Jump to content

Moved 2022 before its to late.


Recommended Posts

One Canadian on death row, another 11 years rotting in a Chinese prison…

It indeed puts lots of pressure on Canadian participation. The Uyghurs, HK, Tibet, Taiwan may not bother people too much, but such stories hit much closer to home.

I also saw a report here how quickly insulted China felt by some of the Tokyo coverage, e.g. when a reporter mentioned the teen divers were like robots etc., demanding an official apology. They seem to have very thin skin, bu there should be no reason to appease them. Any decision about a boycot or not will play in the CCP hands, so decide on what is actually best for your athletes and citizens. But don’t wait for the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

One Canadian on death row, another 11 years rotting in a Chinese prison…

It indeed puts lots of pressure on Canadian participation. The Uyghurs, HK, Tibet, Taiwan may not bother people too much, but such stories hit much closer to home.

I also saw a report here how quickly insulted China felt by some of the Tokyo coverage, e.g. when a reporter mentioned the teen divers were like robots etc., demanding an official apology. They seem to have very thin skin, bu there should be no reason to appease them. Any decision about a boycot or not will play in the CCP hands, so decide on what is actually best for your athletes and citizens. But don’t wait for the IOC.

Have we heard from any Canadian athletes  about if they fearful of boycotts or not. Other athletes have commented on it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/boycott-of-beijing-winter-olympics-splits-mps-on-both-sides-of-politics/news-story/8c37732021267c73b84b1bcd5b0f5433
 

The headline is misleading. The letter is only calling for a diplomatic boycott. So far it’s only Canada where a full boycott is being discussed by important figures this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everyone. Just wanted to friendly remind i'll believe a boycott when I see it and when governments/companies stop being greedy cowards and wanting the Chinese market which, spoiler, it hasn't happened yet.

Have a nice day~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2021 at 11:38 AM, krow said:

for the record, boycotts do work, and this one would hardly play into the CCP's hands. attending at all because china is too powerful to anger is what plays into the CCP's hands. of course they would say "western criticisms are all political," as they shove citizens into concentration camps. so what?

the games should be boycotted by every western nation with a spine, though i realize they probably won't be.

who knows what will happen with covid though. it may end up providing political cover to let these games fall apart.

So what is the intent of a boycott?  What would it hope to accomplish?  Let's say a country like Canada endorses a full boycott of the Olympics.. no athletes, no diplomats, and they don't even send their TV crews to produce all the hockey.  Is that going to result in fewer citizens shoved into concentration camps?  Will China's human rights record improve because Western nations have spurned them?  I kinda doubt that.  No question it would send a powerful message, I just don't know if it's going to result in any meaningful change.  What Olympic boycott do you think has worked that you believe one would be effective here?

On the contrary, I would love to see Western nations come into China with the world watching and the cameras rolling and see what kind of face China puts on for the world.  We know they'll do their best to whitewash every reprehensible action they're responsible for, but to boycott the Olympics is to leave them in the shadows and pretend like they don't exist.  And that allows them to continue to doing every terrible thing we're accusing them of from the other side of the planet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What Olympic boycott do you think has worked that you believe one would be effective here?

ok, if you insist.

-boycotts were an important tool in ending apartheid — although i suppose you might argue the olympics and sports in general were a smaller part of that. but here's something i actually did not know until i just looked it up: SA were invited to the 1968 olympics but the invitation was withdrawn when — you guessed it — other countries threatened to boycott.

-the US led 1980 boycott to protest the invasion of afghanistan (lmao) inspired 66 countries to skip the games. don't tell me that didn't have a measurable or powerful impact in the middle of a cold war, where one's field of battle is more limited.

a boycott is a protest. it's a moral stand in a world where because of trade and global supply lines, canada and china cannot fully cut off relations. it's a message that canada will not send its citizens to a country that is putting them on death row as a bargaining chip to protect a wealthy tech executive under house arrest in a mansion.

it's a call to not sweep it under the rug and bury these rights violations as a "private matter" between two countries, but will invite a spotlight so that when the countries of the world ask "where is canada?" they will learn the answer, which will certainly not endear the CCP to those it is spending billions win over. 

