China...

[Galant]

What to do with the Chinese state...

The financial/economic reasons for doing business them are obvious. However, as time goes on it seems clear they aren't interested in cleaning up their act, and if anything, are getting bolder.

Those not following America sports/the NBA may not have spotted the latest controversy. In quick summary, the NBA (Basketball), have had years of contact with China with teams going over to play in off-season games, as well as some Chinese players playing in the NBA and gaining fame, and other American players playing internationally for Chinese teams, particularly as they end their careers - sort of like British footie stars heading over to the USA.

Right now the NBA is in it's 'pre-season' phase and they had some games scheduled in China. The Chinese government has halted broadcast of those games following a Tweet by an NBA team GM (Daryl Morey) that supported the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. Following that there's been a back and forth on Twitter and elsewhere, including from a new NBA team owner who is Chinese and supported the Chinese government in the matter, which lead to the NBA Commissioner (Head of the league) issuing two statements, and China, just now, issuing a lovely response...

Here's Silver's second statment:


And the most recent Chinese response:



This is becoming more and more a real test of how ideals vs. economics vs. pragmatism.
China has been and is behind some horrible abuses. Things don't seem to be changing, if anything, they're pursuing more and more control.

Does it matter? If so, what can be done...and where might this be headed?

I'm not normally one for boycotts etc. but is that the only avenue open for private citizens to have a say in this - boycott the big chinese firms - Tencent, Huawei, etc? They aren't the Chinese government, but they are, like all big Chinese companies, closely tied to the government. Can pressuring corporations can affect the politics in a positive way?

[Saracen999]

Presumably, by "China" you mean the Chinese state?

I suspect a lot of problems arise from the West not understanding the Chinese mindset, especially that of a pretty authoritarian government, and vice-versa. And, to top it off, my guess is that that one-party state is scared poopless of the notion of democracy, where a couple of billion people might actually get some say in how they're governed, and perhaos decide on different priorities .... like, oh, poverty reduction, healthcare, etc, instead of flexing military muscles and a space program.

Which is why I queried how "China" was defined - people, or government. I think to those in power, they see that grip as somewhat tenuous threatened if western principles of democracy, choice, etc, get planted, take root and flourish.

It's a battle of philosophies, mindsets and like any authoritarian government, suppressing oppising views is as important, maybe more so, than expressing your own.

[Galant]

Precisely, yes, the Chinese government. Sorry, should have clarified.

Although, due to the nature of the government, it can difficult, sadly, to draw a fine line between private and state China.

[kalniel]

Isn't this the norm in most countries? Free speech is not carte blanche in, say, the UK. Exactly what is deemed sensitive enough to warrant censor varies in each country, but ultimately, is up to that country to determine, not another.

[Galant]

Isn't this the norm in most countries? Free speech is not carte blanche in, say, the UK. Exactly what is deemed sensitive enough to warrant censor varies in each country, but ultimately, is up to that country to determine, not another.

Here's Morey's original Tweet:



Political? Sure. Don't like those statements? Okay. How about violently putting down such protestors? Everyone okay with that? Government prerogative?

Here's Morey's follow ups on Twitter

https://twitter.com/dmorey/status/1181000808399114240
:

"1/ I did not intend my tweet to cause any offense to Rockets fans and friends of mine in China. I was merely voicing one thought, based on one interpretation, of one complicated event. I have had a lot of opportunity since that tweet to hear and consider other perspectives."
"2/ I have always appreciated the significant support our Chinese fans and sponsors have provided and I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention. My tweets are my own and in no way represent the Rockets or the NBA."

A Tweet aside, though, the wider subject is what approach should western governments take towards an oppressive Chinese government?

[kalniel]

But that's the thing - *you* don't think that a tweet is offensive/dangerous or whatever, so you are projecting that onto another state. They disagree. I wouldn't want to put myself in the position of the Chinese state, but I certainly wouldn't agree with foreign governments supporting the actions of rioters in the UK, or dissident republicans waging terror.

A Tweet aside, though, the wider subject is what approach should western governments take towards an oppressive Chinese government?

Lead by example and demonstrate the value to the Chinese state of our 'superior' way - if it is better then a rational person would want to do the same. Then again, looking at our political shenanigans and Trump's behaviour, perhaps not.

