3 ms·

> By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. That's nonsensical, and c

> By the same you could say the same cops that are murdering black lives are funded in part by the taxes of Silicon Valley companies. That's nonsensical, and completely ignores the idea of power/control. The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers, and derives power from them. Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google, and have only a very tenuous relationship with it (if any). > You could say Guantanamo Bay was funded in part by your taxes. You could say all the ruckus in Nicaragua was funded by your taxes as well. And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest.

dheera 6y ago
> The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers So does the US government. There entities in the US government that have direct control over US companies, and derive power from US companies. > Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). > And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest. I boycott neither American nor Chinese goods over government issues.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. China's government is actually far more of a monolithic entity than the US's. It doesn't have sovereign subdivisions or separation of powers, and is organization around centralized hierarchical control. The center makes policy, and the periphery implements it. > Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins, and the the point of boycotting is to weaken it or at least slow its growth. Think of it this way: you have a mob boss who owns a legitimate restaurant staffed by honest people, and he uses the profits from it to pay for criminal acts (say hits against his enemies). If you patronize the restaurant because you're concerned that the staff shouldn't have their income reduced on account of their boss's assassination hobby, you also provide the boss with money to enable or increase his assassination activity. Maybe the result of this is the boss grows powerful enough to take over the whole local government, because he could assassinate everyone in his way. On the one hand, you have some people who could make less money or have to find different work. On the other hand, you have murder and a breakdown of honest government. It's a moral dilemma, and you have to weigh the pros and cons. It feels like you're taking a hard stand on relatively minor moral issue in a way that compromises more important ones.
  - dheera 6y ago
    > The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins No. Just no. Stop right there. You might be thinking of North Korea, but that is not China. The western media wants you to believe this, but if you even take a little time to experience China first-hand you'll realize that -- and this may come as a surprise to you, understandably from the brainwashing that western media does -- China's government is doing mostly good things. Literacy in China is at 96%, well above the United States, and 99.8% for the 16-24 age group, 95% have access to a safe water source, access to electricity went from 93% in 1990 to >99.9% in 2018, famine is almost absent, they regularly haul people out of earthquakes and other disasters to safety, street assaults are seldom (females regularly freely take walks at night downtown!), 350 km/h trains shuttle people between cities safely several times an hour (compare to the mostly non-existent and <120 km/h passenger trains in the US), violent street crime is almost zero, there are fast, clean, safe electric transportation systems in most cities, there is healthcare for all citizens, and there are massive clean energy efforts underway. Do you really believe it is a government full of Derek Chauvins that accomplished all that? Have you ever lived there? You'll be surprised. And yes, there are atrocities and censorship as I should duly note. But by far, no, it's not a government full of Derek Chauvins. It's rather a few Derek Chauvins in a vast system of mostly good people that the western media largely doesn't want to talk about because they enjoy the ad revenue they get from fear-mongering and jumping on the anti-China bandwagon. And yes, I advocate for being critical and holding accountable the people responsible for atrocities. However, I still stand against boycotting and punishing average civilians for any of those things. Those civilians are just living their lives and doing hard work to feed themselves or their families just like you and me, and have absolutely nothing to do with atrocities committed by a few Derek Chauvins.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Literacy in China is at 96%, well above the United States, and 99.8% for the 16-24 age group... You forgot to add that they just "eliminated poverty." > Do you really believe it is a government full of Derek Chauvins? You've twisted my wording. I didn't say it was a government full of Derek Chauvins, but a government of Derek Chauvins. And in any case, it was a cartoonish riff on your previous comment, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. > Have you ever lived there? You'll be surprised. I think you'd be surprised. > It's rather a few Derek Chauvins in a vast system of mostly good people That "rather a few" are the ones setting and enforcing policy. That's the important fact. You don't rise up in the Communist Party by being a good person.