even NBC will have to mention it in primetime when literally fives or tens of americans are half-watching.

when china is rigging the rules against you, why play any of their games?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REDWHITEBLUE24 said:

Let’s face if Canada boycotts America will as well. Biden is hardly likely to say he opposes Canada doing so and if he says he supports it but is powerless to enforce it that is a massive gift to Fox News.

hmm.....no.

why don't you let me captain the debate team for our side for a while. i don't think you're doing us any favors. 

please run your talking points past me first and i will edit them into coherence and reality. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I join the debate team Krow?

I used to believe that boycotts and politicising sport were a useless, empty gesture and made athletes pay the price while corporations got off scot free to turn a profit without any moral obligations. I believed, and argued here, that any country should be free to host but in doing so had to be prepared to pay the price by being up for scrutiny and have their dirty laundry aired before the world. Like Australia and Canada faced up to with our records on our indigenous populations. But Beijing 2008 and Sochi 2014 pretty well ripped that notion to shreds. They were big f*ck you’s and let China and Russia demand we all accept their ascension but keep our mouths shut and don’t dare mention anything disrespectful like Tibet or gay rights.

I’ve changed. Now I think it’s morally appropriate to use stronger means to force such hosts to pay that price. And as Krow pointed out with the South Africa example, boycotts CAN work. I’m still uneasy with making athletes carry the full weight, but I do think it’s unconscionable that we should all be attending next year’s winter frolics in full acquiescent regalia while China keeps setting up concentration camps for the Uighur and positions its military in readiness to do a quick Crimea on Taiwan. Even if we still let our athletes do what they’ve devoted their lives to do, at the very least we need to make the statement of sending no diplomats, dignitaries or government reps and maybe even have our teams watch behind the Olympic flag instead of our national flags. And don’t give me this bulls!t that that would just be playing into the CCP’s hands - doing nothing is just playing into their hands even moreso and letting them say in return “we can do what we want, and you all lack the courage, conviction or will to dispute us”. And while we’re at it, we should be pressuring the sponsors with the threat of consumer boycotts - it’s proved to be a successful strategy in many a social campaign and as I said, one of my problems with sporting boycotts is it can be unfair for athletes to be expected to take a hit, while big businesses are left unscathed to profit as they will. Australians well know the Chinese aren’t shy of using the economic cudgel when they feel they’re being disrespected.

And, sure, a boycott of whatever form of Berlin 1936 probably wouldn’t have stopped WW2, of Sochi wouldn’t have caused a change of heart Putin on gay rights or stopped the invasion of Crimea, or of Beijing 2008 or 2022 wouldn’t have freed Tibet or close the Uighur camps or secure the release of Canadian prisoners. But they sure as hell would make clear the stance of the world’s democracies, make it clear there are consequences to their actions and maybe force them to tell their citizens exactly why other nations are “playing politics” with their sports events.  

And at the very least it might get the message through to the IOC that they should be a bit more discerning when they choose their hosts. Or, if they must choose such hosts, insist that they be up for scrutiny and adhere to any promises made. And before the inevitable “but the IOC are corrupt and don’t care” responses, just consider that the IOC aren’t totally tone deaf when put under pressure - their Apartheid stance for one, but they also refused to recognise Lukashenko as head of the Belarus NOC and banned father and son from Tokyo, and also relaxed their stance on athlete protest to allow bending the knee. They may be stubborn and loathe to change or upset the dictators too much, but when push comes to shove and their own interests are threatened, they’re capable of saving their own skins.

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, krow said:

ok, if you insist.

-boycotts were an important tool in ending apartheid — although i suppose you might argue the olympics and sports in general were a smaller part of that. but here's something i actually did not know until i just looked it up: SA were invited to the 1968 olympics but the invitation was withdrawn when — you guessed it — other countries threatened to boycott.

