7 ms·

I agree that the things described are very bad. But I do want to point that many western democratic governments do things that might be just as bad (are the Uyg

I agree that the things described are very bad. But I do want to point that many western democratic governments do things that might be just as bad (are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS?). Though I have to admit I'm not well informed on exactly what type of "democracy" they are after. If you get the majority of people to not care about what happens to a minority, it doesn't really matter how a government is structured (when it comes to democracy we see see things like "Tyranny of the masses"). EDIT: everyone disliked this comment but I think because I used the wrong examples. So I quickly want to clarify what I mean: He wants a different political system (democratic) and his arguments are that the current one did many bad things. My point is that changing the political system doesn't change the bad things he's talking about. As we can clearly see in many democratic systems in the world.

deogeo 7y ago
> are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS? For one, the Uyghur are not immigrants. As bad as you may think immigrants are treated in US/EU/AUS, China wouldn't even let them in in the first place. Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse.
- askmike 7y ago
  See my other comments, I shouldn't have picked immigrants as an example. There are many other example minority groups. > Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse. I'm no expert on the matter, but a source on the top of Google says it's just as bad in the US ( https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-detention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete... ): Immigrants in "detention camps" near the US border are not allowed to leave either.
vnorilo 7y ago
Western countries may not always live up to ideals with the pressures of migration, but it is disingenous to compare immigrants to a resident minority. Please note that in EU at least, a lot of the conflict is about who counts as an asylum seeker and who must immigrate normally.
- askmike 7y ago
  > Western countries may not always live up to ideals with the pressures of migration, but it is disingenous to compare immigrants to a resident minority That's just one example that popped into my head. I can pick another example if you don't like this one. How about how black people are treated in the US? Not all of them are in concentration camps, but many of them are in jail for non violent "crimes" (for example for doing things that have since become legal in many states). Or how muslims are treated everywhere in the west? I'm not defending China, I'm just saying many countries do terrible things - also democratic ones (sometimes it's the goverment, sometimes it's the people).
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    > I'm not defending China, I'm just saying many countries do terrible things - also democratic ones (sometimes it's the goverment, sometimes it's the people). Great, then you can write a blog post about that and post it to HN and we’ll discuss those atrocities on that post. Meanwhile let’s stay on topic here, and discuss an article written by a HK citizen to Chinese citizens about China. This is whataboutism, a classic conversational anti pattern that rears its head every single time China comes up on HN. It’s time to stop.
    - askmike 7y ago
      On topic: He wants a different political system (democratic) and his arguments are that the current one did many bad things. My point is that changing the political system doesn't change the bad things he's talking about. As we can clearly see in many democratic systems in the world. I don't think I'll write a blogpost. Given the initial responses of my current comments I am sure it would get downvoted anyway.
simonh 7y ago
There has been abusive treatment of some illegal immigrants into some of these countries, particularly recently, but there had also been massive outcries about it. In almost every case the law and public opinion has stopped or prevented the worst mistreatment. The Australian detention centres are winding down, the separation of children from their families ordered by Trump was successfully challenged in court. Massive public protests and press coverage worked. Therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to hold China to the same standards of public accountability and legal due process that other countries are held to.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  My understanding of US detention centers is that their capacity is only expanding.
  - simonh 7y ago
    That is true, people who illegally enter the US in violation of it's laws get detained, however they have access to legal due process and their rights are guaranteed in law. There certainly have been abuses and violations, but these have frequently been reported in the medial and successfully challenged in courts of law. Don't get me wrong, the recent treatment of refugees entering the US has been appalling. In my books, no supporter of the current US administration gets to claim they are pro-family or support traditional values, after the deliberate rending of children from their parents, as a terror tactic to scare other migrants away. "Don't come here, look what we will do to your children". Despicable. China can rightly use that as a counterpoint to their actions. The point is, it doesn't get them off the hook though. These cases in the West are subject to public scrutiny. Journalists and opposition politicians have access to the facilities and to detainees and access to the courts to ensure judicial review. It is absolutely reasonable and fair to expect China to meet the same standards.
    - askmike 7y ago
      I just did a quick google search on the matter, and according to the top link[1] this is not possible in practise for people in "detention facilities" to leave them. [1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-detention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete... this is not
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jahewson 7y ago
