This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 080417 - The China Olympics

RymRym
edited April 2008 in Politics
Tonight on GeekNights, we discuss the issues surrounding the China Olympics. In the news, the French are in an uproar, and something worthwhile is actually patented.

Scott's Thing - FreeRangeKids
Rym's Thing - Food Fight
«1

Comments

  • edited April 2008
    I like that wearable mouse idea. Its cool, although I'm pretty sure of there being previous art.

    Both things of the day are awesome. I was, by that mothers definition, a free range kid, and it makes me shudder the amount of insanity a lot of parents I know go through to "protect" their kids. My uncle actually has his two daughters wearing special watches with GPS trackers embedded in them and cellphones with restricted calling features. Its insane.

    Also, I will never think of pretzels or hamburgers the same way again.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • The majority of Eurovision Song Festival songs are complete and utter crap, and have always been like that. Only few songs that have been sung there are actually good.

    Rym: " 'Time to maximize our utility for the blablabla' I'm like, 'Shut up.' " AWESOME! XD I really like Rym talking 'French'.

    Scott's news is great. Look really neat, but I wonder if it might get in the way of typing for some people. Not every types the same way, even if they type with the home row or not.
  • The majority of Eurovision Song Festival songs are complete and utter crap, and have always been like that.
    That's the point.
  • The majority of Eurovision Song Festival songs are complete and utter crap, and have always been like that.
    That's the point.
    Sadly I cannot deny the truth in that sentence. Always the worst act gets send from the Netherlands, we have soo many better possibilities, yet always crap is send in.
  • Okay, I have to put my two pence into this whole China-Tibet debacle. The Chinese govt. will never respond positively to the bullying tactics being used at the moment by protesters etc. If they give Tibet their independence now, then this makes the regime look weak and paves the way for the independence of Taiwan... China will NEVER let Taiwan have its independence unless there is a drastic change in the government's philosophy and assuming there's no revolution, then this may not happen for at least another decade.

    The main thing that a lot of people don't get is that the Chinese govt. are not really concerned about their popularity in the world. They have a strong foothold in the world economy and the govt's popularity in the eyes of foreigners does not weaken the regime's resolve. What I'm trying to say is that, it's all very good and well that people are making a fuss about Tibet with the Olympics coming up and as Geeknights pointed out, the world is more likely to pay attention now than ever before, but nothing will change unless China feels they will gain something from freeing Tibet. Say if they conceded now, then the govt. loses face because they were bullied into doing it. Sure they'll get a few pats on the back for being good sports, but in the long run they lose more than they gain.

    In terms of "talking power" the US probably has the greatest chance of convincing China to free Tibet. The US hasn't really tried before because people in the states weren't making that much of a fuss (or at least enough fuss to worry govt. officials in upcoming elections). Now with the big uproar and upcoming presidential elections, the time is ripe for some real talks to happen.

    For these talks to be productive, the US has to be able to offer China something for Tibet's freedom. Threats will not work as I mentioned before, so it has to be an exchange of "favors". One that springs to my mind is, the US offers to not back Taiwan's claims for independence in exchange for China relinquishing control of Tibet. This represents a golden opportunity for China to appease the raving masses of protesters and solve their age old problem of Taiwan.

    I would love to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions. If anyone is curious, I am Chinese, but I was born and raised in the Middle East and educated through the British system.
  • I'm not OK with selling Taiwan in exchange for Tibet. ^_~ I believe both have just as much right to be independent.
  • edited April 2008
    Frankly, I don't see whats the big idea about opposing China.

    I don't remember people calling to ignore, for example, superbowl games for the cause of tens of thousands civilians killed by US soldiers in Iraq (including children).
    I don't remember people calling for upholding civil rights in US, when prisoners were tortured by the jailers in Abu Ghraib(and even today are tortured by CIA because there is a LAW ALLOWING TORTURE).
    I don't remember anything in US being said about japanese women being raped systematically by US soldiers who get away with it.
    I don't remember anyone supporting China and Russia when US ignored international law, and rewarded Kosovars for ethnic cleansings by granting them their own country.

