4 ms·

> That depends if you think some Americans would be offended if you claimed Hawaii was its own country Of course not. They'd just ignore you. Not force you to

> That depends if you think some Americans would be offended if you claimed Hawaii was its own country Of course not. They'd just ignore you. Not force you to suspend online sales to your 300 stores in the country. Why is there always someone willing to twist things into a pretzel in search of moral equivalence when it comes to China or Russia? There's no pot. There's no kettle. Using your leverage to force a company to stop doing business for a liked tweet is uncool for any country.

chrischen 9y ago
What they did was an economic sanction and it is something the US does engage in to further political goals. The US uses similar tactics to force countries to comply with US drug laws, punish Russia for invading Ukraine, as well as other less noble political goals. It’s often in the form of sanctions but can also be in the form of withholding aid from poor countries or embargoes. They do this to many central american countries to uphold inane policies that make no sense for the welfare of those countries except to serve American political interests. There’s really no good reason for the decades long embargo against Cuba except that the US considered it an enemy all nations partake in to pursue political goals.
- kodablah 9y ago
  Not just about what they did, it's also about why. It was a liked tweet. (Why bring up US foreign policy again? Many don't agree with those decisions either and it's unrelated.)
  - chrischen 9y ago
    I’m simply replying to your comment that America do in fact enact policies to further its own political goals all the time. In fact the US is a frequent offender of doing so to influce foreign countries while at least China usually focuses on itself. If you meant just the American people, well not all Chinese side with China on the Tibet issue, but most do. But then that’s personal opinions and you can’t really blame them for having a personal opinion. Using political leverage to force an outcome is inevitable, and frankly, discussing right or wrong on the matter is pointless as you cannot ever achieve politically neutral policy. All policy is enacted with a certain goal so it cannot be neutral by definition (unless your policy does nothing). Either China wants Tibet as part of its territory or it doesn’t. In either case it will use its political powers to further whatever the goal is.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ascorbic 9y ago
  Whatever your views on US foreign policy, I'm not really sure you can equate invading a country with liking a tweet or making a mistake on a web form.
coldtea 9y ago
>Of course not. They'd just ignore you. Not force you to suspend online sales to your 300 stores in the country. That's because there's no threat to them. If the situation was tenser, and there was some open controversy about Hawaii, with another superpower taking sides, they could do all that, and worse.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  Palestine is a good example, it can be politically detrimental to have the wrong opinion
- kodablah 9y ago
  For a liked tweet? No, not even in a tense situation. We have to stop excusing government sanctions for something like a liked tweet. It's a dumb equivalence and harms the real point by deflecting.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >For a liked tweet? No, not even in a tense situation. It's not the "liked tweet" itself, it's having come into attention, people demanding something to be done, media blowing it, etc. Tons of similar gaffes go by without an incident as well...

chrischen 9y ago

What they did was an economic sanction and it is something the US does engage in to further political goals. The US uses similar tactics to force countries to comply with US drug laws, punish Russia for invading Ukraine, as well as other less noble political goals. It’s often in the form of sanctions but can also be in the form of withholding aid from poor countries or embargoes. They do this to many central american countries to uphold inane policies that make no sense for the welfare of those countries except to serve American political interests. There’s really no good reason for the decades long embargo against Cuba except that the US considered it an enemy all nations partake in to pursue political goals.

kodablah 9y ago
Not just about what they did, it's also about why. It was a liked tweet. (Why bring up US foreign policy again? Many don't agree with those decisions either and it's unrelated.)
- chrischen 9y ago
  I’m simply replying to your comment that America do in fact enact policies to further its own political goals all the time. In fact the US is a frequent offender of doing so to influce foreign countries while at least China usually focuses on itself. If you meant just the American people, well not all Chinese side with China on the Tibet issue, but most do. But then that’s personal opinions and you can’t really blame them for having a personal opinion. Using political leverage to force an outcome is inevitable, and frankly, discussing right or wrong on the matter is pointless as you cannot ever achieve politically neutral policy. All policy is enacted with a certain goal so it cannot be neutral by definition (unless your policy does nothing). Either China wants Tibet as part of its territory or it doesn’t. In either case it will use its political powers to further whatever the goal is.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ascorbic 9y ago
Whatever your views on US foreign policy, I'm not really sure you can equate invading a country with liking a tweet or making a mistake on a web form.

coldtea 9y ago

>Of course not. They'd just ignore you. Not force you to suspend online sales to your 300 stores in the country. That's because there's no threat to them. If the situation was tenser, and there was some open controversy about Hawaii, with another superpower taking sides, they could do all that, and worse.

thinkloop 9y ago
Palestine is a good example, it can be politically detrimental to have the wrong opinion
kodablah 9y ago
For a liked tweet? No, not even in a tense situation. We have to stop excusing government sanctions for something like a liked tweet. It's a dumb equivalence and harms the real point by deflecting.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >For a liked tweet? No, not even in a tense situation. It's not the "liked tweet" itself, it's having come into attention, people demanding something to be done, media blowing it, etc. Tons of similar gaffes go by without an incident as well...