Were they really through?  The majority of Africa boycotted the `76 Olympics in Montreal.  Did anything change in the years following?  Not really until years later when the IOC took matters into their own once South Africa started changing their their own tune.  Don't know how much we can credit boycotts for spurring that on

8 hours ago, krow said:

-the US led 1980 boycott to protest the invasion of afghanistan (lmao) inspired 66 countries to skip the games. don't tell me that didn't have a measurable or powerful impact in the middle of a cold war, where one's field of battle is more limited.

The Soviets continued to occupy Afghanistan for nearly a decade after that boycott.  So if the boycott was to protest the invasion, what exactly did it accomplish?  What powerful impact do you think it have?  If we're looking at the reasons that the Soviet Union fall apart, I don't know how much we can attribute an Olympic boycott to that.

8 hours ago, krow said:

a boycott is a protest. it's a moral stand in a world where because of trade and global supply lines, canada and china cannot fully cut off relations. it's a message that canada will not send its citizens to a country that is putting them on death row as a bargaining chip to protect a wealthy tech executive under house arrest in a mansion.

it's a call to not sweep it under the rug and bury these rights violations as a "private matter" between two countries, but will invite a spotlight so that when the countries of the world ask "where is canada?" they will learn the answer, which will certainly not endear the CCP to those it is spending billions win over. 

even NBC will have to mention it in primetime when literally fives or tens of americans are half-watching.

when china is rigging the rules against you, why play any of their games?

Because at the end of the day, what is the goal of your protest?  If you don't have one, then all you're doing is using athletes as pawns in a political game they may not want to play.  Ask Jimmy Carter how he feels about that one from 1980.

That's noble to send a message, but I doubt China is going to blink.  A message without consequences is an empty gesture.  If there's an end game here, I'm all for that.  But this isn't 1936 when the Germans all put on their happy faces and convinced the Americans there was no threat and they believed it even though they should have known otherwise.  Boycotting those games would absolutely have been a powerful statement, although who knows if it would have changed history at all.

This is 2021.  We live in an age of social media where everyone knows what China's transgressions are.  Virtue signaling is not going to get that done.  Let individuals make that decision.  If Canada or the United States wants to withhold their diplomats or tell sponsors not to join the show in China (which they may not want to anyway), I'm all for that.  Forcing athletes to not be allowed to participate is not the answer.  If we learned anything from the Tokyo games, it's that in the lead up to an Olympics, every possible narrative can and will get discussed to death.  Once the Games start, the focus is on the athletes.  Let them have their moment if they choose to.  And yea, tell NBC to point their cameras at the Chinese and see if they wilt under the spotlight.  I like that strategy a lot more than not participating in the event, trying to pretend like it doesn't exist, and think that gesture will get China to change course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

This is 2021.  We live in an age of social media where everyone knows what China's transgressions are.  Virtue signaling is not going to get that done.

this is NOT virtue signaling. china is literally putting canadians on death row as retaliation. and even if they weren't, they are putting chinese citizens in concentration camps over their religion. this is NOT some petty game of out-woking each other on the world stage. there are real, actual consequences and human lives on the line. there is a reason why so many in this thread keep evoking the 1936 olympics.

most of your cynical argument boils down to "it won't make a difference, why bother." well, for that i'd encourage you to turn to rols, as he's made much the same argument as i would have and i think it's a strong one. 

i'd simply add that sometimes when you're canada and caught in a double game against bobby fisher and beth from queen's gambit, every pawn or a rook you can take is a victory. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Can I join the debate team Krow?

I used to believe that boycotts and politicising sport were a useless, empty gesture and made athletes pay the price while corporations got off scot free to turn a profit without any moral obligations. I believed, and argued here, that any country should be free to host but in doing so had to be prepared to pay the price by being up for scrutiny and have their dirty laundry aired before the world. Like Australia and Canada faced up to with our records on our indigenous populations. But Beijing 2008 and Sochi 2014 pretty well ripped that notion to shreds. They were big f*ck you’s and let China and Russia demand we all accept their ascension but keep our mouths shut and don’t dare mention anything disrespectful like Tibet or gay rights.

