ferest
it's a 26 page with (almost) all words, and it mentions uighur (as well as han) once in one place and used as example, and at the same example it mentions gender and age as factors. Yet BBC is "creating" a horrible headline. By this definitation all patents used by car auto pilot feature that could enhance people (in particular colored people) detection, is a human right voilation
It also comes with great cost.
NSA has pretty bad records of spying all over the world, and all US companies have to work with US judicatory system under the court permission. In that convention, all over the world should have blocked US companies.
> I don't see how this is similar to treating black people
Because their skin is black, not because there is evidence of any law breaking, they are treated differently.
I don't want to get into uighurs talk, "reeducation camp" could as well be a more restrict boarding school under different context, but this is not related.
If tiktok has child porn or some other illegal stuff, i'm totally fine with blocking it. But in this case, the only evidence so far is, it's a chinese app, not because it's breaking any law.
There is no law to prohibit an app of being used in US, and there is no evidence TikTok broke any existing law operating within US. All the talking point being so far is because it's a chinese company.
This is literally how black people was treated.
It's interesting to see how protectionism change the country brand of equal business opportunity and spirit of the law.
I could argue the same, the so-called reeducation camps only applies to xinjiang province, and for those could only get education from religion maniacs, rather than a normal school. And there were numbers of attack events were caused by it. Keep in mind Uyighurs are not only living in xinjiang, there are uyighurs living in rest parts of China and doing well.
> India is actively trying to fix disparities caused by the caste system. It took the US 200 years to get civil rights, India had affirmative action from day one, and one of the biggest examples of affirmative action at that. The caste system is horrendous, but social change can never be brought so quickly ( atleast in a democratic way, we certainly don't want Stalin or Mao style quick changes)
Aye aye, it took 200 years for the US to have civil rights for all (still problematic), and Inida takes 70+ years still working on the caste problems, when it reaches China, which was founded after India, we are suddenly asking for all equal society. Yes, unwillingly education is bad, but keeping them blank and poor is evil. Learning skills to fit into a society, even it doesn't fit into your propaganda, is not wrong.
> The caste system, while bad, isn't in any way worse than color discrimination in the US. To quote just one example, India has very strong laws against caste based violence.
US also has strong anti hate crime law, and is one of countries offers most assistance for anti-discrimination, law doesn't help unless vast majority are educated to do so, and vast majority has economy power to do so.
If they haven't done great leap forward and cultural revolution it would be better, that is true. But by "abandoning all communist policies and began liberalizing markets", not all countries see economic success, ukraine, iraq and all recent "liberated" countries, and russian living quality in 90s was even worse than their late 80s.
And ironically enough, the fast developing era of taiwan, south korea, by today's standard, are not under any form of democracy.
India is not re-educating anyone, but rules out muslim from citizenship? Not even mention the caste system, which is way worse than the color discrimination in US. When India became the 2nd biggest power in the world, all these will become target
It really depends on how much valuable stuff you got
There was a huge debate back in late Jan. early Feb. on Chinese social network about a paper didn't get peer-reviewed spreading all over places with misinformation. Hence the Fudan University post in Chinese was to tighten the publish review, and nothing about delaying the research.
This guardian news only showed the story without context, which is pretty misleading.
There was a huge debate back in late Jan. early Feb. on Chinese social network about a paper didn't get peer-reviewed spreading all over places with misinformation. Hence the Fudan University post in Chinese was to tighten the publish review, and nothing about delaying the research.
This guardian news only showed the story without context, which is pretty misleading.
"Some media outlets, including Daily Mail and RT, promoted a video that showed a young Chinese woman eating a bat and suggested it was shot in Wuhan, but later it was confirmed that the footage was filmed by travel vlogger Wang Mengyun in the island country of Palau in 2016, to showcase local cuisine"
> A PHEIC is defined in the IHR (2005) as, “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response”. This definition implies a situation that is:
* serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected;
* carries implications for public health beyond the affected State’s national border; and
* may require immediate international action.
[1]: https://www.who.int/influenza/resources/documents/pandemic_p...
[2]: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/what-are-the-intern...
These would make next protest cost down to zero, and demoralized police hands will be tied to response. This is destroying HK's justice system and legislation system by encouraging solving the interest conflict in the street, because protests could solve the problem can't be solved in the court/Legco, and taking no or minor responsibility. This mobocracy.
Even the gov made compromises under the table, they wouldn't claim they accepted them.
And there is no leader of protesters, which means even 5 demands are accepted, there could be another group demands for next 5. And asking them in the air instead of asking negotiating on the table, non-negotiable acceptance with no trade-off, all these don't look like protester are truly seeking for talk or solution, or they were designed not to do so.
hypothesis 1, they were silenced. Chinese students were in great disadvantage no matter in population or in capital compare with groups holding different ideas. The students from hong kong, taiwan are more exposed to the western world because there were more chance they could get into the social groups financially - think if there are person in your social group paid 10x less than yours, and emotionally - you might have visited there because it's easier to get in and out and enjoy as foreigner. Media tend to report things you might interest with, either it might show up in your day to day life, or those odds could catch your eyes - people pays more attention to stories from those escaped from mid-east than those actually living in mid-east. This factor changed in recent years, because both number and wealth have been increased a lot for Chinese students. hypothesis 2, they silenced themselves. The culture difference, language disadvantage and huge gap on life quality, the 1st generation migrants are tend to stay low profile - the mexico migrants also had that in history. This factor also changed a lot in recent years.
These two factors exist in all minority groups.
Back to this topic itself, Chinese students are heard now(and ironically thanks to their HK peers), and why they hold different opinions?
The Chinese students' background could be vary, but one thing is in common - they were from China, and the CPC ruled China helped their family gained wealth so they could stand in the same street with you. Due to the same reason, they are naturally more vigilant when the medias are reporting news completely fell into one side, and when they are trying to find different view, there is state media - the same thing happens in US, the media are pushing people either towards right or left, especially when the a situation can't be simply marked as "good" or "bad", being labeled negatively make them join the group protecting their identities. Not even mention for this generation, HK has been part of China since they start understanding the world, they would try to look at the similarity between them and hker, meanwhile hker were still showing off their superiority (like girlfriend who keep showing gift from her ex)
Everyone has their rights to express their opinions. But the role media playing that divides us, is more dangerous
Perhaps a way to having a peaceful conversation is helping both sides to hear, read, understand others' points. It might not be easy though, the media are very much dominated by one language, that majority of one side in this argument doesn't speak, according to [1], 19.3% internet users contributes 1.7% content. In fact, it's VERY hard in this situation, to tell if we are the intelligent German in the story, or the William Shirer, regardless which side you are on.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_used_on_the_Internet