4 ms·

Is this a contest where we should be rooting for a side or something? What's the significance of this? Is this some kind of national pride thing where I should

by mevile 8y ago

Is this a contest where we should be rooting for a side or something? What's the significance of this? Is this some kind of national pride thing where I should be rooting for my home country to win? I'm happy for people that found success for what they've accomplished regardless of where they live. Good for them.

dominotw 8y ago
> Is this a contest where we should be rooting for a side or something? Yes lets root for the side that doesn't use prisoners parts for medical experiments and steals intellectual property to develop their cheap knockoffs.
- taneq 8y ago
  Oh, OK, so we're going for... who, exactly?
  - CoreSet 8y ago
    Technical nihilism is all the rage but... can you really not tell the difference between be the U.S. and China on human rights? Of course, you could reply to this comment with some gross injustice, and I could counter. But I'm generally curious. And if you do believe that that U.S. and China are the same, I guess my next question, because arguments seem to lead this way - how do you feel about what-aboutism?
    - thesagan 8y ago
      They're not the same. For example, it's the U.S. that has the world's largest prison population and the world's most expensive healthcare, etc. China has different issues.
      - CoreSet 8y ago
        You're right that they have different issues, different problems, different strengths. But what irks me is the "what-aboutism." If Texas executes handicap people, that's awful. But it makes China harvesting organs OK? The U.S. has a horrible track record in Latin America and (frankly) around the world, so China gets some "slack" in how many human rights activists or lawyers it jails each year? I understand I'm responding to a larger idea and not your comment specifically but... your exact line of argument is used to justify basically everything China (and Russia, and a lot of people incidentally) does that is condemned by the international community "So-and-so does it? Wake up you fucking sheep" is basically the locked-and-loaded phrase you can use to sound important and win any argument anytime, anywhere, and I think the tendency to fall back on that idea on HN hurts the community.
        rangibaby 8y ago
        I guess it boils down to: if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones
        CoreSet 8y ago
        That's what I'm getting at though - you should throw stones! China being bad doesn't excuse the U.S, the U.S. being bad doesn't excuse China. But somehow, somewhere, in the rhetoric of HN (and let's face it, the internet) there's this idea that only the morally unimpeachable can criticize something. But in reality that just gives the worst actors carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't break some record or set a new standard for terribleness. We're in a moral race to the bottom, and it doesn't help to say "because so-and-so did it." That just digs us deeper
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Just be sure that, when throwing stones, you also throw them at the appropriate issues on your own side. Sure, criticize China, and criticize the US, as appropriate. That doesn't mean moral equivalence (they aren't equivalent), but it does mean not sweeping your own issues under the rug.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- cma 8y ago
  Do they execute the mentally handicapped like Texas? (I think China is much worse on human rights fwiw, we just have a long way to go)
  - baybal2 8y ago
    No, but they deny them marriage certificates - medical exam is a prerequisite for one. If you are handicapped, bad luck.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      It's not like it's particularly bad luck. A marriage certificate is not a requirement of getting married.
      - baybal2 8y ago
        But without it, you get no household registration as a married couple, which means no birth certificate, which means no household registration and lifelong non-personhood for the child
        thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Where in the world are you getting your ideas? You can't (legally) prevent a child from being registered for a birth certificate even if you want to, as you would expect from the fact that birth certificates are meant to benefit the government, not you. It is literally the first element of Texas HSC §192 ("Birth Records"): > Sec. 192.001. REGISTRATION REQUIRED. The birth of each child born in this state shall be registered. Children receive birth certificates regardless of whether their parents are married, or are citizens, or any other consideration. There is no requirement for a marriage certificate, or for anything else. It's also not true that you can't be registered as a married couple without a marriage certificate. You can, and it's easy. Edit: You're probably talking about China, not Texas.
        baybal2 8y ago
whatshisface 8y ago
>Is this some kind of national pride thing where I should be rooting for my home country to win? What happens if Xi Jinping decides that he wants something that you do not want? He will not let you vote if one day his foreign policy goals involve nice Americans.
- logicchains 8y ago
  Just like the Chinese got no chance to vote on America's unilateral sanctions against Iran, but are still subjected to them.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - whyisthewhat 8y ago
    Just as a point of clarification, Chinese have no obligation to comply with American sanctions, unless they’re using the American financial system.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Right. You are free to trade with Iran, as long as you don't mind disconnecting from the US financial system. Or you try to set up a shell company that does the trades but keeps the parent company from violating the sanctions (to be fair, Chinese companies learned how to do this from American companies).
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Iran was under UN sanctions at the time Meng violated those sanctions. China is on the UN security council, and as a permanent member, they have a veto. They did get a vote, and they voted yes. Are you somehow not aware of this? They were a founding member of the UN, and have been on the Security Council since it's beginning. They have abstained or voted yes on every UN action that involves the SC (international peace and security). Meng violated additional US laws... which she is only subject to because she was operating in the US. Just as a US citizen is subject to Chinese laws when operating in China. Surely you're not suggesting that foreigners should be allowed to go into another country and violate their laws without consequence.
dang 8y ago
This is a case of the unfortunate omnipotence of titles over discussion. The title frames the topic as a nationalistic opposition; the subtitle does not. Therefore we have replaced the title with the subtitle above.