I’ve changed. Now I think it’s morally appropriate to use stronger means to force such hosts to pay that price. And as Krow pointed out with the South Africa example, boycotts CAN work. I’m still uneasy with making athletes carry the full weight, but I do think it’s unconscionable that we should all be attending next year’s winter frolics in full acquiescent regalia while China keeps setting up concentration camps for the Uighur and positions its military in readiness to do a quick Crimea on Taiwan. Even if we still let our athletes do what they’ve devoted their lives to do, at the very least we need to make the statement of sending no diplomats, dignitaries or government reps and maybe even have our teams watch behind the Olympic flag instead of our national flags. And don’t give me this bulls!t that that would just be playing into the CCP’s hands - doing nothing is just playing into their hands even moreso and letting them say in return “we can do what we want, and you all lack the courage, conviction or will to dispute us”. And while we’re at it, we should be pressuring the sponsors with the threat of consumer boycotts - it’s proved to be a successful strategy in many a social campaign and as I said, one of my problems with sporting boycotts is it can be unfair for athletes to be expected to take a hit, while big businesses are left unscathed to profit as they will. Australians well know the Chinese aren’t shy of using the economic cudgel when they feel they’re being disrespected.

And, sure, a boycott of whatever form of Berlin 1936 probably wouldn’t have stopped WW2, of Sochi wouldn’t have caused a change of heart Putin on gay rights or stopped the invasion of Crimea, or of Beijing 2008 or 2022 wouldn’t have freed Tibet or close the Uighur camps or secure the release of Canadian prisoners. But they sure as hell would make clear the stance of the world’s democracies, make it clear there are consequences to their actions and maybe force them to tell their citizens exactly why other nations are “playing politics” with their sports events.  

And at the very least it might get the message through to the IOC that they should be a bit more discerning when they choose their hosts. Or, if they must choose such hosts, insist that they be up for scrutiny and adhere to any promises made. And before the inevitable “but the IOC are corrupt and don’t care” responses, just consider that the IOC aren’t totally tone deaf when put under pressure - their Apartheid stance for one, but they also refused to recognise Lukashenko as head of the Belarus NOC and banned father and son from Tokyo, and also relaxed their stance on athlete protest to allow bending the knee. They may be stubborn and loathe to change or upset the dictators too much, but when push comes to shove and their own interests are threatened, they’re capable of saving their own skins.

Here's the issue I have with that logic though.  I think we all agree here that the IOC made a horrible mistake in awarding another Olympics to China and we know they'll do anything and everything they can to avoid addressing China's record on human rights.  But it's really hard for say, Australia to make the case that they disapprove of the IOC when they just signed a contract to host an Olympics.  Likewise for Canada which has eyes on a Winter Olympics in the not too distant future.  So it sends a mixed message for a country to say that the IOC needs to do a better job of picking hosts and then asking that same IOC that they want to be a host.

To me, the stronger message needs to come from sponsors and advertisers.  NBC can't simply say they're not showing the Olympics, but I could see some companies questioning their support of the Olympics, lest anyone try and link them with China (which would 100% happen from the same folks that started bashing NBC when the news about Toyota funding Republicans came out).  The Olympics are big business now in ways they weren't 40-50 years ago.  It's probably why we haven't seen a major boycott in a generation.  And why if something happens here, it's not likely to take the same form as we saw in 1980

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, krow said:

this is NOT virtue signaling. china is literally putting canadians on death row as retaliation. and even if they weren't, they are putting chinese citizens in concentration camps over their religion. this is NOT some petty game of out-woking each other on the world stage. there are real, actual consequences and human lives on the line. there is a reason why so many in this thread keep evoking the 1936 olympics.

most of your cynical argument boils down to "it won't make a difference, why bother." well, for that i'd encourage you to turn to rols, as he's made much the same argument as i would have and i think it's a strong one. 

i'd simply add that sometimes when you're canada and caught in a double game against bobby fisher and beth from queen's gambit, every pawn or a rook you can take is a victory. 

Again though, we all understand what terrible things China is doing because information travels quickly.  The question is how do we stop it.  You think not sending athletes to the Olympics would be a good first step.  I'm skeptical that's the way to go without specific demands that go along with it.  And yea, we bring up 1936 for good reason, but if we're making that comparison, let's make sure we illustrate the difference about how much we already know about China in comparison to what the United States really knew about Germany in 1936 that it was so easy to dupe them into thinking things were okay.