This kind of empty, backwards argument is known as a “whataboutism” and is commonly seen in propaganda. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- askmike 7y ago
  I don't agree, that's part of an "us vs them" debate. I am saying that I don't think China's bad things have anything to do with them not being democratic. As we can see similar things happening in democratic countries.
- coldtea 7y ago
  It's also known as "putting things in perspective" and is commonly seen in rational, non-partisan, assessment of events... People thinking (or pretending to think) their "shit doesn't smell" criticize only (or mainly) the other side, for things their side does as well, and demonize the Other, down to supporting policy implications, sometimes down to sanctions and even war. And when someone points to their own shit they invoke "whataboutism" to continue to have their hands in the ears -- and they'd think unfair if they had the same policies/actions against them.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    It’s a fine line between the two, and because of how easily they are confounded the onus is on the speaker to unequivocally avoid whataboutism. Make it very clear how the comparison adds to the discussion of the topic at hand, how it helps move it forward, how the newfound perspective helps other participants come to different conclusions about the original topic and statements. None of which were achieved here. The criticisms of censorship, mistreatment of minorities, impunity of the CCP and comparisons to WWII through title headers are as valid after this point was raised as before. Therefore, this didn’t put anything in perspective: it was just plain old whataboutism. Or, to put your argument in perspective: if these points were raised about the NSDAP back in 1930s, would it be equally justified to “put things in perspective” by similarly drawing attention to American misdeeds? If you can use your argument to justify pretty much anything, it’s not a very strong argument.
_iyig 7y ago
>(are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS?) This question would be simpler to answer if China allowed foreign reporters access to the camps, cities, and provinces where (millions of) Uyghur Muslims are held, such as Xinjiang. Could you imagine if Chinese reporters were denied to access to, for example, the state of Texas? What if plainclothes Texas Rangers stalked tourists visiting El Paso, and aggressively detained and deported anyone caught interviewing local Hispanics? That’s the type of media blackout which I understand is currently imposed on Xinjiang. VICE News on the ground: https://youtu.be/v7AYyUqrMuQ https://youtu.be/v7AYyUqrMuQ Foreign Policy editor, “All of my Uyghur sources are gone”: https://youtu.be/yQLliXOk1cM https://youtu.be/yQLliXOk1cM
- askmike 7y ago
  > That’s the type of media blackout which I understand is currently imposed on Xinjiang. I personally think the UN human rights council is at least as important, as the international media's role in fixing human rights problems is debatable. In that light: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/04/trump-administration-un-human-rights-violations https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/04/trump-administra... as the article states: > “They are sending a very dangerous message to other countries: that if you don’t cooperate with UN experts they will just go away. That’s a serious setback to the system created after World War II to ensure that domestic human rights violations could no longer be seen as an internal matter,” Dakwar said. Maybe China received this message loud and clear?
  - _iyig 7y ago
    My point stands: UN human rights inspectors can enter Texas whenever they choose (no formal invite required!), but not Xinjiang. They can interview anyone they meet on the street in the US, but not in many parts of China. I'd also argue that the role of the UN Human Rights Council (whose recent illustrious members have included Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) is minuscule compared to that of the global press in terms of fomenting any actual change.
    - 7y ago
roenxi 7y ago
> are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS? Yes, obviously. The immigrants are choosing to travel to the US / EU / AUS. Indeed, the west has a proud history of skimming the best and brightest from China because they'd rather live somewhere else. I'll stand to be corrected but I don't think the West has anything comparable to the exodus of Hong Kongers basically fleeing for political reasons, we in Australia have acquired a lot of good people from that. Nobody sane is choosing to go to Xianjing and be treated as the Uyghurs. The west can always be more welcoming and there are ugly moments; but there is a vast reserve of people who look at western countries, think 'I want to migrate there, it is better than where I am' and act upon their thoughts. The premise here is just a bit weird. Nobody would migrate if they expected to be treated worse afterwards than if they'd just stayed home. If they really didn't like it they'd probably even turn around and return. On an absolute scale, we'd expect migrants to be very satisfied with their migration.
- askmike 7y ago
  How did the 6 year old migrant kids choose to go to the US, to be separated from their parents and put into solitary confinement? > The west can always be more welcoming and there are ugly moments; but there is a vast reserve of people who look at western countries, think 'I want to migrate there, it is better than where I am' and act upon their thoughts. This has little to do with human rights violations and how to stop them.
MarkSweep 7y ago
Even if a liberal democracy was guilty of the same atrocities as totalitarian, the liberal democracy is still the superior system because. Freedom of press means people can learn about the problems. Democracy means there is some hope of fixing the problem. Next time you see a post about some terrible thing in a liberal democracy on Weibo, try posting “Well that’s bad, but China has concentration camps for Muslims so therefore the Communist Party’s slogan ‘Serve the People’ is a farce.” I think your post turning grey will be the least of your worries.

deogeo 7y ago

> are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS? For one, the Uyghur are not immigrants. As bad as you may think immigrants are treated in US/EU/AUS, China wouldn't even let them in in the first place. Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse.

askmike 7y ago
See my other comments, I shouldn't have picked immigrants as an example. There are many other example minority groups. > Also given that China has to actively prevent the Uyghur from leaving, while the West has to prevent immigrants from entering, should tell you who's treated worse. I'm no expert on the matter, but a source on the top of Google says it's just as bad in the US ( https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-detention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete... ): Immigrants in "detention camps" near the US border are not allowed to leave either.

vnorilo 7y ago

Western countries may not always live up to ideals with the pressures of migration, but it is disingenous to compare immigrants to a resident minority. Please note that in EU at least, a lot of the conflict is about who counts as an asylum seeker and who must immigrate normally.

askmike 7y ago
> Western countries may not always live up to ideals with the pressures of migration, but it is disingenous to compare immigrants to a resident minority That's just one example that popped into my head. I can pick another example if you don't like this one. How about how black people are treated in the US? Not all of them are in concentration camps, but many of them are in jail for non violent "crimes" (for example for doing things that have since become legal in many states). Or how muslims are treated everywhere in the west? I'm not defending China, I'm just saying many countries do terrible things - also democratic ones (sometimes it's the goverment, sometimes it's the people).
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  > I'm not defending China, I'm just saying many countries do terrible things - also democratic ones (sometimes it's the goverment, sometimes it's the people). Great, then you can write a blog post about that and post it to HN and we’ll discuss those atrocities on that post. Meanwhile let’s stay on topic here, and discuss an article written by a HK citizen to Chinese citizens about China. This is whataboutism, a classic conversational anti pattern that rears its head every single time China comes up on HN. It’s time to stop.
  - askmike 7y ago
    On topic: He wants a different political system (democratic) and his arguments are that the current one did many bad things. My point is that changing the political system doesn't change the bad things he's talking about. As we can clearly see in many democratic systems in the world. I don't think I'll write a blogpost. Given the initial responses of my current comments I am sure it would get downvoted anyway.

simonh 7y ago

There has been abusive treatment of some illegal immigrants into some of these countries, particularly recently, but there had also been massive outcries about it. In almost every case the law and public opinion has stopped or prevented the worst mistreatment. The Australian detention centres are winding down, the separation of children from their families ordered by Trump was successfully challenged in court. Massive public protests and press coverage worked. Therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to hold China to the same standards of public accountability and legal due process that other countries are held to.

chillwaves 7y ago
My understanding of US detention centers is that their capacity is only expanding.
- simonh 7y ago
  That is true, people who illegally enter the US in violation of it's laws get detained, however they have access to legal due process and their rights are guaranteed in law. There certainly have been abuses and violations, but these have frequently been reported in the medial and successfully challenged in courts of law. Don't get me wrong, the recent treatment of refugees entering the US has been appalling. In my books, no supporter of the current US administration gets to claim they are pro-family or support traditional values, after the deliberate rending of children from their parents, as a terror tactic to scare other migrants away. "Don't come here, look what we will do to your children". Despicable. China can rightly use that as a counterpoint to their actions. The point is, it doesn't get them off the hook though. These cases in the West are subject to public scrutiny. Journalists and opposition politicians have access to the facilities and to detainees and access to the courts to ensure judicial review. It is absolutely reasonable and fair to expect China to meet the same standards.
  - askmike 7y ago
    I just did a quick google search on the matter, and according to the top link[1] this is not possible in practise for people in "detention facilities" to leave them. [1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-detention/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-dete... this is not