dheera 6y ago

> The Chinese government has direct control over Chinese manufacturers So does the US government. There entities in the US government that have direct control over US companies, and derive power from US companies. > Derek Chauvin or the MPD (for example) do not control or derive power from a Bay Area tech company Google You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). > And if you want to boycott American goods over that, be my guest. I boycott neither American nor Chinese goods over government issues.

tablespoon 6y ago
> You're emphasizing my point here. The US government is not a monolithic entity and neither is China's. China's government is actually far more of a monolithic entity than the US's. It doesn't have sovereign subdivisions or separation of powers, and is organization around centralized hierarchical control. The center makes policy, and the periphery implements it. > Just like you mentioned Derek Chauvin, you should rightfully be critical of the Derek Chauvins of China instead of the "Chinese government". Those Derek Chauvins have very little to do with Chinese manufacturers of high-tech goods (other than being tax-funded, which is the same with the Derek Chauvins of USA). The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins, and the the point of boycotting is to weaken it or at least slow its growth. Think of it this way: you have a mob boss who owns a legitimate restaurant staffed by honest people, and he uses the profits from it to pay for criminal acts (say hits against his enemies). If you patronize the restaurant because you're concerned that the staff shouldn't have their income reduced on account of their boss's assassination hobby, you also provide the boss with money to enable or increase his assassination activity. Maybe the result of this is the boss grows powerful enough to take over the whole local government, because he could assassinate everyone in his way. On the one hand, you have some people who could make less money or have to find different work. On the other hand, you have murder and a breakdown of honest government. It's a moral dilemma, and you have to weigh the pros and cons. It feels like you're taking a hard stand on relatively minor moral issue in a way that compromises more important ones.
- dheera 6y ago
  > The Chinese government is basically a government of Derek Chauvins No. Just no. Stop right there. You might be thinking of North Korea, but that is not China. The western media wants you to believe this, but if you even take a little time to experience China first-hand you'll realize that -- and this may come as a surprise to you, understandably from the brainwashing that western media does -- China's government is doing mostly good things. Literacy in China is at 96%, well above the United States, and 99.8% for the 16-24 age group, 95% have access to a safe water source, access to electricity went from 93% in 1990 to >99.9% in 2018, famine is almost absent, they regularly haul people out of earthquakes and other disasters to safety, street assaults are seldom (females regularly freely take walks at night downtown!), 350 km/h trains shuttle people between cities safely several times an hour (compare to the mostly non-existent and <120 km/h passenger trains in the US), violent street crime is almost zero, there are fast, clean, safe electric transportation systems in most cities, there is healthcare for all citizens, and there are massive clean energy efforts underway. Do you really believe it is a government full of Derek Chauvins that accomplished all that? Have you ever lived there? You'll be surprised. And yes, there are atrocities and censorship as I should duly note. But by far, no, it's not a government full of Derek Chauvins. It's rather a few Derek Chauvins in a vast system of mostly good people that the western media largely doesn't want to talk about because they enjoy the ad revenue they get from fear-mongering and jumping on the anti-China bandwagon. And yes, I advocate for being critical and holding accountable the people responsible for atrocities. However, I still stand against boycotting and punishing average civilians for any of those things. Those civilians are just living their lives and doing hard work to feed themselves or their families just like you and me, and have absolutely nothing to do with atrocities committed by a few Derek Chauvins.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > Literacy in China is at 96%, well above the United States, and 99.8% for the 16-24 age group... You forgot to add that they just "eliminated poverty." > Do you really believe it is a government full of Derek Chauvins? You've twisted my wording. I didn't say it was a government full of Derek Chauvins, but a government of Derek Chauvins. And in any case, it was a cartoonish riff on your previous comment, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. > Have you ever lived there? You'll be surprised. I think you'd be surprised. > It's rather a few Derek Chauvins in a vast system of mostly good people That "rather a few" are the ones setting and enforcing policy. That's the important fact. You don't rise up in the Communist Party by being a good person.