13 ms·

> what the US does do that the CCP does not is allow the open discourse of it's problems, and to change it's policies if people agree If this is true in practi

> what the US does do that the CCP does not is allow the open discourse of it's problems, and to change it's policies if people agree If this is true in practice, then the US prison labor problem is much more tractable than trying to fix an issue in a far off land where they don't allow open discourse. It wouldn't be a disaster if Americans focused their attention on their many domestic issues first, which they have direct control over. But currently there is very little open discourse in the US about prison labor, especially compared to the amount of discourse about Xinjiang. This doesn't excuse China for the things they are doing wrong.

Alupis 6y ago
The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China, that the CCP denies exist despite overwhelming evidence that continues to flourish.
- sellyme 6y ago
  I think you've lost sight of the original context of this thread. Here's the top comment: > As long as companies Apple are not legally responsible for their supply chain in front of developed countries’ courts nothing will change. Of course Americans can and should decry Chinese slave labour camps, but you've just finished explaining why the American slave labour issue is a lot easier to address and deal with, so if they can't get that one sorted out I don't have high hopes for their chances of enforcing legal responsibility when dealing with China.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    The context of the thread is perfectly clear. Some people believe as long as the US underpays prisoners convicted of crimes, the CCP gets carte blanche to imprison a million people because of their religion, and force them into labor camps. Or did I misread this entire thread? And making companies like Apple legally responsible for their supply chain labor will do nothing to stem the flurry of actual slave labor camps seemingly sprouting up all over China. Chinese companies will continue to use the free labor and compete on an uneven global playing field, so long as the CCP sees a benefit.
    - sellyme 6y ago
      > Or did I misread this entire thread? Yes. In fact most of the people you've responded to very explicitly said the exact opposite of what you've interpreted.
      - Alupis 6y ago
        Where is that? Can you quote them? We seem to have read different threads apparently...
        sellyme 6y ago
        > Where is that? Can you quote them? Sure thing. The most recent comment in this thread not made by one of us was by quicklime, and ended with this line: > [The lack of open discourse about America's prison slavery problem] doesn't excuse China for the things they are doing wrong. The one immediately prior to that was by mike_h and started with this: > I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing that forced labor would be ok anywhere. I'm not sure how you read either of those statements and extracted "the CCP gets carte blanche to imprison a million people because of their religion, and force them into labor camps".
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China Oh, yes, it does. Surely not perfect, but much better, or at least not as bad. Especially since unlike China thus far, the US tends to drop bombs and invade places they "decry".
  - Alupis 6y ago
    >> The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China > Oh, yes, it does. Surely not perfect, but much better, or at least not as bad. The country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by people that fled religious persecution, and felt so strongly as to list religious freedom as item number one in their list of human rights, does not need to be "much better" to call out religious slave labor camps.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >The country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by people that fled religious persecution, and felt so strongly as to list religious freedom as item number one in their list of human rights, does not need to be "much better" to call out religious slave labor camps. "The country that founded on the principal of religious freedom" is nationalistic trite, like "land of the free" (which ended slavery later than other western countries, gave poor, blacks, and women the vote later, has 25% of the world's prison population, and so on), and "home of the brave" (where the Army is professional and the majority of the population had never had the chance to fight in any war or suffer any war domestically for over a century, so one wonders how/what this "braveness" is measured with and against). First, what the country was "founded on" means little. What the country has historically did and up to now does (warred, enslaved, invaded, occupied, strong-armed, intimidated, etc.) matters more. Second, the fact that a country was founded by religious hardcores literally thrown out of Europe for being such, and that they wanted "religious freedom" in their new dwellings so as to they not kill each other, doesn't give it any special moral high ground. Heck, if it was up to any of the religious sects that ended up there, the others would be illegal (the US still has the most fundamentalist religious people in the West, which when they had the upper hand were ok with forcing their will as law on anything from abortions to music releases). But they needed "religious freedom" because none of them had the power over all the other denominations (all Christian at the time, mostly variations of protestantism), and thus they made a virtue out of necessity. Not to mention that they still managed all together to opress the blacks (nuff said), the native americans ("trail of tears"), the early Chinese, Irish, etc immigrants, and so on...