    So, US convincing China ? Not gonna happen.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • edited April 2008
    I dont remember people calling to ignore, for example, superbowl games for the cause of tens of thousands civilians killed by US soldiers in Iraq (including children).
    The Super Bowl isn't a world event, it's a US event. The Super Bowl is also so fleeting, so quick, that it is not easy to attach a protest to it. The Super Bowl also doesn't generate a lot of revenue for the US. It mostly only helps the NFL, their affiliates, and the specific city hosting it.

    The Olympics however, are very long. They are noticed around the world. Countries fight ferociously to get the opportunity to host the Olympics. If you do host the Olympics, it generates huge revenues for your entire country.

    I'm confident that if the Olympics were being held in the US right now that the entire world would use them as a vehicle to protest the Iraq War and all that other bad stuff we do.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • I'm confident that if the Olympics were being held in the US right now that the entire world would use them as a vehicle to protest the Iraq War
    I would probably be joining them.
  • edited April 2008


    So, US convincing China ? Not gonna happen.
    That's my point really, the Chinese see everyone else as being hypocrites for bitching at them about human rights etc. when there's Gitmo and the new "40 day law" in the UK. What needs to happen is a compromise. You can't paint either side as pure good or evil because we have all done horrible things in our histories.

    The US has the greatest ability to convince China because they can play the Taiwan card. Taiwan cannot hope to gain independence without US backing and if the US can promise China they won't interfere, then maybe Tibet has a chance. There is absolutely NO WAY China will give up either without real incentive. The bad press from the Olympics just won't cut it.
    Post edited by Kidder on
  • Taiwan cannot hope to gain independence without US backing and if the US can promise China they won't interfere, then maybe Tibet has a chance.
    So Taiwan shouldn't be independent, but Tibet should?

    Taiwan is already effectively independent. They're a separate nation in all but name, and China's refusal to acknowledge this, despite the fact that the rest of the world does, is ludicrous.
  • The US has the greatest ability to convince China because they can play the Taiwan card. Taiwan cannot hope to gain independence without US backing and if the US can promise China they won't interfere, then maybe Tibet has a chance. There is absolutely NO WAY China will give up either without real incentive. The bad press from the Olympics just won't cut it.
    But they stand nothing to gain from keeping Tibet and Taiwan other than their pride. Their attitudes towards both of these territories only hurt them, and everyone else.

    Imagine being boss of a company. One of your employees wanted to quit, but you wouldn't let them. Instead of doing any work, they just trash the office every day. People still do business with you because you are such a big important company, but they are not happy with you because of this employee you keep around. All the people you do business with beg and plead with you to let the employee quit. Instead, you refuse. There's no good reason for you to keep the employee. It would be better for you, and for everybody else, if you let them quit. However, because you like to show off how powerful you are, you force the employee to stay.

    This is what China is doing. It would be win-win if they freed these territories. Apparently they hold their irrational nationalistic ideals more important than actually making things better for themselves and others.
  • I think you don't get where I'm coming from. I'm all for freeing Tibet and Taiwan. Yes it would appear to be win-win for us, but to them it doesn't. I'm trying to debate realistic solutions. Scott, your solution involves a miracle to occur. It's like saying oh the Jews and Muslims are all irrational, they should throw away all their centuries of ingrained philosophies and make peace. Just like that. Never gonna happen...
  • edited April 2008
    The only real complaint I have about all this Olympics stuff, is that most people who protest, know DICK about the actual situation, they just do it to feel "revolutionary", they whip out their Che Guevara shirts and carry a proud tear in their eyes because they are "making a difference", come on, you probably can't even pronounce Guevara, they wear the hammer and sickle and a big red star, and don't really know what that means.

