853
Chinese Courts Rule Companies Cannot Fire Workers Simply to Replace Them With AI (www.caixinglobal.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
282 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

How are these two policies equivalent?

I'm arguing against the premise of making the argument based on equating the two countries. The circumstances/ policies don't have to be different or the same to evaluate them.

Also, your assertion of what the Chinese government is doing in Xinjiang might well be true, but what people/ the West take issue with is the rounding up of dissidents, sending them to reeducation camps, and forcibly sterilizing some of them.

On what planet is policing your own sovereign >territory against domestic insurgency “military >adventurism”?

As far as the Chinese government goes, this part refers to taking Taiwan by force. Literally only the Chinese government would refer to Taiwan as their 'sovereign territory'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    I’m arguing against the premise

    I'm discussing the actual material facts in these two countries.

    I'm listening to someone point to LBJ's Great Society and calling it a Holocaust. You sound like one of those homeschool libertarians, screaming about how truancy laws are unconstitutional.

    what people/ the West take issue with is the rounding up of dissidents, sending them to reeducation camps, and forcibly sterilizing some of them

    Not when their friends in The Philippines or Israel are doing it. Not when they're doing it to refugees in US prisons or UK detention camps.

    What Westerners object to isn't Chinese policing. It's Chinese sovereignty, Chinese technology, and Chinese trade they're freaked out about.

    As far as the Chinese government goes, this part refers to taking Taiwan by force.

    What blockade are they running against Cuba Taiwan? How many military bases are they squatting on in defiance of the national government? How many times have they attempted to assassinate a Cuban Venezuelan Iranian Afghani Taiwanese head of state?

    How many homes have they bulldozed? How many citizens have they butchered? How many fishing boats have double-tapped?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Your entire response is just Whataboutism. You're still simping for the man, just the Chinese man instead of the American one.

    Not when their friends in The Philippines or Israel are doing it.

    In truth I don't know anything about the government in the Philippines right now; if they are running camps then there is a shameful lack of media coverage about it.

    But vastly more people in the US are horrified by the plight of the Palestinians than that of the Uyghurs, primarily because they feel at least indirectly responsible for it. But the people calling out the mistreatment of the Uyghurs aren't silent about the Palestinians.

    As far as the Chinese posture towards Taiwan, we have intelligence and data documenting their military buildup for at least a decade. They are building amphibious assault ships (https://youtu.be/DtrGMsGsZiU) and verbally making public statements about reunification.

    I don't think we should expect China to do a bunch of random piddle-farting around with arbitrary bombing like US policy under Trump. Mainly because that is not at all what their consolidation of authority in Hong Kong looked like, but also because they're not fucking dumbasses like Trump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Whataboutism

    You're accusing China of invading Taiwan, a thing it categorically hasn't done.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I think planning and posturing for their attack on Taiwan can still be counted as military adventurism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    But killing tens of thousands of people is Whataboutism?

    Liberalism in a nutshell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    If the Chinese killed them, it's relevant to a discussion about China. If the US killed them, it's not relevant unless it caused some reaction within China.

    You cannot engage about the rightness/ wrongness of Chinese domestic policy without stopping to bash the United States. That is Whataboutism.

    Perhaps your goal is really just to point out America's hypocrisy, but you certainly go out of your way defending China's actions if that is your goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    If the Chinese killed them, it’s relevant

    If the US killed them, it’s not relevant

    You cannot engage about the rightness/ wrongness of Chinese domestic policy without stopping to bash the United States

    :-/

    As of May 2026, the U.S. has deployed NMESIS (Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System) anti-ship missiles to the Philippines, specifically on islands near Taiwan.

    Why would a country worried about its sovereignty and domestic security be worried about a neighboring territory bulking up its military in their backyard? You can analyze the US policy towards Cuba by considering the Cuban Missile Crisis and its consequences. Why would Chinese politicians not have similar concerns with Taiwan and respond in kind? Why would Chinese policymakers be obligated to ignore the history of Cuba when making their own Taiwanese policies?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Can you respond to this comment (https://reddthat.com/comment/26414066)? That was the original thread and I'm interested in your response.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The AP is about as unbiased as you can get: https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764C

    And Lemmy is also full of propaganda. That commenter didn't even cite a source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Bias is situational; look at AP's reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict for an example of their obscene bias towards western interests. Bias should be assessed on a per-claim basis to avoid logical fallacies like ad hominem.

    Here's a good, neutral take on the unreliability of Uyghur related reporting in sources like the AP: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4767d3ce-8490-464f-8508-d8f3b7878808&subId=703775

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    When I Google search for bias in AP's coverage of Israel-Palestine, all of the sites I encounter claim they have highlighted harm to the Palestinians more than threats to the Israelis. I feel like this isn't what you're talking about though? This level of bias (highlighting the concerns of one side over another) is still substantially less egregious than what you are accusing them of: just getting facts blatantly wrong/ opposite of the truth in Xinjiang.

    Look, without speaking Mandarin, traveling to Xinjiang, and having access to all the sites in question, I can't really know what's happening there. The best any outsiders can do is try to study through the sources available and pick out who we trust.

    I trust the AP. As an organization, they trade on their reputation for quality and unbiased coverage. When I read pieces by them of extremely controversial events in the US, they give only facts. I am absolutely going to trust them more then an unsigned document, hosted by a site I don't know, that largely engages in character assassination of names I don't even recognize.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •