6 ms·
The part that irks me is that we still allow companies which preach human rights in Western countries to not only turn a deaf ear to the abuses of China's past
by Shivetya 7y ago
The part that irks me is that we still allow companies which preach human rights in Western countries to not only turn a deaf ear to the abuses of China's past and present but to continue manufacturing there without quarrel.
Each time their CEO's get up to preach about human rights they need to be challenged on their activities in China. China to them is a profit center and nothing more.
- ubercow13 7y agoAnd you, posting on your phone or PC made partly in China, are also turning a deaf ear and then preaching on HN. That's exactly 'letting' them get away with it right?
- HackPotter 7y agoThis isn't really a good-faith argument. It isn't tenable to live and work in modern society without the use of a phone or PC, and it certainly isn't possible to connect with people to effect societal change at any significant level without using the internet (and by extension a device capable of connecting to the internet). The very fact that the parent comment was pointing out the issues with western corporations outsourcing their pollution-producing practices means that the commenter isn't "turning a deaf ear" to the issue; they're very much aware and talking about it. What you're saying comes across as disingenuous and hostile, when as far as you know the individual you're responding to could be working diligently to fight against industrial pollution and climate change.
- ubercow13 7y agoMy post was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek because I think the GP post is equally absurd. In what way is a current CEO supposed to alter their business practice to make amends for the "abuses of China's past" (presumably including Tiananmen)?
- PavlovsCat 7y ago> make amends for the "abuses of China's past" They said "not only turn a deaf ear to", you turn it into "make amends for". The absurdity in your reading is there because you put it there.
- ubercow13 7y agoYes I put it there. I don't understand how they are turning a deaf ear and what the implied sane alternative is?
- PavlovsCat 7y agohttps://thenib.com/mister-gotcha https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
- fasthandle 7y agoNot only a profit center, but an outsourced pollution center. F500 CEOs outsource pollution to China.
- conanbatt 7y agoCEO's are not the ones to be accountable for foreign domestic policy are they. Thats a politician's job.
- parthdesai 7y agoIf you are going to preach about Human rights as a CEO and operate in China, it makes the person a hypocrite. By saying it's not a CEO's job doesn't mean the CEO is not guilty.
- conanbatt 7y agoAs guilty as any american that benefits from taxes collected from products sold in china.
- conanbatt 7y agoCEO's are not the ones to be accountable for foreign domestic policy are they. Thats a politician's job. And what you want, if you do want to change how china operates internally, is to strong arm them economically or with the military. And thats what if you do want china to change their domestic policy you need to back things like Trumps Trade War, and also be ready for a military dispute.
- baby 7y agoSo your idea of improving the situation in China is to cut ties with the country? Looks like it worked well with North Korea.
- philwelch 7y agoTrading with them hasn’t done any favors for the people of Xinjiang.