4 ms·

> Why should we allow a Chinese social network when the Chinese market is closed for foreign companies? One reason could be because that better fits our ethics

by Aachen 6y ago

> Why should we allow a Chinese social network when the Chinese market is closed for foreign companies? One reason could be because that better fits our ethics. We might not have to lower ourselves to their level to have a competitive economy. I'm not saying we have to be passive but "playing hardball" is usually a way to suggest the most extreme measure possible and I'm not sure this inequality is that bad. I'm much more worried about things like child labor and other issues China still has.

coldtea 6y ago
>One reason could be because that better fits our ethics What "ethics"? This is Europe, of the conquest of the Americas, the colonization of the world, WWI and WWII, and so on up to 2020, we're talking about, not Mother Teresa. The same countries who still keep colonies, run things in post-colonial neo-colonies, and fought wars until the 1960s to keep their grabs...
- guitarbill 6y ago
  This doesn't automatically invalidate things like healthcare, consumer rights and protections, environmental protections, free/affordable education, etc that are strong in Europe and people generally care about (to varying degrees though). There are no perfect countries, and you could argue e.g. New Zealand is setting the standard pretty high nowadays. But it isn't like those ideas aren't in some way useful - not just to Europeans, but also for other countries to cherry-pick or iterate on. Anyway, pretty off topic, but the argument bad things = everything is tainted doesn't hold for me, especially since people born after the 1960s now includes 50 year-olds and below
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    > you could argue e.g. New Zealand is setting the standard pretty high nowadays. Only until you look closely. NZ has very high levels of inequality (children living below the poverty line, and Maori and Polynesian people are incarcerated more, receive less medical care, and have poorer health and shorter lives than the colonisers and recent immigrants. More qualitatively they are also systematically discriminated against both by government institutions and by employers. Me, I'm a child of Dutch immigrants in the 1950s, so I just see this among friends, it doesn't affect me personally. It's sad if NZ is the gold standard.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >This doesn't automatically invalidate things like healthcare, consumer rights and protections, environmental protections, free/affordable education, etc that are strong in Europe and people generally care about (to varying degrees though). No, but China has those too in some degree -- and improving in some of those aspects. But the original argument was that we European somehow have more ethics than others...
oh_sigh 6y ago
Having a "tit for tat" ethical strategy lets you be ethical without being a pushover.
- coolspot 6y ago
  Relevant RadioLab episode - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-another https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/10401...

by Aachen 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>One reason could be because that better fits our ethics What "ethics"? This is Europe, of the conquest of the Americas, the colonization of the world, WWI and WWII, and so on up to 2020, we're talking about, not Mother Teresa. The same countries who still keep colonies, run things in post-colonial neo-colonies, and fought wars until the 1960s to keep their grabs...

guitarbill 6y ago
This doesn't automatically invalidate things like healthcare, consumer rights and protections, environmental protections, free/affordable education, etc that are strong in Europe and people generally care about (to varying degrees though). There are no perfect countries, and you could argue e.g. New Zealand is setting the standard pretty high nowadays. But it isn't like those ideas aren't in some way useful - not just to Europeans, but also for other countries to cherry-pick or iterate on. Anyway, pretty off topic, but the argument bad things = everything is tainted doesn't hold for me, especially since people born after the 1960s now includes 50 year-olds and below
- tuatoru 6y ago
  > you could argue e.g. New Zealand is setting the standard pretty high nowadays. Only until you look closely. NZ has very high levels of inequality (children living below the poverty line, and Maori and Polynesian people are incarcerated more, receive less medical care, and have poorer health and shorter lives than the colonisers and recent immigrants. More qualitatively they are also systematically discriminated against both by government institutions and by employers. Me, I'm a child of Dutch immigrants in the 1950s, so I just see this among friends, it doesn't affect me personally. It's sad if NZ is the gold standard.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >This doesn't automatically invalidate things like healthcare, consumer rights and protections, environmental protections, free/affordable education, etc that are strong in Europe and people generally care about (to varying degrees though). No, but China has those too in some degree -- and improving in some of those aspects. But the original argument was that we European somehow have more ethics than others...

oh_sigh 6y ago

Having a "tit for tat" ethical strategy lets you be ethical without being a pushover.

coolspot 6y ago
Relevant RadioLab episode - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-another https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/10401...