I'm not playing the "it won't make a difference" card.  I'm challenging those in charge to set a course for beyond February 2022 that if Western nations do spur the Beijing Olympics, is that it?  Or is there something that follows that?  As you said, a boycott is a protest, so does that protest continue and if so, how?  I don't necessarily expect you to have answer to that, but someone needs to answer that question.

5 minutes ago, krow said:

yeah, let's leave it to the CAPITALISTS to spurn CHINA. 

okay, yeah, that will work. :)

You're somewhat making my point for me here.  How strong of a message would it be for major corporations to stop spending their money in China as opposed to government sanctions.  Many companies don't have the balls to say no to China.  Imagine if they actually did and how much more that would resonate than an athlete boycott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again though, we all understand what terrible things China is doing because information travels quickly. 

i don't know that we all do. certainly not everyone in the west follows the news like we do. olympics draw a lot of attention to issues — remember that old marketing adage that it takes 7 impressions to leave a mark on someone. the olympics, after all, are a PR stunt as much as they are an athletic competition. 

 

Quote

The question is how do we stop it.  You think not sending athletes to the Olympics would be a good first step.  I'm skeptical that's the way to go without specific demands that go along with it.  And yea, we bring up 1936 for good reason, but if we're making that comparison, let's make sure we illustrate the difference about how much we already know about China in comparison to what the United States really knew about Germany in 1936 that it was so easy to dupe them into thinking things were okay.

I'm not playing the "it won't make a difference" card.  I'm challenging those in charge to set a course for beyond February 2022 that if Western nations do spur the Beijing Olympics, is that it?  Or is there something that follows that?  As you said, a boycott is a protest, so does that protest continue and if so, how?  I don't necessarily expect you to have answer to that, but someone needs to answer that question.

You're somewhat making my point for me here.  How strong of a message would it be for major corporations to stop spending their money in China as opposed to government sanctions.  Many companies don't have the balls to say no to China.  Imagine if they actually did and how much more that would resonate than an athlete boycott.

yes, yes. we're taking two pages to make the same points.

you want to fix the world with a solution.

i want to send china and the world a message. they'll kill canadians anyway. why give them a PR coup to boot? the answer is, don't.

your argument is, all things being realistic and equal, it's better to let the athletes compete. mine is that it is more moral to keep them home. why does canada's morality have to be tied to actionable consequences? why can't canada just be moral for the sake of being moral and on the right side of history? imagine yours being the only country to boycott the 1936 olympics because of the treatment of the jews. well, you'd say, someone saw the writing on the wall.

i suppose it's a difference of opinion. i don't know how we're going to solve china's larger problems without a united west putting its foot down.

just food for thought for when you're trying to go to sleep and the pills haven't kicked in yet. 

i imagine you take a lot of pills with that racing mind of yours. 

Edited by krow
you think i know how to do multiple fucking quotes? cmon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Were they really through?  The majority of Africa boycotted the `76 Olympics in Montreal.  Did anything change in the years following?  Not really until years later when the IOC took matters into their own once South Africa started changing their their own tune.  Don't know how much we can credit boycotts for spurring that on

I think you underestimate the effect that total sporting isolation had on the fight against Apartheid. From purely the US perspective, South Africa’s Olympic ban was likely your major exposure to it. But the Commonwealth was at the sharp end of the boycott debate, particularly in Rugby and Cricket, from the 1960s all through to the 1990s. All through those decades, particularly in the UK, Australia and NZ, boycotting South Africa on the sports fields was a red hot and controversial issue, to be point of provoking violent riots when Rugby diehards persisted with rebel tours. The Montreal boycott was all about NZ’s continuing Rugby contacts with SA. It may not have stooped Apartheid in its tracks then and there, but within a few years, by the early 1980s, NZ was obliged to end any of those remaining contacts. Sure, Commonwealth economic sanctions played a part too, but sport played a huge role in isolating SA. Nelson Mandela spoke of how hated Rugby, the Afrikaner passion, was amongst he and his fellow prisoners, and it’s telling how his blessing of SA’s 1995 World Cup was such a major factor in his efforts to build bridges and build reconciliation in the new SA,