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jahewson 7y ago

This kind of empty, backwards argument is known as a “whataboutism” and is commonly seen in propaganda. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

askmike 7y ago
I don't agree, that's part of an "us vs them" debate. I am saying that I don't think China's bad things have anything to do with them not being democratic. As we can see similar things happening in democratic countries.
coldtea 7y ago
It's also known as "putting things in perspective" and is commonly seen in rational, non-partisan, assessment of events... People thinking (or pretending to think) their "shit doesn't smell" criticize only (or mainly) the other side, for things their side does as well, and demonize the Other, down to supporting policy implications, sometimes down to sanctions and even war. And when someone points to their own shit they invoke "whataboutism" to continue to have their hands in the ears -- and they'd think unfair if they had the same policies/actions against them.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  It’s a fine line between the two, and because of how easily they are confounded the onus is on the speaker to unequivocally avoid whataboutism. Make it very clear how the comparison adds to the discussion of the topic at hand, how it helps move it forward, how the newfound perspective helps other participants come to different conclusions about the original topic and statements. None of which were achieved here. The criticisms of censorship, mistreatment of minorities, impunity of the CCP and comparisons to WWII through title headers are as valid after this point was raised as before. Therefore, this didn’t put anything in perspective: it was just plain old whataboutism. Or, to put your argument in perspective: if these points were raised about the NSDAP back in 1930s, would it be equally justified to “put things in perspective” by similarly drawing attention to American misdeeds? If you can use your argument to justify pretty much anything, it’s not a very strong argument.

_iyig 7y ago

>(are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS?) This question would be simpler to answer if China allowed foreign reporters access to the camps, cities, and provinces where (millions of) Uyghur Muslims are held, such as Xinjiang. Could you imagine if Chinese reporters were denied to access to, for example, the state of Texas? What if plainclothes Texas Rangers stalked tourists visiting El Paso, and aggressively detained and deported anyone caught interviewing local Hispanics? That’s the type of media blackout which I understand is currently imposed on Xinjiang. VICE News on the ground: https://youtu.be/v7AYyUqrMuQ https://youtu.be/v7AYyUqrMuQ Foreign Policy editor, “All of my Uyghur sources are gone”: https://youtu.be/yQLliXOk1cM https://youtu.be/yQLliXOk1cM

askmike 7y ago
> That’s the type of media blackout which I understand is currently imposed on Xinjiang. I personally think the UN human rights council is at least as important, as the international media's role in fixing human rights problems is debatable. In that light: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/04/trump-administration-un-human-rights-violations https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/04/trump-administra... as the article states: > “They are sending a very dangerous message to other countries: that if you don’t cooperate with UN experts they will just go away. That’s a serious setback to the system created after World War II to ensure that domestic human rights violations could no longer be seen as an internal matter,” Dakwar said. Maybe China received this message loud and clear?
- _iyig 7y ago
  My point stands: UN human rights inspectors can enter Texas whenever they choose (no formal invite required!), but not Xinjiang. They can interview anyone they meet on the street in the US, but not in many parts of China. I'd also argue that the role of the UN Human Rights Council (whose recent illustrious members have included Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) is minuscule compared to that of the global press in terms of fomenting any actual change.
  - 7y ago

roenxi 7y ago

> are the Uyghur Muslims treated worse than immigrants in many western places like US / EU / AUS? Yes, obviously. The immigrants are choosing to travel to the US / EU / AUS. Indeed, the west has a proud history of skimming the best and brightest from China because they'd rather live somewhere else. I'll stand to be corrected but I don't think the West has anything comparable to the exodus of Hong Kongers basically fleeing for political reasons, we in Australia have acquired a lot of good people from that. Nobody sane is choosing to go to Xianjing and be treated as the Uyghurs. The west can always be more welcoming and there are ugly moments; but there is a vast reserve of people who look at western countries, think 'I want to migrate there, it is better than where I am' and act upon their thoughts. The premise here is just a bit weird. Nobody would migrate if they expected to be treated worse afterwards than if they'd just stayed home. If they really didn't like it they'd probably even turn around and return. On an absolute scale, we'd expect migrants to be very satisfied with their migration.

askmike 7y ago
How did the 6 year old migrant kids choose to go to the US, to be separated from their parents and put into solitary confinement? > The west can always be more welcoming and there are ugly moments; but there is a vast reserve of people who look at western countries, think 'I want to migrate there, it is better than where I am' and act upon their thoughts. This has little to do with human rights violations and how to stop them.

MarkSweep 7y ago

Even if a liberal democracy was guilty of the same atrocities as totalitarian, the liberal democracy is still the superior system because. Freedom of press means people can learn about the problems. Democracy means there is some hope of fixing the problem. Next time you see a post about some terrible thing in a liberal democracy on Weibo, try posting “Well that’s bad, but China has concentration camps for Muslims so therefore the Communist Party’s slogan ‘Serve the People’ is a farce.” I think your post turning grey will be the least of your worries.