by mevile 8y ago

dominotw 8y ago

> Is this a contest where we should be rooting for a side or something? Yes lets root for the side that doesn't use prisoners parts for medical experiments and steals intellectual property to develop their cheap knockoffs.

taneq 8y ago
Oh, OK, so we're going for... who, exactly?
- CoreSet 8y ago
  Technical nihilism is all the rage but... can you really not tell the difference between be the U.S. and China on human rights? Of course, you could reply to this comment with some gross injustice, and I could counter. But I'm generally curious. And if you do believe that that U.S. and China are the same, I guess my next question, because arguments seem to lead this way - how do you feel about what-aboutism?
  - thesagan 8y ago
    They're not the same. For example, it's the U.S. that has the world's largest prison population and the world's most expensive healthcare, etc. China has different issues.
    - CoreSet 8y ago
      You're right that they have different issues, different problems, different strengths. But what irks me is the "what-aboutism." If Texas executes handicap people, that's awful. But it makes China harvesting organs OK? The U.S. has a horrible track record in Latin America and (frankly) around the world, so China gets some "slack" in how many human rights activists or lawyers it jails each year? I understand I'm responding to a larger idea and not your comment specifically but... your exact line of argument is used to justify basically everything China (and Russia, and a lot of people incidentally) does that is condemned by the international community "So-and-so does it? Wake up you fucking sheep" is basically the locked-and-loaded phrase you can use to sound important and win any argument anytime, anywhere, and I think the tendency to fall back on that idea on HN hurts the community.
      - rangibaby 8y ago
        I guess it boils down to: if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones
        CoreSet 8y ago
        That's what I'm getting at though - you should throw stones! China being bad doesn't excuse the U.S, the U.S. being bad doesn't excuse China. But somehow, somewhere, in the rhetoric of HN (and let's face it, the internet) there's this idea that only the morally unimpeachable can criticize something. But in reality that just gives the worst actors carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't break some record or set a new standard for terribleness. We're in a moral race to the bottom, and it doesn't help to say "because so-and-so did it." That just digs us deeper
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Just be sure that, when throwing stones, you also throw them at the appropriate issues on your own side. Sure, criticize China, and criticize the US, as appropriate. That doesn't mean moral equivalence (they aren't equivalent), but it does mean not sweeping your own issues under the rug.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
cma 8y ago
Do they execute the mentally handicapped like Texas? (I think China is much worse on human rights fwiw, we just have a long way to go)
- baybal2 8y ago
  No, but they deny them marriage certificates - medical exam is a prerequisite for one. If you are handicapped, bad luck.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    It's not like it's particularly bad luck. A marriage certificate is not a requirement of getting married.
    - baybal2 8y ago
      But without it, you get no household registration as a married couple, which means no birth certificate, which means no household registration and lifelong non-personhood for the child
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Where in the world are you getting your ideas? You can't (legally) prevent a child from being registered for a birth certificate even if you want to, as you would expect from the fact that birth certificates are meant to benefit the government, not you. It is literally the first element of Texas HSC §192 ("Birth Records"): > Sec. 192.001. REGISTRATION REQUIRED. The birth of each child born in this state shall be registered. Children receive birth certificates regardless of whether their parents are married, or are citizens, or any other consideration. There is no requirement for a marriage certificate, or for anything else. It's also not true that you can't be registered as a married couple without a marriage certificate. You can, and it's easy. Edit: You're probably talking about China, not Texas.
        baybal2 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

>Is this some kind of national pride thing where I should be rooting for my home country to win? What happens if Xi Jinping decides that he wants something that you do not want? He will not let you vote if one day his foreign policy goals involve nice Americans.

logicchains 8y ago
Just like the Chinese got no chance to vote on America's unilateral sanctions against Iran, but are still subjected to them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- whyisthewhat 8y ago
  Just as a point of clarification, Chinese have no obligation to comply with American sanctions, unless they’re using the American financial system.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Right. You are free to trade with Iran, as long as you don't mind disconnecting from the US financial system. Or you try to set up a shell company that does the trades but keeps the parent company from violating the sanctions (to be fair, Chinese companies learned how to do this from American companies).
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  Iran was under UN sanctions at the time Meng violated those sanctions. China is on the UN security council, and as a permanent member, they have a veto. They did get a vote, and they voted yes. Are you somehow not aware of this? They were a founding member of the UN, and have been on the Security Council since it's beginning. They have abstained or voted yes on every UN action that involves the SC (international peace and security). Meng violated additional US laws... which she is only subject to because she was operating in the US. Just as a US citizen is subject to Chinese laws when operating in China. Surely you're not suggesting that foreigners should be allowed to go into another country and violate their laws without consequence.

dang 8y ago

This is a case of the unfortunate omnipotence of titles over discussion. The title frames the topic as a nationalistic opposition; the subtitle does not. Therefore we have replaced the title with the subtitle above.