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Here's the issue I have with that logic though.  I think we all agree here that the IOC made a horrible mistake in awarding another Olympics to China and we know they'll do anything and everything they can to avoid addressing China's record on human rights.  But it's really hard for say, Australia to make the case that they disapprove of the IOC when they just signed a contract to host an Olympics.  Likewise for Canada which has eyes on a Winter Olympics in the not too distant future.  So it sends a mixed message for a country to say that the IOC needs to do a better job of picking hosts and then asking that same IOC that they want to be a host.

Where’s the mixed messaging? Are we really talking about the morality of staging and attending the games in one of the most brutal regimes in existence today, and and then putting that in equivalence to the hosting hopes of Australia and Canada? If there are consequences, then so be it. If Brisbane were stripped of the games or Canada snubbed in hostings in the future, then that’s probably not an organisation we’d want to be part of. I’d guess we’d get a fair bit of sympathy and support. If China was to boycott tit-for-tat a la the USSR and LA84, well then, good! I wan’t be crying. And I could see that happen. We’re talking about China, a regime that lashes out spite out at any nation that dares comment on its internal affairs, and in the next breath initiates human rights charges against Australia for its refugee policies (which I’m not saying are defensible, but are not on the level of literal genocide). 

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, krow said:

i don't know that we all do. certainly not everyone in the west follows the news like we do. olympics draw a lot of attention to issues — remember that old marketing adage that it takes 7 impressions to leave a mark on someone. the olympics, after all, are a PR stunt as much as they are an athletic competition. 

So if they draw attention to issues, then shouldn't we want athletes to attend so the world's media can go into China (if they so choose) and point their cameras at Chinese officials at the 1 time they're not going to be able to act as thought nothing's wrong?  Of course the Olympics are a massive PR stunt, but pretending like they don't exist isn't the way to go, IMO.  Because if any country does go that route, the only news anyone will get is the version that's largely filtered through social media.  Which makes it a lot easier for the bad guys to control the messaging.

18 minutes ago, krow said:

yes, yes. we're taking two pages to make the same points.

you want to fix the world with a solution.

i want to send china and the world a message. they'll kill canadians anyway. why give them a PR coup to boot? the answer is, don't.

your argument is, all things being realistic and equal, it's better to let the athletes compete. mine is that it is more moral to keep them home. why does canada's morality have to be tied to actionable consequences? why can't canada just be moral for the sake of being moral and on the right side of history? imagine yours being the only country to boycott the 1936 olympics because of the treatment of the jews. well, you'd say, someone saw the writing on the wall.

i suppose it's a difference of opinion. i don't know how we're going to solve china's larger problems without a united west putting its foot down.

just food for thought for when you're trying to go to sleep and the pills haven't kicked in yet. 

i imagine you take a lot of pills with that racing mind of yours. 

At least you can edit.  I refuse to pay money for the privilege of editing posts.  But that's me.  And note from the record that I'm Jewish, so maybe I'm not the right person here to be invoking the Holocaust with on here.  I guess though if we're at the point of cheap insults, perhaps the time for a constructive debate is over anyway.

I want to send China a message to.  But I also hope that message will result in action and not be received by China as "okay Quaker, we're still over here committing mass genocide, but thanks for calling."  You're 100% right it's a moral issue.  I know there are a lot of athletes out there wrestling with that topic, including.. Shiffrin says should not have to choose between 'morals' and job to compete at Games

That should be an individual decision though, not one that is made on their behalf by their country forcing a decision for them.  Morality should belong to the individual, not for a nation collectively to make that statement on behalf of everyone.  When we look back at the 1980 boycott, what was the outcome of that?  A few hundred athletes had the rug pulled out from under them and their place at an Olympics was sacrificed on their behalf.  And for what?

