>...until the US is willing to park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters.

I'm afraid a single carrier battle group wouldn't be much of a deterrent these days. The US no longer has naval overmatch in that region. Barring any gross incompetence on PLA-N's part, or the US having highly classified tricks up its sleeve, USN would need several fleets to achieve anything but a pyrrhic victory in such a conflict.[0]

I otherwise completely agree with your sentiments, and living in a world where what amounts to essentially a fascist state having military supremacy—even if only limited in scope and regional for now—is quite chilling.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-ar...

Not to mention that the whole fleet would be utterly useless against all the land based missile systems that would target them if it ever came to it.

I’m sure they can stop some of it but eventually they’ll just run out of supplies.

I think the only way to do something like that is by going all-in.

Virtue signaling doesn't work in business. Should yc do any business in the US which is mired in illegal wars and regime change operation all over the world? What about Saudi arabia? Should silicon valley and traditional media give up the billions in Saudi investment? Every major economic player is evil in some form or another. And the parallel with china isn't nazi Germany. It's with 19th century US.

The US certainly has its problems, but I don't think it's fair to draw a moral equivalence with what's happening in China.

The US did invade Iraq, not that long ago. Hundreds of thousands died.

I generally think that the way in Iraq was a mistake; however, even then:

The motivation appears to have been different, fighting terrorism and finding WMDs versus societal control and religious intolerance.

The majority, though certainly not all, of the people killed were combatants rather than civilians.

No, the majority were ~innocent people. Although, as in any invasion, the distinction was blurry.

While the invasion was sold on the basis of terrorism and WMD, that was mostly bullshit. I mean, the US originally supported Saddam Hussein because he opposed communists supported by Russia. And it used Iraq in a proxy war against Iran, is also supported by Russia.

Basically, the US invaded Iraq because it had to invade somewhere after the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was the obvious suspect, given their funding of fundamentalist Islam generally, and Al-Qaeda specifically. Plus the fact that most of the attackers were Saudi.

But that was unworkable, for many reasons. Afghanistan was the other obvious target, but everyone knew that it would be a morass. Given Russia's experience, for example. Or Britain's, back in the day. Plus the fact that most of it had already been pounded into sand.

So Iraq was the perfect target. With lots of juicy stuff to destroy. And an ineffectual military.

Another goal was demonstrating US military hardware. Advertising, to increase sales.

Chinese citizen here.

I guess you're implying that certain bad things are happening in China. Do you really live in China and see those things happen, or just hear about them from the media?

And is it possible that some of the media in US are inhonest? Just as there're inhonest media in China.

I'm not fighting you on this topic; just don't understand why there's so much hatred towards our country.

There is plenty of non US media reporting on the camps in Xinjiang.

Why don't you travel to Xinjiang and do some investigating. If the camps there are really fabricated by the US media, surely the government won't mind you traveling around and filming the suspected sites?

>just don't understand why there's so much hatred towards our country.

I don't hate you or the other people of your country. I'd love to visit someday and relearn some of the Mandarin I learned in college. However, I do hate what your government is doing to the people of Xinjiang. Why wouldn't I be upset about this?

There're serious security issues that need to be addressed in Xinjiang. Don't assume it's related to racism. Also, when you use the word `camp` it automatically reminds people of Nazi camps during WWII. They are not the same, on multiple levels.

It's not hatred and it's not against your country.

It's distrust of your government.

There is an enormous amount of respect and fascination with China and its history, culture and people. Your current government is wasting that.

China was going in a positive direction until Xi Jinping.

>I guess you're implying that certain bad things are happening in China.

https://chinatribunal.com/who-we-are/

“The Tribunal’s members are certain - unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt - that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

Brits, Americans, an Iranian, a Malaysian. Are these people making it up?

Simply go south and take a look what's happening in Hong Kong right now. Is that bad enough?

It does at Google. They have enough fat to digest it for a while.

You have to choose your battles. China is literally building concentration camps. Comparing Xi to Hitler is not exaggeration.

Virtue signaling absolutely works with China. "Losing face" is a big part of their culture and if important business partners start dropping off like flies and calling out their atrocities, they will take notice. Just look at how much of a fuss that NBA manager's tweet made.

>What about Saudi arabia? Should silicon valley and traditional media give up the billions in Saudi investment?

Yes.

While I completely agree with you, YC is a private organization and not a political one.

The above message allows everyone to save face while getting the job done. YC doesn't need to say anything beyond this.

That is exactly the problem. Saving face.

Causing PRC to lose face is the only way to stop them outside a war which nobody wants. If American companies started cutting ties and explicitly calling out their behavior it would make a real difference.

1. PRC loses face.

2. ??? (Does not include war.)

3. New Chinese government takes control.

I don't think anyone knows how to do what you want. Just because a problem is important doesn't mean it has a solution.

Step 2: globally orchestrated sanctions on a fascist dictatorship

Step 2b: hopefully we avoid WWIII

That might work for a smaller country like South Africa, but China too big for that. China could probably make everything it needs itself, or learn in a decade or two. So it sounds to me like a new iron curtain, leaving both sides poorer and the people caught in the middle suffering from the separation. (And good luck fighting global warming.)

But though there's a lot of pressure to choose your side, I doubt every country will do so. If forced they might choose China?

>That might work for a smaller country like South Africa, but China too big for that. China could probably make everything it needs itself, or learn in a decade or two. So it sounds to me like a new iron curtain, leaving both sides poorer and the people caught in the middle suffering from the separation. (And good luck fighting global warming.)

The majority of the US and Soviet population was better off with the iron curtain than without in real terms. The US median hourly wage only surpassed that of 1968 in the last 3 years.

