your argument ("Americans just love moralizing and pointing their fingers at other countries for the exact same things they do") is called "tu quoque" and it's a logical fallacy.
It does not detract from, or even relate to, the subject of the article in any way.
--
EDIT: Following downvote, to make it clearer:
1.
yes we should not have slave labor in America either, and yes some people are wrongfully imprisoned, and yes we use prison labor. The legal process is probably better in the United States than in China, but that does not mean the American legal process should not be improved. None of this has anything to do with the subject of the article, and does not excuse it in any way. Besides, the New Yorker is a private magazine - the article could be Chinese just as easily, and you would not have to change any of the language in it.
2.
Oh, except for the fact that there is freedom of speech to publish it in the United States (even if the subject of it were American prison labor) whereas it's doubtful if the Chinese are even allowed to read the present New Yorker article, let alone publish it if they had written it themselves. In America, the New Yorker, I, you, or anyone are free to publish a similar article on American prison labor.
it's doubtful if the Chinese are even allowed to read the present New Yorker article, let alone publish it if they had written it themselves.
I'd be interested to hear from those with more direct experience whether this guess is true. Is this article accessible in China? Would a Mandarin translation be censored? Would a native equivalent be publishable? And culturally, is there embarrassment at using prison labor?
> Americans just love moralizing and pointing their fingers at other countries for the exact same things they do.
I guess the issue here(why you're being downvoted) is that what is described in the letter and in other accounts of prison factories in China is nowhere near prison labor here in the US.
Well, that, and we DO find it morally reprehensible as a people, and when we find out about this kind of treatment (I'm from Philly, the kids-for-cash thing was a huge bit of horrible here) the perpetrators are prosecuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
It does not detract from, or even relate to, the subject of the article in any way.
--
EDIT: Following downvote, to make it clearer:
1. yes we should not have slave labor in America either, and yes some people are wrongfully imprisoned, and yes we use prison labor. The legal process is probably better in the United States than in China, but that does not mean the American legal process should not be improved. None of this has anything to do with the subject of the article, and does not excuse it in any way. Besides, the New Yorker is a private magazine - the article could be Chinese just as easily, and you would not have to change any of the language in it.
2.
Oh, except for the fact that there is freedom of speech to publish it in the United States (even if the subject of it were American prison labor) whereas it's doubtful if the Chinese are even allowed to read the present New Yorker article, let alone publish it if they had written it themselves. In America, the New Yorker, I, you, or anyone are free to publish a similar article on American prison labor.
Here are a few:
https://www.google.com/search?q=american+prison+labor+site%3...