3 ms·

Most of your points are straight up racist/xenophobic. > Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China I guess asking the mainstream media, whi

Most of your points are straight up racist/xenophobic. > Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China I guess asking the mainstream media, which has for decades denigrated Asians constantly, to tone it down a little is just too much to ask?

theandrewbailey 6y ago
Opposing the Chinese government and the CCP (who are committing genocide) is not being racist.
- yhoneycomb 6y ago
  The "genocide" myth is ridiculous. No country outside of the anglosphere believes it to be true, and that's including all Muslim countries. Get out of your echo chamber.
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Muslim countries that can't do without China's FDI. Not really a free vote at the UN when the alternative is removal of FDI and even sanctions.
    - yhoneycomb 6y ago
      Idk anything about that but it's a moot point nonetheless. Countries in the anglosphere can't do without the US either, so of course they'll fall in line. Additionally, you'll have to have a lot stronger proof than that if you're going to claim that Muslim countries are ok with Muslims being genocided.
      - hntrader 6y ago
        The US' influence over the anglosphere is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. "Muslim countries are ok with Muslims being genocided." I didn't make such a claim. I'm talking about the incentives created for how leaders of Muslim countries vote at the UN in order to protect their own country's economic welfare and perhaps their own political careers as well. So what I'm getting at is you can't take as evidence the way these Muslim countries present themselves to the world insofar as this particular geopolitical question is concerned because the incentives likely force them into the pro-CCP position irrespective of what the truth is. Expensive moral righteousness is only easy if you're rich.
        yhoneycomb 6y ago
        How is it irrelevant? It's hugely relevant. The ranking system is basically "anglosphere good, others BAD"
        hntrader 6y ago
        It's whataboutism. Irrelevant to the question of whether Muslim countries are economically pressured to conform to the CCP narrative on this particular geopolitical question.
- ls65536 6y ago
  Grouping any speech or behaviour against certain governments and regimes under the umbrella of racism is unfortunately something I've been noticing a lot lately, and I think this is really problematic for at least two major reasons. First, this clouds the arguments being made against real racism (or at least what I think most people would have agreed on what this term meant in past years), and this weakens the voices of victims of that racism. Second, this gives governments and regimes a powerful mechanism to silence any dissent, by using the cover of racism to shut down cricitism far more effectively by potentially painting anyone who criticizes them as a racist. The first point risks the word "racist" becoming a blunt label that ultimately reduces its effectiveness. Consider that when just about anyone could be considered a "racist" for discussion or behaviour that arguably has nothing to do with racism, then the term itself really starts to lose its meaning and risks devolving into just another derogatory term again any person with thoughts/behaviours one disagrees with. The second point has the insidious effect of shutting down any honest discussion about the statements and actions of governments and regimes around the world, arguably to the detriment of the vast majority of people in the world. To me it seems more and more like the label "racist" is being thrown around with far too wide a net. As a result, the real victims of racism get their voices drowned out, while other interests get to co-opt the term as a powerful label to use for pushing their own agendas.

theandrewbailey 6y ago

Opposing the Chinese government and the CCP (who are committing genocide) is not being racist.

yhoneycomb 6y ago
The "genocide" myth is ridiculous. No country outside of the anglosphere believes it to be true, and that's including all Muslim countries. Get out of your echo chamber.
- hntrader 6y ago
  Muslim countries that can't do without China's FDI. Not really a free vote at the UN when the alternative is removal of FDI and even sanctions.
  - yhoneycomb 6y ago
    Idk anything about that but it's a moot point nonetheless. Countries in the anglosphere can't do without the US either, so of course they'll fall in line. Additionally, you'll have to have a lot stronger proof than that if you're going to claim that Muslim countries are ok with Muslims being genocided.
    - hntrader 6y ago
      The US' influence over the anglosphere is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. "Muslim countries are ok with Muslims being genocided." I didn't make such a claim. I'm talking about the incentives created for how leaders of Muslim countries vote at the UN in order to protect their own country's economic welfare and perhaps their own political careers as well. So what I'm getting at is you can't take as evidence the way these Muslim countries present themselves to the world insofar as this particular geopolitical question is concerned because the incentives likely force them into the pro-CCP position irrespective of what the truth is. Expensive moral righteousness is only easy if you're rich.
      - yhoneycomb 6y ago
        How is it irrelevant? It's hugely relevant. The ranking system is basically "anglosphere good, others BAD"
        hntrader 6y ago
        It's whataboutism. Irrelevant to the question of whether Muslim countries are economically pressured to conform to the CCP narrative on this particular geopolitical question.
ls65536 6y ago
Grouping any speech or behaviour against certain governments and regimes under the umbrella of racism is unfortunately something I've been noticing a lot lately, and I think this is really problematic for at least two major reasons. First, this clouds the arguments being made against real racism (or at least what I think most people would have agreed on what this term meant in past years), and this weakens the voices of victims of that racism. Second, this gives governments and regimes a powerful mechanism to silence any dissent, by using the cover of racism to shut down cricitism far more effectively by potentially painting anyone who criticizes them as a racist. The first point risks the word "racist" becoming a blunt label that ultimately reduces its effectiveness. Consider that when just about anyone could be considered a "racist" for discussion or behaviour that arguably has nothing to do with racism, then the term itself really starts to lose its meaning and risks devolving into just another derogatory term again any person with thoughts/behaviours one disagrees with. The second point has the insidious effect of shutting down any honest discussion about the statements and actions of governments and regimes around the world, arguably to the detriment of the vast majority of people in the world. To me it seems more and more like the label "racist" is being thrown around with far too wide a net. As a result, the real victims of racism get their voices drowned out, while other interests get to co-opt the term as a powerful label to use for pushing their own agendas.