5 ms·

This comment appears to be explicitly racist by refusing to engage with the content of the author's arguments and instead explicitly dismissing it on the ground

This comment appears to be explicitly racist by refusing to engage with the content of the author's arguments and instead explicitly dismissing it on the grounds of the author's race. Not only is it racist, it's profoundly incurious and shuts down discourse. > "What is the author saying?" > "Who cares, she's chinese." I find that repugnant. It also seems to be an illogical non-sequitur since the article is about a political system of three political parties headed by ethnically han-chinese people on island with a 90% ethnically han-chinese population.

ivanbakel 1y ago
Given this is an article about Taiwan, surely the more logical conclusion is that “Chinese” refers to the PRC? Otherwise, as you say, it makes little sense. The rest of the comment is still low quality. This alternative interpretation doesn’t seem to have much basis either, since the author is apparently native Taiwanese, but perhaps the GP is accusing her of PRC loyalties?
- zdragnar 1y ago
  It isn't just about Taiwan, it's about a pro-CCP party staying in power. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the comment was about the governments, not the ethnicity.
  - fasbiner 1y ago
    In a country called The Republic of China where 90% of the people refer to themselves as Chinese in both english and in mandarin. Obviously they don't know what they're talking about and the word "chinese" next to the word "tribe" should only make you think of the government in Beijing.
- fasbiner 1y ago
  Someone should tell all the people in the The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China about this logical axiom, then. Even if that's the original intent, I would still find that confusing, unhelpful, and potentially offensive in a professional environment.
  - bilkow 1y ago
    It is common in geopolitical discussions to refer to the nationality when talking about the interests of the country in general and/or the ruling party e.g. "Obama was aligned with the Germans because of XYZ." Also consider that the author is apparently Taiwanese, so their English may not be native. > The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China The party in power is also called the Chinese Communist Party, which literally has Chinese in its name (and is referred by the comment). I understand you had a different interpretation at first, but I invite you to reconsider. It also goes along with HN's guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
g-b-r 1y ago
This comment appears to be the usual accusation of racism towards any critic of the Chinese government .
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
beeflet 1y ago
It is not a racist assumption that nationalists will pursue the interests of their own nation. It's a tautology.
alliao 1y ago
oh sorry, the context around Taiwan will always be around identity, so it's not about race rather identity. The US gets it, in Taiwan Relations Act it specifically spells out "To help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes." whereas when it comes to "acknowledges" One China Policy it is worded as such "interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves" so by Chinese it means those that are interested in unification with China as that is the author's stand. I find it repugnant that you specifically erase Taiwanese by saying "han-chinese"

ivanbakel 1y ago

Given this is an article about Taiwan, surely the more logical conclusion is that “Chinese” refers to the PRC? Otherwise, as you say, it makes little sense. The rest of the comment is still low quality. This alternative interpretation doesn’t seem to have much basis either, since the author is apparently native Taiwanese, but perhaps the GP is accusing her of PRC loyalties?

zdragnar 1y ago
It isn't just about Taiwan, it's about a pro-CCP party staying in power. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the comment was about the governments, not the ethnicity.
- fasbiner 1y ago
  In a country called The Republic of China where 90% of the people refer to themselves as Chinese in both english and in mandarin. Obviously they don't know what they're talking about and the word "chinese" next to the word "tribe" should only make you think of the government in Beijing.
fasbiner 1y ago
Someone should tell all the people in the The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China about this logical axiom, then. Even if that's the original intent, I would still find that confusing, unhelpful, and potentially offensive in a professional environment.
- bilkow 1y ago
  It is common in geopolitical discussions to refer to the nationality when talking about the interests of the country in general and/or the ruling party e.g. "Obama was aligned with the Germans because of XYZ." Also consider that the author is apparently Taiwanese, so their English may not be native. > The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China The party in power is also called the Chinese Communist Party, which literally has Chinese in its name (and is referred by the comment). I understand you had a different interpretation at first, but I invite you to reconsider. It also goes along with HN's guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

g-b-r 1y ago

This comment appears to be the usual accusation of racism towards any critic of the Chinese government .

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

beeflet 1y ago

It is not a racist assumption that nationalists will pursue the interests of their own nation. It's a tautology.

alliao 1y ago

oh sorry, the context around Taiwan will always be around identity, so it's not about race rather identity. The US gets it, in Taiwan Relations Act it specifically spells out "To help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes." whereas when it comes to "acknowledges" One China Policy it is worded as such "interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves" so by Chinese it means those that are interested in unification with China as that is the author's stand. I find it repugnant that you specifically erase Taiwanese by saying "han-chinese"