6 ms·

This comment is libelous, emotionally-manipulative flamebait, and does not belong on HN. These security issues, and the surrounding discussion, are due to citi

by fouric 5y ago

This comment is libelous, emotionally-manipulative flamebait, and does not belong on HN. These security issues, and the surrounding discussion, are due to citizenship, loyalty to one's country, cultural differences, and the presence of family in a country that is a hostile foreign power, and have nothing to do with ethnicity (and nor were the GP's implying that), despite your claims to the contrary. Please don't turn random discussions into a race conflict.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Some would say that the two highly upvoted comments calling for racial discrimination are what's causing the "race conflict." The parent comments are what doesn't belong on HN.
- sajforbes 5y ago
  Nobody called for racial discrimination. Vetting needs to be done based on potential risks posed by connections (possible or confirmed) to a hostile foreign power that is both an autocratic regime and capable of using its influence to coerce people into committing espionage. Those same considerations would not apply to Taiwanese Americans. All western countries dealing with China need to consider their security policy carefully and comments like yours poison the well of debate by conflating racial discrimination with legitimate security concerns.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    The argument you're making is identical to the argument that was made for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. There's a growing hysteria and paranoia about China, and suggestions that Chinese Americans should be put under blanket suspicion are incredibly disturbing.
    - sajforbes 5y ago
      You're employing a red herring - the internment of Japanese Americans is not relevant to a security and vetting procedure. Whatever justification they used shouldn't change your assessment of how the specific justification used here bears on the present issue. I agree there is a problem of China paranoia, and your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination. While wanting to reduce this is admirable, national security is not the field to do it. The geopolitical forces shaping this shift are much larger than the national security apparatus - negating it at the expense of security is not their remit and never will be.
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        > your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination Yet you're arguing for precisely that. Discrimination is bad, unless it's done in the name of national security, which will be defined by people who have an extremely aggressive, clash-of-civilizations foreign policy vision.
- fouric 5y ago
  You're factually wrong. Neither of the parent comments are calling for race discrimination - you're pulling that out of thin air in an attempt to incite conflict, or silence their legitimate points that you don't agree with. Go ahead, prove me wrong - quote the sentences that explicitly call for racism.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    Discriminating against people because they're of Chinese ancestry is racist. I'm surprised that this is a claim that you feel requires further justification.
    - fouric 5y ago
      You not only failed to "quote the sentences that explicitly call for racism" that I asked you to (while continuing to baselessly assert your original claim), but you also inserted more emotional manipulation ("I'm surprised that this is a claim that you feel requires further justification.") in your response and you used a strawman argument (claiming that I had asserted that "Discriminating against people because they're of Chinese ancestry is racist." was false, when in reality I did no such thing, as I was asserting that there was no discrimination based on ancestry in the first place). It's clear that you're not arguing in good faith and, as I said originally, just trying to stir up conflict using race as a cover. Future HN readers, take note of these tactics as a way that bad actors will try to avoid answering your questions or try to manipulate you (or others). Furthermore, unlike the parent, I'll actually cite sections from the two comments under consideration, and show how they're not suggesting racism. From the topmost comment: > I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk Note the italicized section "those born in mainland China", which is, tautologically, not the same as race/ethnicity. You can be American, French, Indian, or Canadian born in China and this condition would still apply to you - or Chinese born in America, and this condition would not. Moreover, beyond the wording being sound, the logic is sound - those born in mainland China are a security risk because of the citizenship issues mentioned in the rest of the comment. From the comment that replies to that: > secret programs won’t hire you if your parents are born in mainland China. I found it reasonable, because the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things Again note the italicized section: "if your parents are born in mainland China". This still has nothing to do with race - your parents could be British, Indian, American, Japanese, or whatever, and the sentence (and the general idea behind it) still apply. The part about "the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things" is also sound - there's many instances of this exact thing happening, with Operation Foxhunt[1][2] coming to mind. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-08/fbi-chief-says-china-uses-threats-to-coerce-overseas-critics/12433208 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-08/fbi-chief-says-china-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt

by fouric 5y ago

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

Some would say that the two highly upvoted comments calling for racial discrimination are what's causing the "race conflict." The parent comments are what doesn't belong on HN.

sajforbes 5y ago
Nobody called for racial discrimination. Vetting needs to be done based on potential risks posed by connections (possible or confirmed) to a hostile foreign power that is both an autocratic regime and capable of using its influence to coerce people into committing espionage. Those same considerations would not apply to Taiwanese Americans. All western countries dealing with China need to consider their security policy carefully and comments like yours poison the well of debate by conflating racial discrimination with legitimate security concerns.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The argument you're making is identical to the argument that was made for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. There's a growing hysteria and paranoia about China, and suggestions that Chinese Americans should be put under blanket suspicion are incredibly disturbing.
  - sajforbes 5y ago
    You're employing a red herring - the internment of Japanese Americans is not relevant to a security and vetting procedure. Whatever justification they used shouldn't change your assessment of how the specific justification used here bears on the present issue. I agree there is a problem of China paranoia, and your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination. While wanting to reduce this is admirable, national security is not the field to do it. The geopolitical forces shaping this shift are much larger than the national security apparatus - negating it at the expense of security is not their remit and never will be.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      > your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination Yet you're arguing for precisely that. Discrimination is bad, unless it's done in the name of national security, which will be defined by people who have an extremely aggressive, clash-of-civilizations foreign policy vision.
fouric 5y ago
You're factually wrong. Neither of the parent comments are calling for race discrimination - you're pulling that out of thin air in an attempt to incite conflict, or silence their legitimate points that you don't agree with. Go ahead, prove me wrong - quote the sentences that explicitly call for racism.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  Discriminating against people because they're of Chinese ancestry is racist. I'm surprised that this is a claim that you feel requires further justification.
  - fouric 5y ago
    You not only failed to "quote the sentences that explicitly call for racism" that I asked you to (while continuing to baselessly assert your original claim), but you also inserted more emotional manipulation ("I'm surprised that this is a claim that you feel requires further justification.") in your response and you used a strawman argument (claiming that I had asserted that "Discriminating against people because they're of Chinese ancestry is racist." was false, when in reality I did no such thing, as I was asserting that there was no discrimination based on ancestry in the first place). It's clear that you're not arguing in good faith and, as I said originally, just trying to stir up conflict using race as a cover. Future HN readers, take note of these tactics as a way that bad actors will try to avoid answering your questions or try to manipulate you (or others). Furthermore, unlike the parent, I'll actually cite sections from the two comments under consideration, and show how they're not suggesting racism. From the topmost comment: > I fully expect that at some point the United States will deem those born in mainland China, regardless of current citizenship, to be a security risk Note the italicized section "those born in mainland China", which is, tautologically, not the same as race/ethnicity. You can be American, French, Indian, or Canadian born in China and this condition would still apply to you - or Chinese born in America, and this condition would not. Moreover, beyond the wording being sound, the logic is sound - those born in mainland China are a security risk because of the citizenship issues mentioned in the rest of the comment. From the comment that replies to that: > secret programs won’t hire you if your parents are born in mainland China. I found it reasonable, because the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things Again note the italicized section: "if your parents are born in mainland China". This still has nothing to do with race - your parents could be British, Indian, American, Japanese, or whatever, and the sentence (and the general idea behind it) still apply. The part about "the CCP will definitely take your remaining family members in China as hostages to make you do things" is also sound - there's many instances of this exact thing happening, with Operation Foxhunt[1][2] coming to mind. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-08/fbi-chief-says-china-uses-threats-to-coerce-overseas-critics/12433208 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-08/fbi-chief-says-china-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fox_Hunt