    BTW my mandarin teacher is Taiwanese, and I'm pretty sure she doesn't care if the government is Chinese or Taiwanese, it makes the same difference as being whipped with a stick or a whip.
    Post edited by MrRoboto on
  • jccjcc
    edited April 2008
    The French and the English have a long tradition of hating one another. It seems to be on the wane a bit, but I'm not surprised you'd get people annoyed with something like this.

    Kids weren't unsupervised back in the day, the difference was that there was really not that much to supervise. You knew if your neighbors were cannibals or not, because you talked to them. They knew who your kids were, and if they happened to be outside, they kept an eye on them. If the kids went down to the local wherever, the proprietor probably knew them by name.

    Unless you live in a very small town, or a tight-knit neighborhood, this is probably not so true today. Your average suburban family has no clue who their neighbors are, their kids' friends are more likely to be people they met in school than their neighbors' kids, and they hang out at places where the proprietor has no clue who any of the kids are, and couldn't care less anyhow.

    I agree that turning the kids into shut-ins isn't a good solution, but unless parents are willing to do the footwork to get connected to their local community, just letting the kids loose isn't the best idea, either.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • jcc, you are correct in that people do not associate with their neighbors as much as they used to. However, much of what you say about "how things used to be" is an idealistic view from movies, television, etc. These crowded cities we live in aren't brand new. While I do see youngn's in the city, the quantities are not what they used to be.

    Kids roamed among strangers just as much then as they would now. The difference is that people have been taught to distrust strangers by default, whereas before it was more the opposite.
  • jccjcc
    edited April 2008
    Crowded cities are not new. However, I don't think people are so neighborhood-centric anymore. This means that a lot more people are strangers to one another, which makes them all more indifferent. If something happens to some punk kid who nobody knows, nobody cares. If you were to do something to some punk kid who nobody knows, and aren't caught, nobody who matters cares.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • Free Tibet!
  • Crowded cities are not new. However, I don't think people are so neighborhood-centric anymore. This means that a lot more people are strangers to one another, which makes them all more indifferent. If something happens to some punk kid who nobody knows, nobody cares. If you were to do something to some punk kid who nobody knows, and aren't caught, nobody who matters cares.
    Well, from what I've heard, people in big cities tend to help strangers, like people who chase after purse snatchers, they don't know the victim. And I'm pretty sure, people at least call the cops when they see something wrong going on, even if they are not personally affected by the situation.

    On your other point, if you do something to a punk kid or a well known kid, and aren't caught, then there is no real difference if you know the kid or not, now does it?
  • 9 is too young to travel alone. I think all the freerangers are greatly underestimating the chance of victimization. To Scott's point on selfishness, I disagree. I think letting a 9 year old travel alone is negligent. If he were abducted, it would have been preventable via supervision. It would be tough for a parent to live with that. I have seen videos of kids being abducted at shopping centers; I have seen interviews of killers. The threat is very real.

    I let my kids play outside. I want my kids to be active. I also want to teach them just how screwed up a lot of people are so that, as much as possible, they can avoid being victims.
  • 9 is too young to travel alone. I think all the freerangers are greatly underestimating the chance of victimization. To Scott's point on selfishness, I disagree. I think letting a 9 year old travel alone is negligent. If he were abducted, it would have been preventable via supervision. It would be tough for a parent to live with that. I have seen videos of kids being abducted at shopping centers; I have seen interviews of killers. The threat is very real.

    I let my kids play outside. I want my kids to be active. I also want to teach them just how screwed up a lot of people are so that, as much as possible, they can avoid being victims.
    When you were 9, where your parents just as protective?
  • edited April 2008
    Anyone who understands Chinese politics and culture must know that Chinese politicians have a very difficult time admitting they were wrong. It's a cultural phenomenon. They will look for a scapegoat when things go wrong, but that's when things go really wrong. (e.g.: the head of their version of the FDA who was recently executed) The problem is that in their mind, executing a scapegoat solves the problem. However, this indicates that there was only a problem with one person, when what is really needed is a systemic change. Nobody wants to do this.

