[frotak]

There was a time when there were powers and authorities in the Western world that would silence dissent via violence and murder.

See Galileo and the Catholic Church as an example. Or the Inquisition. Or any number of other examples of absolute authority executed by a State or State based actors in the pursuit of silencing dissent and controlling discourse.

A fundamental component of American ideology is the protection of free speech and dissent. Pretty much unequivocally. E.g., the "old" and "different" culture of authoritarianism that controlled Western civilization was overturned to give individuals more freedom.

So far this dedication to individual liberty and freedom of thought and expression is a relatively short lived blip in human history - but arguing that Chinese culture is just "old" and "different" side steps the fact that on the one hand we see an evolving and changing culture that embraces the individual...and on the other we see a continuance of abusive authoritarianism that subjugates individuals in pursuit of preserving the status quo.

[mirimir]

Sure, I get that. That's why I came to the US. And I do believe that, for the most part, the US does display an honest commitment to those values.

But still, imposing your values on others is an iffy thing.

[frotak]

In the one case you have China actively violating the freedoms and liberties of the people living under its control and on the other hand you have the UN as a collective body seeking to have a discussion about that.

China is actively seeking in this case to kill any sort of discourse. The UN has no power to impose its values on anyone else. It can, as a body, take certain actions to indirectly affect nations of the world...but it is not a world government that can impose anything.

In this case all that was on the table was a discussion - and even that was untenable to China.

That is China imposing it's values on others in a very absolute way - and I agree...that's an iffy thing. I would go even further and say it's unacceptable (by any country) to try to completely silence discussion.

[mirimir]

> ... freedoms and liberties ...

Yes, they are for sure doing that.

But then, those are European concepts. I'm not even sure if they're really expressible in endogenous Chinese languages.

So is cultural imperialism OK, as long as we're really "in the right"? That was basically Spain's argument for taking over Mexico etc. God was on their side.

[frotak]

> those are European concepts

Only inasmuch as they were born in Europe who in turn had to flee their home country to pretty much make it a reality.

In the article in questions here no one is talking about intervening in the internal affairs of other countries.

The point of contention is that China is actively working to prevent the very discussion of what is happening under its authority. And they are actively using violent physical force to impose their authority and prevent discussion and dissent within their borders.

Is history replete with examples of Western countries undertaking violent imperialistic expansion? Absolutely.

Is that what we're doing now or talking about here? No.

> I'm not even sure if they're really expressible in endogenous Chinese languages.

And it never will be expressible unless and until free and open discussion can be engaged in.

[mirimir]

Sure, China doesn't want people dissing its internal policies. No country does, do they?

And yes, they are repressing dissent within China through "violent physical force". That again isn't unusual. There's a broad consensus that a state has internal monopoly on force.

Me, I hate that. But it's not as if China is alone, in that. I'd love to go buy some LSD or shrooms. But authorities put people in jail for that shit. Some huge percentage of US citizens are locked up for nonviolent drug offenses. How is that not just as bad as what China is doing?

Edit: And what if some were organizing a UN conference to discuss the violent repression of recreational drug use in the US etc? That's not even a credible possibility, is it? And that's largely because the US has so thoroughly dominated the world regarding the issue.

[frotak]

I absolutely agree that there are questionable aspects to how the U.S. enforced drug prohibition laws and how non-violent offenders are treated.

But again, the fact is that we can openly have, and pursue aggressively, discussion about and attempts at reform around how this is handled.

In fact we see this by the spread of various drug legalization efforts in the U.S. and efforts at prison reform.

Though there is also a huge difference between a governments authority to regulate the distribution and consumption of psychoactive compounds (and/or the sale of such compounds) and the ability to even discuss how the government is handling the issue.

Free speech and criticism of the government are a bare minimum baseline. So you can actively organize your fellow citizens in an effort to legalize various compounds in the US and you can lobby and protest the government without any fear of being arrested because of what you are saying. That is a completely different world than what goes on in China. If you are a dissident you are a criminal.

And with respect to whether or not the UN could openly address internal affairs of the U.S. - well it does: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1

Yes the U.S. ambassador to the UN had some choice words about that specific report but it was all out in the open and wasn't suppressed

[tehjoker]

I suggest you should read up on the far more recent case of Fred Hampton and COINTELPRO regarding US "protection of dissent". American institutions protect the status quo and allow "safe" dissent (meaning bounded (e.g. NY Times) or ineffective (tiny groups / grandpa screaming) dissent). However, free speech is treated more seriously here than most other places and times in history, that is true and good.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/assassination-of-fre...

That said, what is being done to the Uyghur people in China is vile and is contradictory to established human rights. It is completely appropriate to take China to task at the UN. However, as US citizens, it is difficult for us to have a strong moral voice given the wars, assassinations, coups, and destructive sanctions we have initiated along with our history of indigenous genocide, colonialism, and slavery that we have still not fully reckoned with. Even now we are implementing a slightly different version of the Japanese internment camps for the most vulnerable people in our society, undocumented immigrants, to distract from the economic depredations of the ruling class.

If we want to be a more effective and just nation, we have a lot of work to do at home.

[frotak]

I am not saying that there aren't parts of the U.S. government that actively work against free speech - because that is certainly the case.

However the very fact that we can discuss these things (or that there is a book that is freely accessible to all on the subject of a specific instance of institutional oppression in the U.S.) openly and without fear that our doors are going to get knocked in and see us getting swept off to a "reeducation camp" are the signs that we live in a country that strongly values free speech.

The U.S. does not have a perfect track record by any means...but for all of the examples you give of bad action by the U.S. as an institution I am aware of large and public and accessible documentation in the forms of museums, installations and other means of dissemination and availability.

In other words the U.S. airs (or allows to be aired) its dirty laundry as much or more than most other countries. And while this invites "whataboutism" it certainly, in my opinion, helps validate our position to openly question and try to discuss the actions of other nations.