8 ms·

To be clear, what happened to this kid is horrible and just demonstrates that we have to get serious on this problem. However this comment annoyed me: "«I'm i

To be clear, what happened to this kid is horrible and just demonstrates that we have to get serious on this problem. However this comment annoyed me: "«I'm in Switzerland, not China,» Gerber replied. «I can say what I want here.»" You can tell this kid grew up in the la-la land that is the West, particularly Europe. I find this comment to be an infuriating mix anivete and patronizing. For the naïveté Switzerland is a landlocked country of 10 million people. Tough guys, great companies, great economy, sure. But a minnow. China can and does throw it's weight against people in countries like this. For the patronizing part of the comment, it's the Western attitude of "this can't happen here", or "that will never get to be so bad" typical of people that are 70 years removed from tyranny (I'm Western myself, but my parents lived through a dictatorship). This is the attitude that allows people in the West to compartmentalize all the known abuses (snowden leaks, NSA spying on European leaders, Big Tech squashing our rights, etc) and live in a permanent state of double-think.

esquivalience 5y ago
Another reading of this is: "freedom of speech is protected in this country". And that is true, not the fairytale you suggest it to be.
- amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
  I didn't suggest anything, generally I avoid suggestion. It's pusillanimous. Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European countries. It's without a doubt my favorite country, one I'd want to live in. But, as we're finding out, the "free speech protections" that we drone on about are only as good as we are willing to insist on. "freedom of speech is protected in this country" is meaningless if it only restricts government from silencing its citizens. Companies and powerful interest groups can and do restrict the speech of people, and I don't see the Swiss government rushing to pass laws to force Google to stop censoring. Anyway, freedom of speech protections in Switzerland are not that good compared to, say, the US. You can't, for example, criticize islam (I hate when people mock islam, btw). From Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code: "Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intend- ed for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty.277" So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. Not unless muslims, rightly, get upset about the depiction of the most revered woman in Islam. But it gets worse: "Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons, any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty." You can drive a Mac truck through that. What does "inciting discrimination" mean? Are the people campaigning to have the veil banned in Switzerland not inciting discrimination? And, for the record, I despise people who mock any and all religions (although valid criticism is very important). But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.
  - belter 5y ago
    Sounds wonderful. Would then my religious convictions be protected in Switzerland according to law or does my deity has to contact the Swiss government somehow ? Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      Both you and I know this is provocation, so there's no point in pretending otherwise. But sure, it is an argument in favor of the confessional state. Liberal societies are de facto confessional states anyway, it's just that the liberal religion (which Rawls can't quite seem to acknowledge as one, but deploys without scruples) by which all others are measured and restricted is not named as one.
      - belter 5y ago
        I up voted your comment...
    - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
      No because pastafarianism is a funny, if aged, joke among atheists. You don't sincerely believe in the spaghetti monster, and the courts could hold you in contempt. But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    > So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it). > Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement? The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme. > But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich. Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.
- varjag 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is protected only so much as the protection is enforced. It is not some sort of fundamental law. With weak-kneed politicians and indifferent population it inevitably erodes.
  - esquivalience 5y ago
    It actually is. It's a fundamental human right under the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Switzerland is a party) , Art. 10: "ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
    - arodyginc 5y ago
      I think the OP meant that it isn't a fundamental law like in physics, so it doesn't 'enforce' itself
    - varjag 5y ago
      I am quite aware of declaration of human rights. It is not a fundamental law in scientific sense, i.e. it is not a natural property of any kind. You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive. Otherwise it becomes just another unenforceable legalistic quirk like beheading for insulting the Queen is today.
      - jkhdigital 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eplanit 5y ago
  But, many (predominantly on the Left) are now seeing liberal free speech as outmoded. Though he's not a serious person, former Prince Harry (who, with his wife, use their celebrity to champion Progressive causes) recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers"[1]. Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it.[2] My stepfather grew up Jewish in Germany in the early 20th century. He was 13 years old when Hitler became Chancellor. His family got out, and he made his way to the US. He told me very sternly "don't ever think that it can't happen here". Those words stuck with me, and seem now more relevant than ever. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-first-amendment-bonkers-sparks-conservative-backlash/ar-BB1gPar3 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-firs... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-sp...
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > even former Prince Harry recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers" Shocking! I'm starting to think we Americans are going to have to overthrow the British monarchy to protect our rights! > Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it. Unlike the Prince Henry thing (who cares), I read this one. The Atlantic says the exact opposite of what you say it does. It starts and ends firmly defending American style free speech. Full stop. In the middle it talks about how European style free speech allows for suppressing hate speech, and that there are costs and benefits to that approach. He explains that calls for such restrictions here cannot be dismissed out of hand as insane but that they have to be contended with. He then does so, arguing against restrictions. "Free Speech isn't Free" is just pointing out the often overlooked costs to totally free speech. I hesitate to call people bad-faith actors, but in general the "article says the literal opposite of what I claim it does" is a giant red flag. (Edit: I went back and read the Prince thing. I dismissed it because "who cares", but then I figured if you misrepresented the Atlantic article that badly I should check it out. What he was talking about was American vs. British libel laws, not general free speech. In Britain, it is much easier to sue for libel to the point that celebrities often sue international publications there. This protection in Britain especially protects politicians and royalty. In the US, it is almost impossible to win a libel suit against a news organization, especially if the person suing is a public official. This is based on New York Times vs. Sullivan, a first amendment case. )