[Galant]

But that's the thing - *you* don't think that a tweet is offensive/dangerous or whatever, so you are projecting that onto another state. They disagree. I wouldn't want to put myself in the position of the Chinese state, but I certainly wouldn't agree with foreign governments supporting the actions of rioters in the UK, or dissident republicans waging terror.



Lead by example and demonstrate the value to the Chinese state of our 'superior' way - if it is better then a rational person would want to do the same. Then again, looking at our political shenanigans and Trump's behaviour, perhaps not.

I'm surprised anyone feels the need to defend the Chinese government. They're an established totalitarian government. If you want to dispute that then I don't know what could convince you. It's a matter of record.

[Galant]

NYTimes and others weighing in on it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/o...hong-kong.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...abases-itself/

[kalniel]

I'm surprised anyone feels the need to defend the Chinese government. They're an established totalitarian government. If you want to dispute that then I don't know what could convince you. It's a matter of record.

1) Is a totalitarian system inherently indefensible?
2) Is a monarchy that different?
3) Is the rule of law important?

edit:
4) Is China even a totalitarian govt? Wikipedia (democratic = good, right?) says not.

To be clear, I'm not defending anything here, but I'm probing whether we have any grounds or right to judge another country's stance on free speech - my original point was that every country has it's own acceptance level. Some hardly accept any, some accept almost all, and many are somewhere in the middle.

[Galant]

1) Is a totalitarian system inherently indefensible?
2) Is a monarchy that different?
3) Is the rule of law important?

If you're going to try to use those last two to defend a government that routinely rounds up and persecutes people on religious and political grounds, destroying buildings, killing people, effecting forced abortions and violently suppressing peaceful protests, not to mention all sorts of other violations, well, I'm speechless. I doubt I could convince you. This stuff should be absolute basics in terms of government, democracy, civil liberties and the avoidance of human rights abuses.

[kalniel]

If you're going to try to use those last two to defend a government that routinely rounds up and persecutes people on religious and political grounds, destroying buildings, killing people, effecting forced abortions and violently suppressing peaceful protests, not to mention all sorts of other violations, well, I'm speechless. I doubt I could convince you. This stuff should be absolute basics in terms of government, democracy, civil liberties and the avoidance of human rights abuses.

Nope, still not defending anything here other than a line of questioning. Just saying you can't convince me is giving up rather too easily. Follow the thought process.

Premise: negatively reacting against free speech is bad
Counter: free speech is negatively reacted against in the UK in some circumstances too, so it can't be as simple as saying free speech is always fine.

Premise: you can't defend china because it's a totalitarian government
Counter: the label you put on a government doesn't have any affect on it's defendability or not. If you loosen the definition of totalitarian govts enough to cover China then perhaps monarchies can be considered totalitarian govts too.

Some others:
Premise: civil liberty is an absolute basic.
Counter: Civil liberty isn't an absolute at all - there are people still living that remember a time when the UK didn't consider expression of sexuality to be any kind of civil liberty. Before that gender was illiberal. Before that, race, religion etc. etc.

The point of all that is to say that it is human nature to view one's own current world perspective as the correct one. I'm saying there's little inherent about that, so instead, the value of such a viewpoint must be demonstrable. As such, we go back to my original answer - we should demonstrate the benefits of our chosen political systems, freedoms etc. and convince others that way, rather than claiming any kind of inherent superiority.

[Galant]

Nope, still not defending anything here other than a line of questioning. Just saying you can't convince me is giving up rather too easily. Follow the thought process.

Premise: negatively reacting against free speech is bad
Counter: free speech is negatively reacted against in the UK in some circumstances too, so it can't be as simple as saying free speech is always fine.

Premise: you can't defend china because it's a totalitarian government
Counter: the label you put on a government doesn't have any affect on it's defendability or not. If you loosen the definition of totalitarian govts enough to cover China then perhaps monarchies can be considered totalitarian govts too.

Some others:
Premise: civil liberty is an absolute basic.
Counter: Civil liberty isn't an absolute at all - there are people still living that remember a time when the UK didn't consider expression of sexuality to be any kind of civil liberty. Before that gender was illiberal. Before that, race, religion etc. etc.

