign interference, we sure do love to meddle in chinese affairs. Also, it's not "westerners" and china. It's our greedy little elites and greedy little chinese elites and all the propagandists that the greedy elites hired to peddle nonsense. Look at this thread. It's mostly propagandists ( including the author ) and a few ramblings from the ill-informed ( thanks to the propagandists ). Like almost every anti-china propaganda on traditional and social media.
> Huh? The founding fathers thought unchecked direct democracy was bad, but that's not what we're talking about.
So they thought democracy was bad? Isn't that what I wrote?
> They developed a system in response that which is frequently also called democracy.
They developed a system where a handful of wealthy rich white landowners got to vote. Not exactly democracy by any stretch of the imagination. They developed a system for themselves and called it democracy.
> You're dealing in straw men: neither of your interlocutors are actually claiming "their system is perfect."
Nope. I may have exaggerated for effect but the argument still holds. I clearly showed "china bad" and "democracy good" is nonsense. Democracy is and can be bad. Try it for yourself. Since 1776, "democracies" have been the source of the greatest and most numerous evils. Go down the list - genocides, slavery, wars, etc.
But we don't really give a rats ass about democracy do we. So what are we really after? Why the sudden focus on "democracy" in china but nothing about democracy in say saudi arabia? Oh that's right, it's just state propaganda. Carry on.
Two parties allows for dissent, compromise, and differing leadership. Both US parties have evolved and exchanged platform ideas constantly over that period. Leaders from both parties have been elected to all levels of government.
One party with no term limits doesn’t generate the same outcome: the people have no choice and no voice.
It’s totally reasonable to ‘be careful’ about such a situation, because it is going to happen that some random citizen will be sent to jail for something. It’s happened with other countries, so there is precedent.