I agree their treatment of the Uyghurs is deplorable but the way you had to chop that quote like a creationist undermines your point. It’s possible to say China has done both good and bad things, and recognizing the cost rather than denying something factual is probably a more effective.
Not in the slightest. I’m saying that it’s possible to recognize that evil without denying that something else is good. Just do both at the same time, like how we might say that the world has benefited from polyurethane, digital computers (Konrad Zuse), or rocketry without in any way excusing the Nazi government which controlled Germany at the time.
At this point I am struggling to maintain the assumption of good faith. As I’ve said throughout, slavery is bad. That doesn’t change the fact that cheap solar panels are good and will save millions of lives. I have never said that the latter justifies the former, that’s something you invented.
I would suggest a more nuanced understanding that not everything fits into a binary good/bad mentality, especially when talking about decisions made by many people. Even individuals often have decidedly varied track records - Watson is in the news this week, and while his later racism and sexism don’t cancel out his scientific career, you have to know about both to understand how flawed people can still make large accomplishments (repeat for Shockley or Millikan, etc.). Recognizing the conflict helps you understand the whole situation, without detracting from your ability to say certain parts of the story are unambiguously bad.
> At this point I am struggling to maintain the assumption of good faith.
You began your comments by calling me a creationist. You never had good faith to begin with.
> I would suggest a more nuanced understanding
There is nothing nuanced or subtle here. This is not complex.
We're talking specifically about solar panels. Slave labour is being used to produce those solar panels. You're trying to make the case that's somehow a net good. That's ugly.
Your position is not defensible. I doubt you read anything I linked to.
Note the word “like”: I was using a simile not to say you are a creationist but to convey the idea that any time you have to chop a single sentence that aggressively you might want to consider whether that strengthens your argument or undercuts it. If the full sentence doesn't support your thesis, maybe you want to reconsider your approach.
This is highly relevant to your penultimate and last sentence, which demonstrate how you're arguing against a strawman: I never said it was a net good, and nor does it appear that OP did, and nothing you linked to could change the opinion of anyone in this thread on how the Uyghurs have been treated since everyone already agreed that it's very bad.
That still doesn't remove the benefits of cheap solar, especially because it's not like 100% of their solar production depends on forced labor. Both the current and previous administration have been willing to enforce the existing laws banning those imports (as have other countries such as Australia) so it's not like the only two options are “no Chinese solar panels” or “look the other way”:
Most of them would. These are labour-rural-transfer programs thats been going on in PRC for poverty alleviation for 20+ years that retards in west twisted into slave labour.
The entire coerced labour propaganda are bunch of country bumpkin Uyghurs getting enrolled in poverty alleviation programs where they're paid close to median wage, i.e. 2x+ typical subsistent agri income. This is equivalent to US starting a jobs program to give bottom quantile earners (15k) a median income (40k).
The reality is these are well paying jobs, relative to bottom quantile recruits these programs are designed to uplift usually go towards more ethnically "Chinese" applicants, because factory bosses don't want to deal with Uyghurs who don't Mandarin Good until central pushed Uyghurs (and Tibetans) to front of queue, when frankly much more qualified "Chinese" applicants exist.
Are individuals sometimes fucked in the process, of course, statistic inevitability, but poverty alleivation is net good for Uyghurs, XJ solar is net good for the world.
If I was to post a comment that frames the armenian or rohingya genocide, or indeed any genocide, in a good light, would my comment be flagged? What exactly is HN policy on moderating genocide-washing propaganda?
It's 2025. US/Pompeo's fake genocide propaganda campaign failed. There's no need to genocide wash because you know, there was never genocide to begin with. Even astroturfed wikipedia had to concede "Genocide of Uyghurs" down to "Persecution". Nvm plurarity of UN opinion labels PRC actions as counter terrorism / anti extremism programs. If HN is required to align with US foreign policy positions / be US gov mouthpiece where US maintains XJ genocide designation, then sure flag comments contrary to geopolitical reality that there's no genocide.
Spamming retarded propaganda doesn't make it not retarded propaganda. You didn't even post the og retarded source of coerced labour claims i.e. our innumerate boi AdrienZ at Jamestown, even he had the sense to realize the most disinformation label he can misattribute is coerced labour because all the data he tries to misinterpret still shows labour transfer wages significantly higher than regional average. But tldr yes solving terrorism and reducing poverty to integrate restive minority without doing a Gaza is tripleplusgood. All while proliferating cheap renewables for developing countries and climates and we have to start using exponents good. Double plus undersells the spectacular scope and scale of PRC de radicalism campaign, literally the least bloodshed melting pot integration speedrun in recorded history. Nobel prize worthy vs Obama by none libtard metrics. 20% hyperbole.
It's slavery in the same sense as DoD recruiters use underhanded means to get kids with no prospects to sign up for military. Except those kids get sent in GWOT to kill Muslims for a few tours whereas when XJ bureaucrats hit quota they get more solar panels.
I doubt the Uyghurs would agree:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57124636
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/in-broad...
https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/gb-energy-blocks-use-...
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/solar-companies-linked-to-...