The point of all that is to say that it is human nature to view one's own current world perspective as the correct one. I'm saying there's little inherent about that, so instead, the value of such a viewpoint must be demonstrable. As such, we go back to my original answer - we should demonstrate the benefits of our chosen political systems, freedoms etc. and convince others that way, rather than claiming any kind of inherent superiority.

I see no point in debating with you the earlier points since you're suggesting that the definition of 'totalitarian' needs to be loosened in order to apply to China. It doesn't and that should be obvious.

As for your suggestion that we should 'lead the way' somehow, that doesn't seem to be working very well. It is, in fact, what was suggested and implemented when trade with China was opened up in 2000. Since then, the Chinese government seems to have become only more oppressive.

I will say that it's hard to argue with the influx of trade and thus money helping millions upon millions to come out of poverty. In terms of a change of political tone, however, the Chinese state remains in full-overlord mode. It's hard to see why that would change on the current path. If anything, China has been successful in getting western companies to get in line. That money seems to talk more powerfully to the West rather than China, who know that their massive market is proving impossible to refuse.

With regards to inherent superiority, while stating that fact isn't exactly good diplomacy, at least in most cases, it is true. Not for the nations but rather for the philosophies/political systems in comparison.

[kalniel]

I see no point in debating with you the earlier points since you're suggesting that the definition of 'totalitarian' needs to be loosened in order to apply to China. It doesn't and that should be obvious.

And how does that affect the other points?

As for your suggestion that we should 'lead the way' somehow, that doesn't seem to be working very well. It is, in fact, what was suggested and implemented when trade with China was opened up in 2000. Since then, the Chinese government seems to have become only more oppressive.

I'm not aware of the fine details, but how does trading with China demonstrate the benefits of our civil liberties or right of expression?

With regards to inherent superiority, while stating that fact isn't exactly good diplomacy, at least in most cases, it is true. Not for the nations but rather for the philosophies/political systems in comparison.

Why is it true? Can that be demonstrated?

[Galant]

And how does that affect the other points?

I'm not aware of the fine details, but how does trading with China demonstrate the benefits of our civil liberties or right of expression?

Why is it true? Can that be demonstrated?

I have neither the time nor interest to engage in this issue as some sort of high-level philosophical discussion of free-speech, or democracy. I'm going to proceed on the basis that it is now plainly evident that democracy and the sort of civil liberties that have arisen over the last few hundred years, particularly in the UK and USA, are the best forms of society and government that have ever existed so far, and certainly far superior than totalitarian and Communist states. If you disagree with that, that's your business, but I won't be debating it.

Instead, I'd rather focus on the specifics of this scenario, where an oppressive Chinese government, and violently so, grows ever more oppressive and in part fed by the influx on money from trade with the west. That's the money we're spending.

Maybe cutting that off isn't the answer. But feeding a beast like the Chinese government is something that bothers me. I think there's a moral requirement to try and solve that issue, if there is a solution.

[Galant]

Blizzard are coming under fire for banning a Hearthstone player who came out in support of the protests in China.

Lots of people see this is US companies more interested in the Chinese money line rather than what might be good or moral. It does seem that way. On the other hand, China commands a LOT of money. In terms of survival, companies who can do business with China stand a good chance of out-competing those who can't or won't...

https://www.invenglobal.com/articles...g-kong-protest

[kalniel]

I have neither the time nor interest to engage in this issue as some sort of high-level philosophical discussion of free-speech, or democracy. I'm going to proceed on the basis that it is now plainly evident that democracy and the sort of civil liberties that have arisen over the last few hundred years, particularly in the UK and USA, are the best forms of society and government that have ever existed so far, and certainly far superior than totalitarian and Communist states. If you disagree with that, that's your business, but I won't be debating it.

Instead, I'd rather focus on the specifics of this scenario, where an oppressive Chinese government, and violently so, grows ever more oppressive and in part fed by the influx on money from trade with the west. That's the money we're spending.

Maybe cutting that off isn't the answer. But feeding a beast like the Chinese government is something that bothers me. I think there's a moral requirement to try and solve that issue, if there is a solution.

I have been trying to determine precisely that - a solution. For that you need to understand what the real cause of an issue is. Your proposed solution - boycott - implies either that the problem is a result of money from the West, or that the Western system is in fact so non-superior that China will only accept it under duress rather than seeing any merit in it. Which?