Any insight into why the lockdown hasn’t worked? By all accounts lockdowns have worked in other places (obviously with lots of other measures taken at the same time).
Readit Newswestiseast commented on Information operations directed at Hong Kong blog.twitter.com/en_us/to... · Posted by u/whatok
> Should we ban accounts, or allow them to be persecuted, for "pro-X" views where X is outside, say, a standard deviation of what most people here take for granted?
When those views are formed under the pressure and oppression of an increasingly influential authoritarian regime? Yes, you should. Otherwise there won't be much of a community left to protect. There is little reason to believe you can have it both ways as it isn't a level playing field. Ambivalence is one of the costs of democracy and it can't measure up to the adjusted views formed under a watchful eye.
This is why authoritarianism is on the rise all over the world. Because as people become afraid of the effects of global conflicts, economics, and politics all the establishment can offer are arguments of apathy and equivalence. Leaving the hardliners the only ones left standing with a message resembling anything close to common values.
I do believe you are writing in good faith, but I'm not sure you understand the situation. Facing undue pressure to confirm to certain views because of your background and thereby not being free to form your own _is_ what is damaging. That is what oppression is. Authoritarianism is there to achieve this result. The idea that these views are remotely equivalent is contradicted by all those facing the consequence of not wanting to conform to them and suggesting otherwise is a disservice to all parties.
Late to the party but...
I think another way of saying it is, any views coming from a country that doesn’t allow even a modicum of free speech should be discounted.
I think there’s two reasons: trust and reciprocity.
Trust - the fact that information in China is so heavily censored and moderated means that opinions are necessarily censored and moderated too. It’s as if somebody admitted that their single source of all political information was Alex Jones - it wouldn’t be unreasonable to treat their opinions with a high degree of suspicion.
Reciprocity - I don’t think China should be able to have its cake and eat it. ie. if your neighbor thinks you are too dirty to eat at their house, then they surely wouldn’t be welcome at yours whenever they please?
Society already has many conventions and laws that regulate human nature -- why is transportation off limits?
I think that’s the point - simply asking people to fly less and drive less and eat les meat will never ever ever work.
We need big carrots and big sticks in order to achieve things like less flying - that means government regulation, huge material incentives for not flying/driving/etc.
westiseast commented on China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining e360.yale.edu/features/ch... · Posted by u/sohkamyung
Seems like you agree then that the cost should not be shouldered by the government alone, but also by the companies who benefited.
The article mentions that most mining operations were illegal until recently and the Longnan government only managed to shut down the last of them in 2017. Some local officials probably lined their pockets by looking the other way, but the central government likely didn't see any of those profits.
Now that the industry is controlled by state-owned companies, stricter regulations were introduced, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if the government were willing to tolerate the pollution in exchange for profit.
The central government almost certainly ‘profited’ (ie. benefited) from this whole situation.
1) Strategically, it cornered the market and has been able to use that dominance to great geopolitical effect.
2) Economic development: environmental regulation and ‘fair’ competition with foreign firms would’ve held back the industry in China, costing jobs and the bottom line for the Chinese state. The breakneck economic growth has been achieved in large part because the Chinese state put economic development ahead of all other concerns.
3) Internal politics. The basic balance between local and central government since the 1990s were that local governments had to fend for themselves financially, and in return central government wouldn’t bog them down with regulation and oversight. The lack of environmental regulation of what is a nationally and strategically vital industry reflects that balance.
westiseast commented on China Wrestles with the Toxic Aftermath of Rare Earth Mining e360.yale.edu/features/ch... · Posted by u/sohkamyung
Perhaps it’s churlish to mention, but...
China was happy to ignore environmental standards in order to corner the market in rare earth minerals. American miners couldn’t compete because they were already “internalizing” the environmental costs, and were priced out of the market.
Once China had put everyone else out of business (and blocked foreign businesses from mining inside China), it started not only reducing output to increase prices, but also started to very slowly apply environmental standards it previously ignored.
The Chinese government also showed how willing they were to now use this almost complete monopoly for political purposes in 2010.
And now in 2019 they’re calling for consumers and global companies to contribute to the costs of “internalizing” the pollution?
Why are you conflating what Apple is doing with tax treatments and loop holes (that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another) with a message about taking responsibility for protecting people's privacy and their data?
I think because it’s pretty cheap (free) to make inspiring speeches to privileged American students about an esoteric ‘right to be human’.
Meanwhile Apple effectively withholds tax from a range of countries who would probably use that to provide basic social services to those in need of them, or runs (through its contractors) factories that withhold basic human rights from staff.
> China has made it abundantly clear for a long time that it considers the US to be an ideological enemy, a military rival and a target for economic and geopolitical warfare.
Not true. China is only interested in preserving its own authoritarian system. China feels fine to coexist with other forms of government, democracy or monarchy. It may influence other countries to advance its business interest, but never attempt to overthrow a government for ideological reasons. What you said only shows the US considers China an ideological enemy, but not the reverse.
I think if you look at media and propaganda within China, my original point is true - America (and often Europe) is presented as an enemy, an example of the failure of democracy, a chaotic place, a dangerous place to live/visit, a country that intrinsically hates China.... there’s no way in which Chinese people are told ‘American democracy is good, our system is also good, let’s just learn to get along’
edit: in addition, things that we’ve seen in recent years like ‘purges’ of Western influences in Chinese universities - those directly contradict your point that China doesn’t consider the West an ideological enemy.
I understand in the abstract why the US is freaking out about China as their economy is eclipsing the US and they are starting to create a competing international order to the WTO/IMF type deal with the belt and road initiative. However, I don't understand exactly what is triggering the national security establishment's (usually stupid and deadly) sudden paranoia about China.
Many people I know simply see these headlines and start to see China as an official enemy. I don't understand why we should see them that way at all. The official enemies of the US are typically brutalized in various ways and slandered in the media. It is difficult to know what is to be taken at face value.
Personally I think it’s not a ‘sudden’ paranoia, it’s an overdue one.
China has made it abundantly clear for a long time that it considers the US to be an ideological enemy, a military rival and a target for economic and geopolitical warfare.
Since ~2008 / Xi Jin Ping took over, its also been fairly clear that China has no intention of liberalizing in any sense, and the government is actively working to undermine the US/European model of a harmonious world.
However, US government policy pre-Trump basically assumed that China was going to liberalize and play by the (US/EU) rules.
I’m not a Trump fan by any means, but regarding China I think he is the first to drop the pretense that China is a friend of America, and now the China hawks in the media, government and military are all piling on.
westiseast commented on How Nike sold its first shoes marketingexamples.com/dir... · Posted by u/harrydry
But it is part of the Nike history and should have been mentioned. It is disgusting to read that kind of fanboy publication, deeply bowing before a company that helped to construct the modern international slavery system.
Personally, it’s a great example of amazing sales and how to build a brand.
There’s no reason why brands today couldn’t learn from Nike’s sales/branding story without having to emulate their manufacturing sins.
By meaningful, I mean to someone other your yourself or your extended self (family). Our purpose is to serve others, not ourselves.
Meaningful WORK? Not necessarily.