Next you’ll be telling me scientists only investigate results of experiments!
Police only investigate results of crimes!
What’s next? Washing laundry after it’s dirty?
Where will it end!!
This comes up every time with a Buzzfeed News investigative piece. Honestly, I don’t know why they kept the name when they launched their actual journalism org; it’s kind of like starting a legitimate, old-school blood testing laboratory under the Theranos name.
BuzzFeed News is a new branch of the company, with its own autonomy from the whole thing.
They have Pulitzer-winning staff in there, and their investigative reporting is actually quite good.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d1b4kg/hong_kong_...
Moreover, asserting that we need “world wide consensus” strikes me as an incredibly naïve point. Is there anything that everyone agrees on? Are we stuck with violence until everyone agrees? Grand statements about getting along don’t seem to chip away at the problem at all. In fact, I would assert that they are fiercely counterproductive; one can say we all need to get along and until then we have no culpability.
“world wide consensus” means to create big enough entity who is ready to act when law is violated anywhere in the world so that its actions can hurt violator. Imagine the world where open-source is replaced by such entity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d10k4e/dont_let_t...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv9y4c/protesters...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0iqpy/2000_medic...
to these
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cutlyk/who_is_mor...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0re3y/police_doi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cxz64b/300_uncut_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0yl4g/police_dep...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d10ewo/8_seconds_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cp0gb2/hk_police_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/c04o32/french_journa...
? Now consider that's just the tip of the iceberg, the result of a few minutes of searching and scrolling. I know there's instances of protesters being violent, but it's
a.) not possible for 30% of a city to be on the streets at the same time, without even more supporting them, and it's not possible for all these brave, peaceful, beautiful people to be singing songs like they do, for a protest that's just instigated by a bunch of hooligans or Western intelligence agencies, or however the attempts to smear them go.
b.) not possible to explain most of the police brutality by any action on behalf of the protesters. Which some police apparently call "cockroaches", instances of that being caught on video, too.
Working conditions might suck, but why is this any different than any small company with poor working conditions?
Because what they manufacture is a weapon that's being exported and used against civilian protesters?
If the product can be trivially sourced elsewhere, what's the point? Do you believe it might hurt their image and sales elsewhere? Or is this just a moral line you hold dear?
> That's kind of a really idiotic stance to take.
I would kindly ask you drop the ad hominems.
>it's an empty feel-good gesture.
Not really, by not continuing trade you lend less credence to the actions of the government.
You think you're being intelligent about what's happening here but it's really just a case of you not understanding how actions are perceived by other organizations.
What isn't practical about it exactly? It is a decision with consequences with unclear benefit, predicated upon a moral stance.
> You are being overly charitable about how you've arrived at your position.
Well, my initial comment started off with a question prompting your moral hardline stance, so I'm making a bit of an assumption. I've also tried to take care to preface my stance with it's applicability as relates to pragmatism. Should it turn out the firm is the only possible firm that could supply the product, I would feel very strongly they should withhold sale based on my personal beliefs.
It also bears pointing out charitable interpretation is not only a rule of this site but a great principle in discourse.
> Not really, by not continuing trade you lend less credence to the actions of the government.
Of which government? The Chinese or the US? If the latter, it isn't as if we have a long history of fair treatment of foreign nations as relates to commerce. Belief that this is some kind of abberation is rather naive. The government sells lethal arms to conflict zones and dictators with little issue.
I would kindly ask you drop the ad hominems.
Physician, heal thyself.
Not only am I not a commercial entity engaging in trade with these organizations, but it is technically impossible for me as a singular individual with no over all commercial power to engage in commerce in any form without involving Chinese products. And there are plenty of cases where people unknowingly do this despite their best efforts.
I can tell you this though: I'm not the commercial entity making a conscious and forthright decision to do it. And the products I interact with are not designed with the express purpose and utility of crowd control, however right or wrong.
The question you're proposing isn't equivalent to what's being discussed and is kind of just silly.
Tear gas is better than bullets.