6 ms·

I don't really appreciate that. I would argue I'm pretty well informed on China. I've traveled to China, I've worked with the Chinese for over a decade across v

I don't really appreciate that. I would argue I'm pretty well informed on China. I've traveled to China, I've worked with the Chinese for over a decade across various roles, my grandfather helped industrialize China, and I've read many great books on China. Personally I retweeted Hillary Clinton's support of Hong Kong protestors while I was in Beijing, so I put myself at personal risk in doing this. But lets address your comment directly: "The level of cognitive dissonance would be off the charts." Is it? One book I recommend is Graham Allison "Destined for War". https://www.amazon.com/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydidess-ebook/dp/B01IAS9FZY https://www.amazon.com/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydide... One question that specifically stands out from his book - is that the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is a point of conflict and we have some very difficult questions to address in the future. Suppose China attacks Taiwan. What if China has a second Tiananmen in Hong Kong? Do we sanction China? What if China responds with more violence? What do we do? Do we go to war? This is an obvious point of conflict. And these are questions that we will have to work out in the future. From the perspective of an investor, these are also difficult decisions. We can see this in how the NBA has responded, and how South Park has responded - each differently. Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? Obviously I don't have the answers. But I can recognize the conflict from the perspective of a VC whose goal is to make money.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
The west believes in universal human rights as a story to tell the rubes and a stick to selectively enforce their interests. Pinochet, the Saudis, Saddam, but then he was a bad guy, Bin Laden, but then he was a bad guy... When someone tells me we must take hostile action in the name of the greater good, I start to get suspicious.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> ...the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is probably a case where more precision is warranted. The CCP and the nearly synonymous PRC government obviously do not believe in Universal Human Rights [1]. However "China" can be interpreted as the Chinese nation/people, and many of them do believe in human rights [see Hong Kong] or have been deliberately kept ignorant of the concepts. It's not like rejection of human rights is part of the national character, or anything. > Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? The Cold War was basically about containment, and it's an acknowledgment that no good options are available. Recent history has shown that trade and investment don't necessarily lead to liberalization, and military attacks are out of the question. Besides containment, the only option left is acceptance/appeasement. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
president 7y ago
> One question that specifically stands out from his book - is that the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is a point of conflict and we have some very difficult questions to address in the future. Suppose China attacks Taiwan. What if China has a second Tiananmen in Hong Kong? Do we sanction China? What if China responds with more violence? What do we do? Do we go to war? This is an obvious point of conflict. And these are questions that we will have to work out in the future. We don't need to go to war with them but we also don't need to invest in their suppression.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

The west believes in universal human rights as a story to tell the rubes and a stick to selectively enforce their interests. Pinochet, the Saudis, Saddam, but then he was a bad guy, Bin Laden, but then he was a bad guy... When someone tells me we must take hostile action in the name of the greater good, I start to get suspicious.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> ...the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is probably a case where more precision is warranted. The CCP and the nearly synonymous PRC government obviously do not believe in Universal Human Rights [1]. However "China" can be interpreted as the Chinese nation/people, and many of them do believe in human rights [see Hong Kong] or have been deliberately kept ignorant of the concepts. It's not like rejection of human rights is part of the national character, or anything. > Is it really wise to Balkanize the world if our goal is to encourage China to adopt Human Rights? How would a second cold war help? The Cold War was basically about containment, and it's an acknowledgment that no good options are available. Recent history has shown that trade and investment don't necessarily lead to liberalization, and military attacks are out of the question. Besides containment, the only option left is acceptance/appeasement. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...

president 7y ago

> One question that specifically stands out from his book - is that the West believes in Universal Human Rights. China obviously does not. This is a point of conflict and we have some very difficult questions to address in the future. Suppose China attacks Taiwan. What if China has a second Tiananmen in Hong Kong? Do we sanction China? What if China responds with more violence? What do we do? Do we go to war? This is an obvious point of conflict. And these are questions that we will have to work out in the future. We don't need to go to war with them but we also don't need to invest in their suppression.