7 ms·

> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. A trade embargo (aka cold wa

> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. A trade embargo (aka cold war) would be a lot worse for everyone involved.. Leads to arms race and threats of war, even less freedom and more injustice for the people (eg North Korea). > we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience .. Yeah, we do that with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and many more. That's the essence of business - trade one thing for another. We trade our "freedom to do whatever we want" for a salary. We trade our "freedom to party" for the happiness of raising a child... It's one of those laws of life which we might not entirely like, but cannot escape. > people freaking died to win People die - that's the only absolute we can rely on. Don't get carried away with "dying for .. something", most often this is not true - most died because delusional leaders sent them into battle ... only after the fact their death got dressed into "honorable cause".. In the end, the higher morals are dictated by whoever managed to seize power.. Which, by the way brings us back to the censorship thing..

bad_user 10y ago
I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a public forum. And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.
  - seletz 10y ago
    Oh, I think Mr. Snowden would disagree on the "nobody has done it before." And he wasn't the first.
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      no matter how i admire mr snowden, I didn't catch any news mentioning someone from US agencies/government being bought before judge because of his revelations. Did I miss something?
    - the_af 10y ago
      I don't know that Snowden is a good example: he had to flee his country in a hurry. There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether he would have a fair trial in the US, a country where many are calling him a traitor.
      - fixermark 10y ago
        That's seletz's point. It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.
        the_af 10y ago
        Oh, if that was seletz's point, then I agree with it. I thought he was claiming in the US it was possible to be a dissident without censorship or repression. My mistake!
        seletz 10y ago
        Well -- I think it's a bit more subtle than that. And maybe a bit more scary. While one would believe that there can be "dissidents" in the US w/o repression based on what one reads on the net -- e.g. the the "US" representing the "free world" yadda yadda ... -- the repressions and censorships are more subtle in general. Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also believe this is true for most other European countries. My original point was that the statement: > And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before. Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more, like the huge leak of the panama papers.
- Hondor 10y ago
  Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die for any noble purpose, they just fight other soldiers and eventually somebody wins. Nobody knows if the winner will end up good or bad, free or oppressive. It doesn't matter if people got themselves killed because they happened to choose the winning side in a historic war. Those soldiers certainly didn't know what the consequences were going to be. They just followed their naive emotions and/or threats of violence from their governments.
  - toss1 10y ago
    Wow, you really think that Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? That our democracy, as flawed as it is, is not better than China's one-party, censorship, mobile execution vans? Why have you not moved there yet? Yes, there are are sometimes, even many senseless wars, but that does not mean that all are so. And it certainly does not mean that people who volunteered to fight that war, and those who paid the ultimate price and died in it, don't deserve some honor (and no, honoring them does not mean that we cannot question or adjust belief structures later). The ignorance expressed in your statement is so profound that it is truly frightening, and if many hold it, then our society will not last. Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance). Or if you don't want to learn history, just examine some current societies that don't have the trust and stability in which you were obviously raised and take for granted.
    - JupiterMoon 10y ago
      > Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?
      - toss1 10y ago
        Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.
- fixermark 10y ago
  Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they have. In international issues, it's important to not lose sight of the possibility that there are multiple correct ways to solve political problems.
  - okc 10y ago
    but those who don't enjoy it, can't say so. thats not a correct way to solve a problem. its a useless sacrifice.
  - riprowan 10y ago
    Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they do not yet have. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_1651097c.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_...
- kbenson 10y ago
  Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? That's the problem with using something as vague and over-encompassing as "freedom", it's only a step removed from "evil" in how vague it can be. Additionally, all freedoms are not created equal. Is my right to due process as important as my right to bear arms? Are some of my views on my rights colored by the culture I live in, or are they all universal? I think China is lacking in some important rights, but I think being vague about them to the degree that we say they have "less freedom" only muddies the problem, and allows people to use the rights they do have as a counter-argument. Being clear that China's suppression of free speech allows them to shape discourse, suppress ideas they don't like, and propagandize their citizens easily makes the dangers clear. It does also open up the discussion for how the west attempts to accomplish the same things through the media, but that's not necessarily a bad thing have have brought up.
  - acbabis 10y ago
    > Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? No, there's a fundamental difference between living in a country where you have recourse against the government and living in one where you don't. In the US, I am not allowed to say things that are considered slanderous, but I am allowed to say that I should be allowed to say things that are slanderous. This makes it at least possible to change the status quo. The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.
    - tremon 10y ago
      The same is not true in countries without free speech protections. I'm not convinced. I've seen plenty of (presumably) US citizens complain here that Europe doesn't have free speech, because we have laws to curb hate speech. Still, we are very much free to discuss and organize against our government.
      - acbabis 10y ago
restalis 10y ago
"Don't get carried away with "dying for .. something", most often this is not true - most died because delusional leaders sent them into battle ... only after the fact their death got dressed into "honorable cause".." There is a broad spectrum of (personal) causes that leads one to follow an order which inherently brings with it the risk of dying. Many deaths were of people that did not had any real choice other than avoiding prosecution (which sometimes involved certain death). Many where brain washed by propaganda. Maybe not that many actually trusted in their war masters if not understanding themselves what they are fighting (and dying) for. Some, however, might have had an understanding of the cause behind the fights they were involved in, and being seduced by pure ideas/ideals rolled on as true volunteers. It's not that nice to make this distinction when talking about the dead and for the sake of it they choose to elevate all the victims to the last category, of heroes (in ideals).
- ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
  We are taught to idolise the military because it makes questioning the motives of government and the purpose of war difficult.
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  I think one condition for following orders is a lack of knowledge about what you get yourself into. You sign up to fight talibs, but end up driving a armored vehicle through a fanatic crowd, which throws there children in front of your car to stop you. Not knowing what nightmares you sign up for, plus the group pressure of a replacement tribe/family, those are the ingredients cooked with in hells kitchen.
worldvoyageur 10y ago
While I agree that it isn't a good idea to have a trade embargo of China because we don't like how they run their country, I will quibble with the idea that at least my grandfathers and great uncles didn't know what they chose to fight and, if necessary, die for. " we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored. ...the Battle of France is over ... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour. " This was Churchill, June 16, 1940, when it was not at all obvious that there was any way to win the war. My grandfathers and great uncles volunteered anyway, as did tens of thousands of others. They did not want to, but knew they had to. As Churchill said, it was '...let us brace ourselves to our duties...'. As for China, it is our duty to show that there is another way to organize a society. Give them full exposure, through trade and visits. Then, as they figure things out, be there to help them through the process.
- pjc50 10y ago
  If you're going to cite WW2, remember that we were on the same side as China at the time. Well, part of China. The surrounding point in this discussion is that if we're going to talk up the values of freedom and democracy we have to live them as well. That would include the US giving up its little gulag in Guantanamo and applying the rule of law there as well, among many other things.
xori 10y ago
“Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.”
- EdHominem 10y ago
  You can shoot at (some poor schmuck drafted by the other side)/the enemy or you can shoot at your draft board, your choice.
peter303 10y ago
Vice-versa too. At times most US products were banned in Cuba, Iran, Red China, North Korea, etc. But you could usually get it on the Black Market for a price.

