They should grow first as much as possible before considering to fight with much bigger enemy so that the winner would be unknown. To do so they should define a problem as time-space independent one. It is global problem here that we still haven’t developed tools to force countries to comply with their own laws to stop violence. We need worldwide consensus here what everyone should do in this case before he hits the same problem.
Is your argument that the solution to violence is no violence? I believe that assertion is self evidently useless and harmful to the discussion. We would do a lot better to try and raise the tenor of the conversation by discussing interesting viewpoints, not asserting that the solution to something is to simply stop doing it
My answer to violence is to be smarter. It is global problem here that we still haven’t developed tools to force countries to comply with their own laws to stop violence. We need worldwide consensus here what everyone should do in this case before he hits the same problem.
These blanket statements about “violence” are mostly devoid of meaning. What are we defining as violence in this context such that someone could be “smarter” to avoid it? Is the suggestion that someone getting assaulted should be “smarter” to solve their problem? What about protesters that are being attacked by the police? What about a country that is being invaded? I don’t understand how intelligence can fix “violence” or what “violence” even is in this context.
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.
What I mean is to fight back with your brain but not with your body. Someone getting assaulted should be “smarter” to not fight back physically with much bigger opponent. You should look how Edward Snowden or Julian Assange fight back.
“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.
? 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.
Violence is justified when you are under an oppressive government. See american revolution and similar violent uprisings. That's the reality. The whole non-violent activism only works when your government isn't oppressive and can actually be reformed through non-violent movements.
I agree violence is justified when someone violates rules. China did violate ‘Article 5 of the Basic Law’ before 2047. So it is global problem that we still haven’t developed tools to force countries to comply with their own laws to stop violence. Or is USA trade war kind of punishment for China?
> If so, that doesn't excuse American citizens profiting off the suppression of civilians in other countries.
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?
>If the product can be trivially sourced elsewhere, what's the point
To not be complicit in the suppression of people's rights in other countries?
What ISN'T the point?
>Or is this just a moral line you hold dear
Ummm, yeah? Are you going to take the position that your contribution to the suppression of other people for the purposes of profit is justifiable because it'll just happen anyways?
Well, that's your opinion to hold, but I'm a bit more realpolitik about things. Unless withholding the materials are likely to damage police operational capability, it's an empty feel-good gesture.
There is nothing practical about your stance though, so you can't really call it realpolitik. You are being overly charitable about how you've arrived at your position.
>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.
> There is nothing practical about your stance though, so you can't really call it realpolitik.
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.
Do you only buy products from company’s where your politics align? For example, no Chinese products because that supports a communist regime? Not using Google because they actively suppress information in China?
If you're going to make a comparison you should do so where there is both power and information parity with the entity in question.
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.
You’ve made your point. “Lookit me act like a banal conspiracy theorist for attention. Let me baselessly challenge the way society works. I have no answers or framework, just Jaden Smith twitter level questions I won’t ever try to answer myself. I’ll just pepper others with pointless questions challenging their views for no reason.”
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.
I said this to a blue-check journalist (Max Rosenthal) on Twitter, and he mocked me for it. But I still think it's true. The name BuzzFeed is just not helpful.
Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are not one in the same, and Buzzfeed News does do real journalism. See, for example, this series of articles on Vladimir Putin's ties to a killing campaign on British and American soil:
I remember a cartoon from 45 years ago Nixon and Brezhnev are sitting at lemonade stands, but selling bombs. With lines of petty dictators, strongmen and despots waiting to buy.
Your point doesn’t change the validity of the article, the poor working conditions for the employees, or the fact that perhaps such exports need to stop.
Edit: What’s with the downvotes? So now HN is yet another forum where Whataboutism reigns? Shouldn’t we point out logical fallacies in arguments when we see them, or at least offer something constructive to the conversation? And, yes, this reply is constructive, since it points out that the parent reply is illogical and should be discounted.
The OP was clearly trying to throw shade at the article. The argument of the article is that they shouldn’t be exporting this gas. The comment was saying “well these other guys do worse.” That’s the exact definition of Whataboutism, and I urge you to read the Wikipedia articles to understand why that type of moral relativism is a logical fallacy.
Otherwise why point out it’s “business as usual”. It’s not like the comment was adding information anyone didn’t already know. Trying to paint the comment as something else is just being purposefully obtuse.
Note that when exporting weapon systems they need approval from DoD and other federal agencies. But tear gas is not covered by those export laws. Just DoC which isn't a big deal.
People always bring the DoD thing up as if it's a valid excuse, or that it somehow transfers moral responsibility to the DoD. Like there being legal loopholes to get what they want makes it OK to flaunt their psychopathy.
It’s not a loophole. It’s the point of the law. We export weapons under the guidance of our government. There is a political check on munitions. Not everyone likes the defense industry, but banning weapons exports polls terribly.
In this case, that democratic check is released. That makes it different from traditional weapons exports.
I wish the article would shed some light on why the police doesn't use domestically produced tear gas. I don't understand how it can be feasible for them to import tear gas to Hong Kong from the US.
Previously working for a company that did create some less than lethal equipment, I can say few main reasons. One being proprietary knowledge into the devices as well as capabilities to get specific chemicals required to manufacture some of which are highly regulated. The other and probably the largest reason is the margins (profits) and quantities produced are not that large. This is normally why you see defense contractors who have other means of profits do this since its something they can bundle into a sale for law enforcement. That would be my main guess for import low need and cheaper to just import stock vs setting up an entire factory not to mention the requirements necessary to store the chemicals safely. The image in the article does do a good job of showing how they have physically separated the buildings on the property.