No, my mind isn't racing.  I may lack some objectivity on this board because unlike much of the crowd here, I actually like the Olympics for the athletic competition they are, not as a vehicle for ceremonies and logos and "the look of the games" where sports are just the background noise behind all that.  So yes, maybe that's bias on my part where I'll default to wanting athletes to compete.  I'll still make that argument though that it's potentially more useful to send athletes and media there and attempt to get China to answer for their actions rather than to try and spoil their party and make them suffer a PR hit.  Now if the majority of the Western world all got together and collectively decided to say no to China, perhaps that's a different story.  But that's not going to happen, barring China slipping further down the rabbit hole tan they already are 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'll still make that argument though that it's potentially more useful to send athletes and media there and attempt to get China to answer for their actions rather than to try and spoil their party and make them suffer a PR hit.  

I swallowed that argument in 2008, and look how well that worked. I believed, and argued here, that the Olympics were putting a spotlight on China that they’d be forced to confront, that a growing middle class in China would inevitably eventually have them embrace a more democratic path. I believed it was more useful to engage with them than isolate them. I gave China the benefit of the doubt and believed their promises that they would honour overseas media access and not censor their news. 

And since then, we’ve got the Great Firewall, Google kowtowing to the CCOP’s wish’s if they want to operate over there, a not-even-so gradual but overt and unapologetic tightening of their autocracy, and the knee-jerk Wolf Warrior reaction to any person or government that has the temerity to comment on them anything but favourably. For the first time since Mao was alive, Australia has NO correspondents on ground in China - our last ABC journalists had to literally flee abruptly when told they were about to be imminently arrested. And we’ve got frickin concentration camps!

So, yes, I’ve seen us play the “reasonable” strategy before, and seen the fruits that that bore. As Krow says, it’s a very clear moral stand now.

PS: if I’m editing these are lot, it’s mainly to correct typos. I HATE spellcheck and auto-correction on iPads.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

So if they draw attention to issues, then shouldn't we want athletes to attend so the world's media can go into China (if they so choose) and point their cameras at Chinese officials at the 1 time they're not going to be able to act as thought nothing's wrong? 

no.

Quote

At least you can edit.  I refuse to pay money for the privilege of editing posts.  But that's me. 

i paid $15 in 2004 — because i'm a princess and my parents were paying my credit card in college — and rob gave me premium for life for being one of the first 15 to sign up for it lol. surely the fun i've had on this forum is worth $15.

Quote

That should be an individual decision though, not one that is made on their behalf by their country forcing a decision for them.  Morality should belong to the individual, not for a nation collectively to make that statement on behalf of everyone. 

also no.

Quote

No, my mind isn't racing. 

hm.

Quote

I may lack some objectivity on this board because unlike much of the crowd here, I actually like the Olympics for the athletic competition they are, not as a vehicle for ceremonies and logos and "the look of the games" where sports are just the background noise behind all that.  So yes, maybe that's bias on my part where I'll default to wanting athletes to compete.  

i love the sports too — it's why i signed up for GB. but i don't want canadian athletes to be put in a position where they must choose between their livelihoods and their national principles. they are hardly objective enough to make that decision and it should be made by their government. the olympics are more than the athlete, and the athlete must fundamentally understand that (although it's lost on the russians, i hold north americans to a higher standard). 

ok, well good talk, i understand your desire for a complete olympics but i disagree and i think that's enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, krow said:

i love the sports too — it's why i signed up for GB. but i don't want canadian athletes to be put in a position where they must choose between their livelihoods and their national principles. they are hardly objective enough to make that decision and it should be made by their government. the olympics are more than the athlete, and the athlete must fundamentally understand that (although it's lost on the russians, i hold north americans to a higher standard). 

ok, well good talk, i understand your desire for a complete olympics but i disagree and i think that's enough. 

Good to see you mastered the multi quote function.  Bravo

So you don't think individuals should make a decision and their government should make it for them because they're not objective enough?  That's a really odd take right there.  But whatever.

I know we both agree that China is doing really shitty things (and has been for a long time) and needs to be made to do less shitty things.  How we get there.. yea, don't think we'll see eye to eye on that one anytime soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...