bad_user 10y ago

I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a public forum. And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.
- seletz 10y ago
  Oh, I think Mr. Snowden would disagree on the "nobody has done it before." And he wasn't the first.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    no matter how i admire mr snowden, I didn't catch any news mentioning someone from US agencies/government being bought before judge because of his revelations. Did I miss something?
  - the_af 10y ago
    I don't know that Snowden is a good example: he had to flee his country in a hurry. There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether he would have a fair trial in the US, a country where many are calling him a traitor.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      That's seletz's point. It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.
      - the_af 10y ago
        Oh, if that was seletz's point, then I agree with it. I thought he was claiming in the US it was possible to be a dissident without censorship or repression. My mistake!
        seletz 10y ago
        Well -- I think it's a bit more subtle than that. And maybe a bit more scary. While one would believe that there can be "dissidents" in the US w/o repression based on what one reads on the net -- e.g. the the "US" representing the "free world" yadda yadda ... -- the repressions and censorships are more subtle in general. Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also believe this is true for most other European countries. My original point was that the statement: > And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before. Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more, like the huge leak of the panama papers.
Hondor 10y ago
Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die for any noble purpose, they just fight other soldiers and eventually somebody wins. Nobody knows if the winner will end up good or bad, free or oppressive. It doesn't matter if people got themselves killed because they happened to choose the winning side in a historic war. Those soldiers certainly didn't know what the consequences were going to be. They just followed their naive emotions and/or threats of violence from their governments.
- toss1 10y ago
  Wow, you really think that Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? That our democracy, as flawed as it is, is not better than China's one-party, censorship, mobile execution vans? Why have you not moved there yet? Yes, there are are sometimes, even many senseless wars, but that does not mean that all are so. And it certainly does not mean that people who volunteered to fight that war, and those who paid the ultimate price and died in it, don't deserve some honor (and no, honoring them does not mean that we cannot question or adjust belief structures later). The ignorance expressed in your statement is so profound that it is truly frightening, and if many hold it, then our society will not last. Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance). Or if you don't want to learn history, just examine some current societies that don't have the trust and stability in which you were obviously raised and take for granted.
  - JupiterMoon 10y ago
    > Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?
    - toss1 10y ago
      Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.
fixermark 10y ago
Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they have. In international issues, it's important to not lose sight of the possibility that there are multiple correct ways to solve political problems.
- okc 10y ago
  but those who don't enjoy it, can't say so. thats not a correct way to solve a problem. its a useless sacrifice.
- riprowan 10y ago
  Great sacrifice was also made for the Chinese people to enjoy the way of life that they do not yet have. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_1651097c.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01651/tiananmen_...
kbenson 10y ago
Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? That's the problem with using something as vague and over-encompassing as "freedom", it's only a step removed from "evil" in how vague it can be. Additionally, all freedoms are not created equal. Is my right to due process as important as my right to bear arms? Are some of my views on my rights colored by the culture I live in, or are they all universal? I think China is lacking in some important rights, but I think being vague about them to the degree that we say they have "less freedom" only muddies the problem, and allows people to use the rights they do have as a counter-argument. Being clear that China's suppression of free speech allows them to shape discourse, suppress ideas they don't like, and propagandize their citizens easily makes the dangers clear. It does also open up the discussion for how the west attempts to accomplish the same things through the media, but that's not necessarily a bad thing have have brought up.
- acbabis 10y ago
  > Isn't it all relative? Couldn't a fully libertarian state make some claims about freedom regarding the US that are similar to the claims the US makes regarding China? No, there's a fundamental difference between living in a country where you have recourse against the government and living in one where you don't. In the US, I am not allowed to say things that are considered slanderous, but I am allowed to say that I should be allowed to say things that are slanderous. This makes it at least possible to change the status quo. The same is not true in countries without free speech protections.
  - tremon 10y ago
    The same is not true in countries without free speech protections. I'm not convinced. I've seen plenty of (presumably) US citizens complain here that Europe doesn't have free speech, because we have laws to curb hate speech. Still, we are very much free to discuss and organize against our government.
    - acbabis 10y ago

restalis 10y ago

"Don't get carried away with "dying for .. something", most often this is not true - most died because delusional leaders sent them into battle ... only after the fact their death got dressed into "honorable cause".." There is a broad spectrum of (personal) causes that leads one to follow an order which inherently brings with it the risk of dying. Many deaths were of people that did not had any real choice other than avoiding prosecution (which sometimes involved certain death). Many where brain washed by propaganda. Maybe not that many actually trusted in their war masters if not understanding themselves what they are fighting (and dying) for. Some, however, might have had an understanding of the cause behind the fights they were involved in, and being seduced by pure ideas/ideals rolled on as true volunteers. It's not that nice to make this distinction when talking about the dead and for the sake of it they choose to elevate all the victims to the last category, of heroes (in ideals).

ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
We are taught to idolise the military because it makes questioning the motives of government and the purpose of war difficult.
Pica_soO 10y ago
I think one condition for following orders is a lack of knowledge about what you get yourself into. You sign up to fight talibs, but end up driving a armored vehicle through a fanatic crowd, which throws there children in front of your car to stop you. Not knowing what nightmares you sign up for, plus the group pressure of a replacement tribe/family, those are the ingredients cooked with in hells kitchen.

worldvoyageur 10y ago

While I agree that it isn't a good idea to have a trade embargo of China because we don't like how they run their country, I will quibble with the idea that at least my grandfathers and great uncles didn't know what they chose to fight and, if necessary, die for. " we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored. ...the Battle of France is over ... the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour. " This was Churchill, June 16, 1940, when it was not at all obvious that there was any way to win the war. My grandfathers and great uncles volunteered anyway, as did tens of thousands of others. They did not want to, but knew they had to. As Churchill said, it was '...let us brace ourselves to our duties...'. As for China, it is our duty to show that there is another way to organize a society. Give them full exposure, through trade and visits. Then, as they figure things out, be there to help them through the process.

pjc50 10y ago
If you're going to cite WW2, remember that we were on the same side as China at the time. Well, part of China. The surrounding point in this discussion is that if we're going to talk up the values of freedom and democracy we have to live them as well. That would include the US giving up its little gulag in Guantanamo and applying the rule of law there as well, among many other things.

xori 10y ago

“Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.”

EdHominem 10y ago
You can shoot at (some poor schmuck drafted by the other side)/the enemy or you can shoot at your draft board, your choice.

peter303 10y ago

Vice-versa too. At times most US products were banned in Cuba, Iran, Red China, North Korea, etc. But you could usually get it on the Black Market for a price.