Alupis 6y ago

The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China, that the CCP denies exist despite overwhelming evidence that continues to flourish.

sellyme 6y ago
I think you've lost sight of the original context of this thread. Here's the top comment: > As long as companies Apple are not legally responsible for their supply chain in front of developed countries’ courts nothing will change. Of course Americans can and should decry Chinese slave labour camps, but you've just finished explaining why the American slave labour issue is a lot easier to address and deal with, so if they can't get that one sorted out I don't have high hopes for their chances of enforcing legal responsibility when dealing with China.
- Alupis 6y ago
  The context of the thread is perfectly clear. Some people believe as long as the US underpays prisoners convicted of crimes, the CCP gets carte blanche to imprison a million people because of their religion, and force them into labor camps. Or did I misread this entire thread? And making companies like Apple legally responsible for their supply chain labor will do nothing to stem the flurry of actual slave labor camps seemingly sprouting up all over China. Chinese companies will continue to use the free labor and compete on an uneven global playing field, so long as the CCP sees a benefit.
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > Or did I misread this entire thread? Yes. In fact most of the people you've responded to very explicitly said the exact opposite of what you've interpreted.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Where is that? Can you quote them? We seem to have read different threads apparently...
      - sellyme 6y ago
        > Where is that? Can you quote them? Sure thing. The most recent comment in this thread not made by one of us was by quicklime, and ended with this line: > [The lack of open discourse about America's prison slavery problem] doesn't excuse China for the things they are doing wrong. The one immediately prior to that was by mike_h and started with this: > I doubt anyone in this thread is arguing that forced labor would be ok anywhere. I'm not sure how you read either of those statements and extracted "the CCP gets carte blanche to imprison a million people because of their religion, and force them into labor camps".
coldtea 6y ago
>The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China Oh, yes, it does. Surely not perfect, but much better, or at least not as bad. Especially since unlike China thus far, the US tends to drop bombs and invade places they "decry".
- Alupis 6y ago
  >> The US doesn't need to be perfect before US citizens can decry Religious Slave Labor Camps in China > Oh, yes, it does. Surely not perfect, but much better, or at least not as bad. The country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by people that fled religious persecution, and felt so strongly as to list religious freedom as item number one in their list of human rights, does not need to be "much better" to call out religious slave labor camps.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >The country that was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by people that fled religious persecution, and felt so strongly as to list religious freedom as item number one in their list of human rights, does not need to be "much better" to call out religious slave labor camps. "The country that founded on the principal of religious freedom" is nationalistic trite, like "land of the free" (which ended slavery later than other western countries, gave poor, blacks, and women the vote later, has 25% of the world's prison population, and so on), and "home of the brave" (where the Army is professional and the majority of the population had never had the chance to fight in any war or suffer any war domestically for over a century, so one wonders how/what this "braveness" is measured with and against). First, what the country was "founded on" means little. What the country has historically did and up to now does (warred, enslaved, invaded, occupied, strong-armed, intimidated, etc.) matters more. Second, the fact that a country was founded by religious hardcores literally thrown out of Europe for being such, and that they wanted "religious freedom" in their new dwellings so as to they not kill each other, doesn't give it any special moral high ground. Heck, if it was up to any of the religious sects that ended up there, the others would be illegal (the US still has the most fundamentalist religious people in the West, which when they had the upper hand were ok with forcing their will as law on anything from abortions to music releases). But they needed "religious freedom" because none of them had the power over all the other denominations (all Christian at the time, mostly variations of protestantism), and thus they made a virtue out of necessity. Not to mention that they still managed all together to opress the blacks (nuff said), the native americans ("trail of tears"), the early Chinese, Irish, etc immigrants, and so on...