rob_c 5y ago
Here, here. You sir have earned 1xvirtual-pint. Very well said.
- amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
  lol, what's that?
- rob_c 5y ago
  Given I'm agreeing with the poster and thanking him for his contribution I guess I have to state for those who don't understand the topic. This is not irony but something that apparently doesn't translate well out of Northern Britain... I'm guessing this site has something against buying a pint of beer for someone you agree with?
  - wk_end 5y ago
    People on HN generally don’t like content-free “this”- or “+1”-style comments. If you don’t have anything to add that’ll further the conversation, upvote and move on.
phenkdo 5y ago
The perfect is not the enemy of the good. "The west" is definitely not a paragon of virtue, all its flaws notwithstanding, is order of magnitude (or two) better than a CCP style government. I would much rather live in "the west", where i am, than in China.
nova22033 5y ago
Big Tech squashing our rights How exactly has big tech squashed your rights?
- jeswin 5y ago
  What I find frustrating is discussing something relatively trivial when talking about a totalitarian state. I am not from the West, and I do wonder if people bring up these just to be polite or to sound impartial.
  - rob_c 5y ago
    It's usually to point out commonalities to get people to emote when having a conversation I find. Yes comparing the scales of the Chinese sensorship to googles deplatforming of uncomfortable topics is not nice. But explaining how one can lead to the other also explains to people in the west why something is bad. Especially when people would readily sleep walk into enabling technologies that would enable state sensorship at a level that would concern everyone.
    - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
      But I'm not comparing Switzerland to China! I'm just pointing out that this kid had a really naive attitude of where our rights currently stand in the West. And I think the story is the proof - the kid got canned.
      - rob_c 5y ago
        The form of censorship in the west here I'd argue its financial oppression. Granted in his case he's been lucky enough that his support went the press so he might get something for his efforts, but financial oppression by bullies isn't new or unique to any culture I fear.
  - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
    Tell me, is your country one where loosing your job would be considered a relatively trivial or benign punishment for mouthing off? Because in my parents' country they would have been thrown off an airplane for what this kid did. But I didn't grow up in my parent's country. I grew up in the West. And I cherish very jealously my rights and refuse to trivialize cancel culture, blasphemy laws etc. And if we in the West had taken our rights seriously this kid wouldn't have been fired.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Wow. Patronizing: you know what's patronizing? The notion that this kid simply doesn't understand the realpolitik. Of course he does: it just punched him in the face. He's fighting it. I respect him for that. Infuriating: you know what's infuriating? The person who claims to share the values this guy is standing up for but can't stop trash-talking him. Naïveté: you know what's naive? Thinking that rolling over and accepting realpolitik bullying is going to make things better. La-la land: you know where that is? It's right between cynicism and self-loathing. Of course things can get bad here! That's why we need to fight whenever they slide in that direction! Of course the West isn't a bastion of moral purity above all reproach! That doesn't excuse China's behavior, it doesn't make them the lesser evil, and it doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting! Stop navel-gazing and stand up for what you believe in. At the very least, cheer on those who do.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  > Patronizing: you know what's patronizing? The notion that this kid just doesn't understand the realpolitik. Of course he does: it just punched him in the face. He's fighting it. I respect him for that. I disagree. His Chinese girlfriend was begging him to stop, but he carried on. It’s either hubris or not realizing what China is willing to do to stop people from criticizing it. He was also enrolled in a Chinese university, and was undoubtedly warned about criticizing the government.
  - jeswin 5y ago
    So should he just shut up, then? It's scary if most people feel that way. There was also no risk to his GF. At worst, the relationship ends - it's not like the CCP is going to go after her (she did ask him to stop).
    - nelsondev 5y ago
      How do you know there was no risk to the GF? The article mentions she asked him to stop because she feared retaliation.
    - 5y ago
_fat_santa 5y ago
I'm a bit conflicted on this story for the same reason. One the one hand I agree what happened to him was horrible, but on the other hand it's almost to be expected. The kid was enrolled in a Chinese university and decided to criticize the CCP on the internet under his own name. So yeah what happened to him was horrible, but not unexpected.
- chmod600 5y ago
  This news is incremental, sure, but still news. If stuff like this had been happening 20 years ago, many countries would probably have a very different trading posture with China. It's important to report on this kind of thing once in a while, even if no individual instance is shocking. It builds up into a major problem.
- usr1106 5y ago
  It's not suprising that China acts like this. The message of the article is that a renowned Swiss university cowardly bows to China's oppression instead of guaranteing their students (not legally, but morally their) their democratic rights. Cynics might say not suprising either. Switzerland is somewhat infamous for its silent Nazi support while formally neutral in WWII.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ohbleek 5y ago
This comment reads like an attempt at poorly executed propaganda. The comparisons drawn are not only inaccurate but borderline nonsense.
HWR_14 5y ago
> NSA spying on European leaders Of course they are. That's a big part of their job. Does that offend anyone? It's reciprocal: I assume if Biden calls Pelosi to talk about the weather almost every country is recording the call (assuming it's unencrypted).