    So... shaming China via the Olympics into leaving Tibet and giving up claims over Taiwan will have the opposite effect. The Chinese government will not admit that invading Tibet was a mistake, and this will only deepen their resolve to prove that they were right.

    The only way I can think of to help Tibet is to hit China where it hurts the most - the pocketbook. It would take the United Nations to start imposing sanctions that have real meaning. With China on the security council, don't look for this to happen.

    Absent a change in leadership and/or meaningful economic sanctions, Tibet is going to be China's backyard for a very long time. I know a couple of Chinese people very well - and this is what they say, at least.
    Post edited by Kilarney on

  • Well, from what I've heard, people in big cities tend to help strangers, like people who chase after purse snatchers, they don't know the victim. And I'm pretty sure, people at least call the cops when they see something wrong going on, even if they are not personally affected by the situation.
    Not necessarily. Very often the larger the crowd, the more indifferent the people.
    On your other point, if you do something to a punk kid or a well known kid, and aren't caught, then there is no real difference if you know the kid or not, now does it?
    If you rough up your brother's co-worker's kid and take his stuff, this causes hassles for your brother's co-worker, which in turn causes hassles for your brother, which in turn causes hassles for you. Much like the more intelligent of animals don't shit in their drinking water, the more intelligent of people don't cause problems for people that they see every day and with whom having a decent relationship makes life easier.
  • I find that most people fail to notice is one thing: free Tibet is all fine and dandy, but how about Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang?

    And also, since the SAR system works so well in Hong Kong and Macau, why not use it in some of the so called "autonomous regions" (e.g. Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi).
  • Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang?
    Hollywood hasn't noticed yet. ;-)
  • It seems odd how fervent Americans are about various parts of China becoming independent, considering that if any states seriously tried to secede from the U.S., there'd probably be another civil war.
  • It seems odd how fervent Americans are about various parts of China becoming independent, considering that if any states seriously tried to secede from the U.S., there'd probably be another civil war.
    Well, I think it's more the human rights issue than anything. Tibet says they want to be free, so we ask them why. They say they are being oppressed, so we are cool with them asking for independence. Meanwhile, when Quebec wants independence from Canada, we ask why. Their reasons aren't very convincing, so you won't find much support for them.

    If a US state were to ask for independence today, whether people support it or not would depend on the reasons. Back in the Civil War they had some good reasons, but also some bad reasons. Hence, war.
  • edited April 2008
    considering that if any states seriously tried to secede from the U.S., there'd probably be another civil war.
    Uh.... the last time I checked, the states entered the United States willingly. Taiwan was under Japanese control for decades until it was taken over by China after World War II. The Chinese were not welcomed by everyone. It was just a couple of years later that the Chinese civil war created a genuine dispute as to who controlled Taiwan. Taiwan was caught up in the middle of the Chinese civil war. Communist China's claim over Taiwan is not absolute by any stretch of the imagination.

    And, of course, Tibet was just plain invaded.

    So I don't see how your analogy to the United States applies whatsoever. Nice try with the anti-American sentiment, though! Next time have some applicable facts to support your argument.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • jccjcc
    edited April 2008
    How is it anti-American to suggest that if (for example) California decided to secede, the U.S. probably wouldn't allow it? Very few countries make a habit of dissolving themselves. Bad for prosperity and security. :)

    The 13 colonies went into the agreement willingly (although some had reservations about the idea), but the territories were annexed from the indians, or bought from the French or Russians, or taken from Spain or Mexico.

    But that's not important, as the comment was simply noting that I found it odd (as an American) that many Americans are often keen for things to happen internationally that they would be less than keen with happening locally.
    Post edited by jcc on
  • But that's not important, as the comment was simply noting that I found it odd (as an American) that many Americans are often keen for things to happen internationally that they would be less than keen with happening locally.
    I don't know about that. Actually, I would say we condemn our own human rights violations more than anyone elses. Gitmo gets a lot more crap from US citizens than Darfur.
Sign In or Register to comment.