I don't think that is correct. In fact 1) China is massive with huge labor class, 2) China is heavily export driven, 3) current generation in China has been affluent.

So, even moderate global sanctions will have a massive impact with both affluent class and the labor class revolting.

However, remember, oil embargo drove Japan to WW-2, I'm sure China will react similarly unless that internal revolt happens first. Too difficult to predict.

> China could probably make everything it needs itself, or learn in a decade or two.

Even the elites want out... i'm not sure the system wouldn't eat itself before then.

Yeah, about step 2b: Note that part of the reasoning behind the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the US's sanctions on Japan for their actions in China.

In my observation, for what it's worth, current China regime does not react well to losing face. They just dig in further. Not sure if it's a cultural artifact. We have seen that time and time again.

However, China will react to economic loss. As such pulling out of China, surely and quietly, is the best approach.

>Doing business with a fascist state or in a fascist state is deplorable

>While I completely agree with you, YC is a private organization and not a political

If you agree that doing business with a fascist state is deplorable, it doesn't stop being deplorable just because you're a private company.

And yet private organizations so often want to sit on the moral perch and pet themselves about all the non-profit oriented actions they take.

And that is their right, and nothing wrong with that IMHO. And, I will support that.

However, I was simply noting that it is not a requirement for private organizations.

You can't say you're an apolitical organization when you work with China given the way running a business in China works.

The message is obvious that companies are afraid of angering the Chinese government by speaking ill of it as they commit increasing atrocities because that could potentially eat into their profit margins. Profit over people.

The US can't take military action in Hong Kong, because its handover to China was completely legal. You can thank the British for their short-sightnedness on this one, but nothing the rest of the world can do, at least overtly. I see this fact repeatedly forgotten or overlooked in the brewhaha over HK.

Are we just going to ignore why Hong Kong was under British rule in the first place?

That's not necessary legally, since the legal handover is already sufficient to justify non-intervention.

But of course the way Hong Kong was originally acquired at the point of a gun bolsters the moral/ethical case for both the legal handover and non-intervention.

Naive perspective: Is it possible that this language prevents YC from being blocked by the Great Firewall?

I'm not sure I'd advocate it, but I see the potential argument: It's better to let users see YC's independent decision to not conduct business in China, even with vague reasoning, as there's no realistic narrative that would put China in a great light.

The alternative is to be completely censored. If the intent is to spread a message within, I would think an uncensored message is better than no message at all.

Probably something more along the lines of censorship via perceived or actual fiduciary duty.

I think YC has to be reserved because they are linked to all of these companies they have invested in. A bad statement could potentially harm some of their portfolio companies.

Can the US stay away from this?

> park an aircraft carrier group in HK waters.

This is called invasion.

What is your incentive in supporting an invasion?

>What is your incentive in supporting an invasion?

Isolationism and appeasement post-WWI leading to the next, disastrous world war which could have been avoided or significantly diminished with early intervention.

Seriously, mind your own stuff. How would you feel if some other country parks an aircraft carrier group in US waters, because the US - has a racial discrimination problem? - invades citizen's privacy through wire tapping? - the presidential election is just a funny show? ...

Stay the f* out!

By provoking people, threatening to send aircraft carriers?

The fact is this is just a leverage US is holding on to to win the trade war.

Human rights have been the excuse the US used to wage war against multiple middle east countries in the past 30 years, eventually for its own benefit, and causing huge sufferings to people in these countries.

No one can say no to 'supporting human rights', but you'd be naive to think the US cares about human rights more than it does about benefiting itself and inflicting suffering on other countries.

Also, maybe it's turning out that building the wall is not that profitable after all.

Yeah, California is exactly the same as a state that throws hundreds of thousands to millions of people in concentration camps, prohibits freedom of speech and religion, murders and steals the organs of political prisoners, and actively monitors everything you do.

It's not, ignore nationalist defending a fascist state.

False equivalence

The difference is we can also vote that person out of office and there won't be violence to prevent it.

Indeed, Californian business is immmortal.

How is modern one-party California fascist? Specifically, how does California advance an ethnostate under a conservative populist tradtionalist movement oriented at revitalizing a long-dead culture? I'm not sure that California does this.

Meanwhile, China operates death camps.

Good try, good hustle, glad you're here learning English, but you need to learn more about your culture's history and the nature of fascism.

We've banned this account. Personal attacks aren't allowed here, and certainly not nationalistic slurs.

Breaking the site guidelines will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

user may be Chinese national, but name calling ("brainwashed") probably isn't the best way to encourage the sorts of open dialogue that will be necessary to change their views

Lucky 10000: Go look up the etymology of "brainwashing".

lol... nice find.

brainwashing (n.) "attempt to alter or control the thoughts and beliefs of another person against his will by psychological techniques," 1950, a literal translation of Chinese xi nao. A term from the Korean War.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/brainwashing

Ignoring or tolerating a violent ethno-nationalist ideology isn't going to make things better either.

agreed, unreservedly.

still, namecalling these users doesn't solve anything. and i'm sure it's against the community principles.

There's no point responding with anything other than derision to this kind of deliberately obtuse and bad faith deflection.

You should have flagged it. HN is not made for derision.

In the US, as I go through the airport, I am physically violated routinely for my 'security'.

All of the data I transmit are recorded, for the agencies to go through them, if not now, then later, when they figured out how.

People who don't obey the leftist narrative are cancelled, have their jobs terminated, and so on.

China has always been independent. They pride themselves on that. Taking away investment money isn't going to influence them.

If you want to influence somebody, first you understand them, then you build a friendship and rapport with them, and then you influence them. Turning off the phone does the opposite.