esquivalience 5y ago

Another reading of this is: "freedom of speech is protected in this country". And that is true, not the fairytale you suggest it to be.

amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
I didn't suggest anything, generally I avoid suggestion. It's pusillanimous. Switzerland has a lot of freedom, certainly compared to China and other European countries. It's without a doubt my favorite country, one I'd want to live in. But, as we're finding out, the "free speech protections" that we drone on about are only as good as we are willing to insist on. "freedom of speech is protected in this country" is meaningless if it only restricts government from silencing its citizens. Companies and powerful interest groups can and do restrict the speech of people, and I don't see the Swiss government rushing to pass laws to force Google to stop censoring. Anyway, freedom of speech protections in Switzerland are not that good compared to, say, the US. You can't, for example, criticize islam (I hate when people mock islam, btw). From Article 261 of the Swiss Penal Code: "Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intend- ed for a religious ceremony or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty.277" So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. Not unless muslims, rightly, get upset about the depiction of the most revered woman in Islam. But it gets worse: "Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons, any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public, is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty." You can drive a Mac truck through that. What does "inciting discrimination" mean? Are the people campaigning to have the veil banned in Switzerland not inciting discrimination? And, for the record, I despise people who mock any and all religions (although valid criticism is very important). But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich.
- belter 5y ago
  Sounds wonderful. Would then my religious convictions be protected in Switzerland according to law or does my deity has to contact the Swiss government somehow ? Because I am a Pastafarian, and I can't stand the abuse and mockery anymore. I was thinking of emigrating to Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Both you and I know this is provocation, so there's no point in pretending otherwise. But sure, it is an argument in favor of the confessional state. Liberal societies are de facto confessional states anyway, it's just that the liberal religion (which Rawls can't quite seem to acknowledge as one, but deploys without scruples) by which all others are measured and restricted is not named as one.
    - belter 5y ago
      I up voted your comment...
  - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
    No because pastafarianism is a funny, if aged, joke among atheists. You don't sincerely believe in the spaghetti monster, and the courts could hold you in contempt. But why would an atheist who likes to mock religion want to live in a country that criminalizes it?
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > So Charlie Hebdo (who are disgusting, btw) should have been fined in Switzerland. Charlie Hebdo is indeed disgusting. They're nihilists from a cultural milieu that know no moral limits. There is a difference, as you say, between rational criticism of Islam and its mockery and charity is a pretty good way to distinguish between good and bad behavior (i.e., even assuming Islam is terribly flawed, it is uncharitable to mock it in this way given what it is, but charitable to criticize it). > Btw, I'm pretty sure a Zurich museum would have no trouble displaying artwork depicting Mary as a whore. You mean like what the Talmud says about Mary, the same Talmud that depicts Jesus boiling in excrement? The same nihilistic cultural milieu hates Christianity most of all. You think the mockery of Islam was bad? Look at how they depict Christ in those comics. It's far worse as a matter of the kinds of things they depict as well as the subject of the depiction (Mohammad is just a prophet, Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, of God Himself, thus we're talking about the difference between irreverent desecration and outright blasphemy and sacrilegious imagery). But hatred of Christianity has become normalized and made acceptable by this nihilistic cultural milieu and Christians have been intimidated into acceptance and spineless in their resistance which is why it persists with impunity. Muslims have been known to go in the opposite extreme. > But criminalizing mockery and claiming to believe in freedom of speech? That's rich. Freedom of speech was never unrestricted. It cannot be. The days of that libertarian anything-goes thinking is dead even among the same Mother Jones type lefists who wanted it back when they were still dope-smoking boomers. The question isn't whether you restrict speech, but how you restrict it and what you restrict and whether it is good. Without a specific case in mind, I would generally rather risk being a bit too permissive than being too restrictive, greater liberality in what is permitted and greater conservatism in how law is interpreted, but prudential judgement is key.