Rhetorically asking: what's the end goal?Ban the company?Big-ass fine?
I mean for sure you can "whine" at the US government for exporting such crowd-control equipment to the HK gov.But why shit explicitly on the company itself?
I mean after all it's buzzfeed, and it's kind of sad to see such "journalism" on this portal.And just because it's a new branch with "News" in their title doesn't suddenly make it quality journalism that's somehow different from their tabloid branch.
Reading this makes me think the author had a bad experience with tear-gas up close and wanted to rant a little.
Companies who don’t care for the safety of their workers can and should be called out by media. One can debate about regulations, but transparency should never be controversial.
> I mean for sure you can "whine" at the US government for exporting such crowd-control equipment to the HK gov.But why shit explicitly on the company itself?
Because companies that do ethnically shitty things should be called out on it - just because it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it "right" by default.
That's a big fat maybe, but AFAIK if they got permission it's probably fine?
The Department of Commerce regularly approves exports of tear gas products and formulations considered "dual-use" (military or police), and the State Department handles other forms. The government of Egypt was able to purchase American tear gas in the late 00s and early 10s.
Why outdated one which might release cynaide etc are used if it is so easy to be obtained and so cheap? Our tube and Neigbourhood are affected by these indiscriminate use of TG.
Who sells tear gas to US police departments? Who sold the bullets that shot the kids at Kent State? How about we hold the actual people giving the orders to fire the tear gas accountable instead of random vendors?
That's exactly the difference between your examples and this: your examples are easily within reach of US accountability, foreign governments not really, so their suppliers are the closest target.
yeah this is all about hate and power. companies make a business by tearing down others and spewing hate to build platforms of clicks and advertisements.
It doesn't matter if the USA blocks exports of tear gas to HK. They will just buy from other countries. If you really want to stop what is going on in HK then stop buying Chinese made goods.
It's about more than just HK. It is about the Uighurs being put in concentration camps. It is about the harvesting of organs from political prisoners. It is about illegally occupying Tibet. It is about illegally occupying the South China Sea. It is about many things.
maybe that dad and son would be making more money waiting for riots in europe and the united states. plenty of money to be made selling for the mobocracy that is coming to the united states. courtsey of leftists who want more control by the state.......count me in for a krate.
88 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadTear gas is better than bullets.
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d1b4kg/hong_kong_...
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?
To not be complicit in the suppression of people's rights in other countries?
What ISN'T the point?
>Or is this just a moral line you hold dear
Ummm, yeah? Are you going to take the position that your contribution to the suppression of other people for the purposes of profit is justifiable because it'll just happen anyways?
That's kind of a really idiotic stance to take.
> 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.
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!!
Even so, why no interest in this company 5 years ago if it's not politically motivated?
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.
Completely anonymous? Check
Value to this conversation? Zilch
You’ve made your point. “Lookit me act like a banal conspiracy theorist for attention. Let me baselessly challenge the way society works. I have no answers or framework, just Jaden Smith twitter level questions I won’t ever try to answer myself. I’ll just pepper others with pointless questions challenging their views for no reason.”
K bud. Figger it out
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.
https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-buzzfeed-news
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Your point doesn’t change the validity of the article, the poor working conditions for the employees, or the fact that perhaps such exports need to stop.
Edit: What’s with the downvotes? So now HN is yet another forum where Whataboutism reigns? Shouldn’t we point out logical fallacies in arguments when we see them, or at least offer something constructive to the conversation? And, yes, this reply is constructive, since it points out that the parent reply is illogical and should be discounted.
Whataboutism as an accusation only take makes sense when it's whatabouting something from the accuser's camp, which doesn't seem to apply here.
Otherwise why point out it’s “business as usual”. It’s not like the comment was adding information anyone didn’t already know. Trying to paint the comment as something else is just being purposefully obtuse.
It’s not a loophole. It’s the point of the law. We export weapons under the guidance of our government. There is a political check on munitions. Not everyone likes the defense industry, but banning weapons exports polls terribly.
In this case, that democratic check is released. That makes it different from traditional weapons exports.
Rhetorically asking: what's the end goal?Ban the company?Big-ass fine?
I mean for sure you can "whine" at the US government for exporting such crowd-control equipment to the HK gov.But why shit explicitly on the company itself?
I mean after all it's buzzfeed, and it's kind of sad to see such "journalism" on this portal.And just because it's a new branch with "News" in their title doesn't suddenly make it quality journalism that's somehow different from their tabloid branch. Reading this makes me think the author had a bad experience with tear-gas up close and wanted to rant a little.
To your second point, BF News is relatively independent from the main business and has been nominated for a Pulitzer: https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-buzzfeed-news
Because companies that do ethnically shitty things should be called out on it - just because it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it "right" by default.
The Department of Commerce regularly approves exports of tear gas products and formulations considered "dual-use" (military or police), and the State Department handles other forms. The government of Egypt was able to purchase American tear gas in the late 00s and early 10s.
https://graphcommons.com/graphs/f042fe57-cf19-458b-b390-8cf6...
https://twitter.com/Omega_RF/status/1138752537878781952
https://theferret.scot/chemring-hong-kong-tear-gas/
I liked that pretty much.
https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgement-report/