7 ms·

Surveillance I understand (its a fairly ubiquitous form of government control at this point, including use of DNA - Israel feeds that information into its domes

Surveillance I understand (its a fairly ubiquitous form of government control at this point, including use of DNA - Israel feeds that information into its domestic assassination program), but this op-ed repeatedly claims repression. In China (based on its Marxist roots) cults and religion are deemed to be damaging to a person and to mass popular culture ("Religion is the opium of the people" - Marx). China considers religion to be within the freedom of an individual to observe, but not to impose on another person: in China you can not be indoctrinated into a religion until you are 18 years of age. Combine this with the wave of Islamic reevaluation on the Asian supercontinent - ISIS is and has been a huge problem in China, with mailbombing campaigns and other acts of widespread terrorism. Repression is an opinion expressed in the op-ed that hasn't considered factors that are alien to the Western author's perspective.

devoply 8y ago
As far as I know there was no fundamentalist terrorism in China due to the Uighurs. In the West we usually leave things alone that are not causing problems... Even if they have the potential to cause such problems. That's one of the reasons that one party authoritarian systems are wrong in that such systems are always worried about their stability and survival where more robust systems have no such worries. And that's why China will fail sooner or later because such systems come under control of strong men who then eliminate all of the survivability of institutions to consolidate power and then die and the system collapses or becomes dysfunctional. However NSA shoveling all unfiltered data to Israel is in general an insane policy not in line with general liberalism.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  There certainly is terrorism from the Uyghurs. Whether you want to call it "Islamic fundamentalist" or "separatist" terrorism doesn't really matter. The terrorists themselves call it "Islamic", which has ended up tainting the Hui by association in the minds of the Chinese. But you'll note that all the Western coverage of repressive practices complains about how steps are being taken specifically against the Uyghurs, who are the group making trouble. The government seems perfectly capable of distinguishing unassimilated Uyghurs from assimilated Hui, much more so than the general run of Chinese. The Chinese government doesn't really go for publicizing terrorist attacks. We could learn from them, in that regard.
- subjoriented 8y ago
  It's not specifically "the Uighurs" (that's like saying 'there was no fundamentalist terrorism in the US due to "the Muslims"'). It's much more about the region (Xinjiang) and particular fundamentalists groups present there. This happens to demographically correlate with the Turkic people in China's Northwest. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/01/the-islamic-state-pledged-to-attack-china-next-heres-why/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/01/the-islamic-state-pledg... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang
nickbauman 8y ago
You cannot claim "cultural differences" as a legit reason to permit human rights abuses. You either believe human rights are inalienable or you don't. Even the ancient Romans, who codified slavery into law in their Republican era (and came up with the legal concept of private ownership, interestingly), described slavery as an "unnatural state" so this isn't a Christian argument either.
- subjoriented 8y ago
  I don't think this addresses the argument I've made. Can you read it again and reply to the strongest possible interpretation you make of it (per the site guidelines)?
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Not suspicious at all how you come to HN on a new account talking about how people should take your posting in good faith, with the "strongest possible interpretation", with references to the rules. My strongest possible interpretation is that you are not posting in good faith whatsoever, and should be ignored.
    - subjoriented 8y ago
      I've been a long time HN participant. I'm coming back from a lurker status after having lost my credentials a long time ago. shrug. Can you explain how you consider this suspicious (to the point you needed to create a throwaway account to say that)? I'm confused why HN is being so aggressive and unwelcoming right now... This kind of meta-conversation isn't really what I'm on HN for.
      - yesenadam 8y ago
        The comments on just about every story anything to do with China get overheated lately, I wouldn't take it personally.
    - dang 8y ago
HuShifang 8y ago
Unsubtle. See https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/reeducating-xinjiangs-muslims/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/reeducating-xinj...
- subjoriented 8y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your comment. Can you add more (feel free to edit the current comment content?)
salawat 8y ago
>Repression is an opinion expressed in the op-ed that hasn't considered factors that are alien to the Western author's perspective. It's a given in the sense you describe, but a rose, by any other name is still a rose. I see no reason to not call it what it is on the tin, and this is exactly the danger that entrusting your genetic code to anyone presents. As a whole, our species is only as scrupled as the least scrupulous actor. Frankly, I'm not half as upset at China as I am the firms that have been compiling private databases of genetic material and then selling access to the data.

devoply 8y ago

As far as I know there was no fundamentalist terrorism in China due to the Uighurs. In the West we usually leave things alone that are not causing problems... Even if they have the potential to cause such problems. That's one of the reasons that one party authoritarian systems are wrong in that such systems are always worried about their stability and survival where more robust systems have no such worries. And that's why China will fail sooner or later because such systems come under control of strong men who then eliminate all of the survivability of institutions to consolidate power and then die and the system collapses or becomes dysfunctional. However NSA shoveling all unfiltered data to Israel is in general an insane policy not in line with general liberalism.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
There certainly is terrorism from the Uyghurs. Whether you want to call it "Islamic fundamentalist" or "separatist" terrorism doesn't really matter. The terrorists themselves call it "Islamic", which has ended up tainting the Hui by association in the minds of the Chinese. But you'll note that all the Western coverage of repressive practices complains about how steps are being taken specifically against the Uyghurs, who are the group making trouble. The government seems perfectly capable of distinguishing unassimilated Uyghurs from assimilated Hui, much more so than the general run of Chinese. The Chinese government doesn't really go for publicizing terrorist attacks. We could learn from them, in that regard.
subjoriented 8y ago
It's not specifically "the Uighurs" (that's like saying 'there was no fundamentalist terrorism in the US due to "the Muslims"'). It's much more about the region (Xinjiang) and particular fundamentalists groups present there. This happens to demographically correlate with the Turkic people in China's Northwest. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/01/the-islamic-state-pledged-to-attack-china-next-heres-why/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/01/the-islamic-state-pledg... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang

nickbauman 8y ago

You cannot claim "cultural differences" as a legit reason to permit human rights abuses. You either believe human rights are inalienable or you don't. Even the ancient Romans, who codified slavery into law in their Republican era (and came up with the legal concept of private ownership, interestingly), described slavery as an "unnatural state" so this isn't a Christian argument either.

subjoriented 8y ago
I don't think this addresses the argument I've made. Can you read it again and reply to the strongest possible interpretation you make of it (per the site guidelines)?
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Not suspicious at all how you come to HN on a new account talking about how people should take your posting in good faith, with the "strongest possible interpretation", with references to the rules. My strongest possible interpretation is that you are not posting in good faith whatsoever, and should be ignored.
  - subjoriented 8y ago
    I've been a long time HN participant. I'm coming back from a lurker status after having lost my credentials a long time ago. shrug. Can you explain how you consider this suspicious (to the point you needed to create a throwaway account to say that)? I'm confused why HN is being so aggressive and unwelcoming right now... This kind of meta-conversation isn't really what I'm on HN for.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      The comments on just about every story anything to do with China get overheated lately, I wouldn't take it personally.
  - dang 8y ago

HuShifang 8y ago

Unsubtle. See https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/reeducating-xinjiangs-muslims/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/reeducating-xinj...

subjoriented 8y ago
I'm not sure I understand your comment. Can you add more (feel free to edit the current comment content?)

salawat 8y ago

>Repression is an opinion expressed in the op-ed that hasn't considered factors that are alien to the Western author's perspective. It's a given in the sense you describe, but a rose, by any other name is still a rose. I see no reason to not call it what it is on the tin, and this is exactly the danger that entrusting your genetic code to anyone presents. As a whole, our species is only as scrupled as the least scrupulous actor. Frankly, I'm not half as upset at China as I am the firms that have been compiling private databases of genetic material and then selling access to the data.