varjag 5y ago
Freedom of speech is protected only so much as the protection is enforced. It is not some sort of fundamental law. With weak-kneed politicians and indifferent population it inevitably erodes.
- esquivalience 5y ago
  It actually is. It's a fundamental human right under the European Convention on Human Rights (to which Switzerland is a party) , Art. 10: "ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
  - arodyginc 5y ago
    I think the OP meant that it isn't a fundamental law like in physics, so it doesn't 'enforce' itself
  - varjag 5y ago
    I am quite aware of declaration of human rights. It is not a fundamental law in scientific sense, i.e. it is not a natural property of any kind. You want freedom of speech, fine, but you have to fight to get it and keep it alive. Otherwise it becomes just another unenforceable legalistic quirk like beheading for insulting the Queen is today.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eplanit 5y ago
But, many (predominantly on the Left) are now seeing liberal free speech as outmoded. Though he's not a serious person, former Prince Harry (who, with his wife, use their celebrity to champion Progressive causes) recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers"[1]. Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it.[2] My stepfather grew up Jewish in Germany in the early 20th century. He was 13 years old when Hitler became Chancellor. His family got out, and he made his way to the US. He told me very sternly "don't ever think that it can't happen here". Those words stuck with me, and seem now more relevant than ever. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-first-amendment-bonkers-sparks-conservative-backlash/ar-BB1gPar3 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harry-calls-firs... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-sp...
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > even former Prince Harry recently called the 1st Amendment "bonkers" Shocking! I'm starting to think we Americans are going to have to overthrow the British monarchy to protect our rights! > Even The Atlantic publishes its doubts about it. Unlike the Prince Henry thing (who cares), I read this one. The Atlantic says the exact opposite of what you say it does. It starts and ends firmly defending American style free speech. Full stop. In the middle it talks about how European style free speech allows for suppressing hate speech, and that there are costs and benefits to that approach. He explains that calls for such restrictions here cannot be dismissed out of hand as insane but that they have to be contended with. He then does so, arguing against restrictions. "Free Speech isn't Free" is just pointing out the often overlooked costs to totally free speech. I hesitate to call people bad-faith actors, but in general the "article says the literal opposite of what I claim it does" is a giant red flag. (Edit: I went back and read the Prince thing. I dismissed it because "who cares", but then I figured if you misrepresented the Atlantic article that badly I should check it out. What he was talking about was American vs. British libel laws, not general free speech. In Britain, it is much easier to sue for libel to the point that celebrities often sue international publications there. This protection in Britain especially protects politicians and royalty. In the US, it is almost impossible to win a libel suit against a news organization, especially if the person suing is a public official. This is based on New York Times vs. Sullivan, a first amendment case. )

rob_c 5y ago

Here, here. You sir have earned 1xvirtual-pint. Very well said.

amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
lol, what's that?
rob_c 5y ago
Given I'm agreeing with the poster and thanking him for his contribution I guess I have to state for those who don't understand the topic. This is not irony but something that apparently doesn't translate well out of Northern Britain... I'm guessing this site has something against buying a pint of beer for someone you agree with?
- wk_end 5y ago
  People on HN generally don’t like content-free “this”- or “+1”-style comments. If you don’t have anything to add that’ll further the conversation, upvote and move on.

phenkdo 5y ago

The perfect is not the enemy of the good. "The west" is definitely not a paragon of virtue, all its flaws notwithstanding, is order of magnitude (or two) better than a CCP style government. I would much rather live in "the west", where i am, than in China.

nova22033 5y ago

Big Tech squashing our rights How exactly has big tech squashed your rights?

jeswin 5y ago
What I find frustrating is discussing something relatively trivial when talking about a totalitarian state. I am not from the West, and I do wonder if people bring up these just to be polite or to sound impartial.
- rob_c 5y ago
  It's usually to point out commonalities to get people to emote when having a conversation I find. Yes comparing the scales of the Chinese sensorship to googles deplatforming of uncomfortable topics is not nice. But explaining how one can lead to the other also explains to people in the west why something is bad. Especially when people would readily sleep walk into enabling technologies that would enable state sensorship at a level that would concern everyone.
  - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
    But I'm not comparing Switzerland to China! I'm just pointing out that this kid had a really naive attitude of where our rights currently stand in the West. And I think the story is the proof - the kid got canned.
    - rob_c 5y ago
      The form of censorship in the west here I'd argue its financial oppression. Granted in his case he's been lucky enough that his support went the press so he might get something for his efforts, but financial oppression by bullies isn't new or unique to any culture I fear.
- amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
  Tell me, is your country one where loosing your job would be considered a relatively trivial or benign punishment for mouthing off? Because in my parents' country they would have been thrown off an airplane for what this kid did. But I didn't grow up in my parent's country. I grew up in the West. And I cherish very jealously my rights and refuse to trivialize cancel culture, blasphemy laws etc. And if we in the West had taken our rights seriously this kid wouldn't have been fired.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Wow. Patronizing: you know what's patronizing? The notion that this kid simply doesn't understand the realpolitik. Of course he does: it just punched him in the face. He's fighting it. I respect him for that. Infuriating: you know what's infuriating? The person who claims to share the values this guy is standing up for but can't stop trash-talking him. Naïveté: you know what's naive? Thinking that rolling over and accepting realpolitik bullying is going to make things better. La-la land: you know where that is? It's right between cynicism and self-loathing. Of course things can get bad here! That's why we need to fight whenever they slide in that direction! Of course the West isn't a bastion of moral purity above all reproach! That doesn't excuse China's behavior, it doesn't make them the lesser evil, and it doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting! Stop navel-gazing and stand up for what you believe in. At the very least, cheer on those who do.

quickthrowman 5y ago
> Patronizing: you know what's patronizing? The notion that this kid just doesn't understand the realpolitik. Of course he does: it just punched him in the face. He's fighting it. I respect him for that. I disagree. His Chinese girlfriend was begging him to stop, but he carried on. It’s either hubris or not realizing what China is willing to do to stop people from criticizing it. He was also enrolled in a Chinese university, and was undoubtedly warned about criticizing the government.
- jeswin 5y ago
  So should he just shut up, then? It's scary if most people feel that way. There was also no risk to his GF. At worst, the relationship ends - it's not like the CCP is going to go after her (she did ask him to stop).
  - nelsondev 5y ago
    How do you know there was no risk to the GF? The article mentions she asked him to stop because she feared retaliation.
  - 5y ago

_fat_santa 5y ago

I'm a bit conflicted on this story for the same reason. One the one hand I agree what happened to him was horrible, but on the other hand it's almost to be expected. The kid was enrolled in a Chinese university and decided to criticize the CCP on the internet under his own name. So yeah what happened to him was horrible, but not unexpected.

chmod600 5y ago
This news is incremental, sure, but still news. If stuff like this had been happening 20 years ago, many countries would probably have a very different trading posture with China. It's important to report on this kind of thing once in a while, even if no individual instance is shocking. It builds up into a major problem.
usr1106 5y ago
It's not suprising that China acts like this. The message of the article is that a renowned Swiss university cowardly bows to China's oppression instead of guaranteing their students (not legally, but morally their) their democratic rights. Cynics might say not suprising either. Switzerland is somewhat infamous for its silent Nazi support while formally neutral in WWII.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ohbleek 5y ago

This comment reads like an attempt at poorly executed propaganda. The comparisons drawn are not only inaccurate but borderline nonsense.

HWR_14 5y ago

> NSA spying on European leaders Of course they are. That's a big part of their job. Does that offend anyone? It's reciprocal: I assume if Biden calls Pelosi to talk about the weather almost every country is recording the call (assuming it's unencrypted).