Is There a Tipping Point for China and Human Rights Violations???

[tshile]

This topic is a little our of my wheel house 

 

seems like war means world war 3. So that doesn’t seem like a good option

 

you have to get the entire international community to care and cut China out. They care greatly about their economic standing. Take it away and squash all their progress. 
 

that won’t happen because of things mentioned about how everyone uses China but also because we’re not really in a good spot for organizing international support on that level. For quite a few reasons. 

[mcsluggo]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:16 AM, No Excuses said:

 

It has been out there for a while. I wrote a report during graduate school on the Chinese government harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners, so their engaging in this practice is at least many years old now. 

 

Rumors were abundant at the time that Uyghurs were being targeted as well, but the evidence was minimal. 

 

Anyways, China will continue to get away with this because for multi-national corporations, access to Chinese markets is far more important than human rights violations. 

 

Take Google for instance. Google loves posturing and refuses to work with the Pentagon on AI programs, but they have no problem developing a highly censored search engine for the Chinese gov. This is Silicon Valley in a nutshell. Somehow the US military bad, but developing high tech programs and hardware for the worlds most repressive technocracy is cool. They can all get bent.

 

The strongest resistance to this kind of stuff will almost entirely come from within China. If the mainland wasn’t so horribly repressed, scenes throughout China would resemble what’s happening in Hong Kong right now.

 

On 9/29/2019 at 8:41 AM, Destino said:

They are a super power, control a huge (and growing) portion of the world's economy, and the west is really only interested in talking about how the west is the root of all evil in the world.  There is no interest in challenging China.  They will do whatever the hell they want and begin exporting their style of government eventually, because that's what super powers grow to do. 

 

 

 

 

these sound so very whiny...   and like utter crap.   People DEFINITELY are more interested in violations by the Gov of China than whatever "root of all evil" bs you both are jabbering about.....

 

but ...then 

 

 

On 9/29/2019 at 8:47 AM, BenningRoadSkin said:

All of the major powers are in engaged in human rights violations. China is just up front and unrepentant with there’s because they know the other major powers can’t talk.

 

 

.. there is THIS steaming load of garbage.   So.. who knows?

 

[No Excuses]

21 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

these sound so very whiny...   and like utter crap.   People DEFINITELY are more interested in violations by the Gov of China than whatever "root of all evil" bs you both are jabbering about.....

 

I am sure people care, but there is practically nothing being done about this. A litany of governments from primarily Muslim countries and several others have recently put statements saying the Chinese governments treatment of Uyghurs is perfectly fine because they seek Chinese investments and good relations with them. A large chunk of the surveillance tech in Xinjiang came from Western companies.

 

Western governments have done zilch to curb the situation.

 

My girlfriends family is currently in detention in Xinjiang and we know first hand that there is practically no avenue for help or relief. Reading this may seem like “utter crap” or “bs” to you, but it is lived reality for American Uyghurs like my girlfriend who can’t even place a simple phone call back home at this point.

Edited September 30, 2019 by No Excuses

[mcsluggo]

16 hours ago, tshile said:

This topic is a little our of my wheel house 

 

seems like war means world war 3. So that doesn’t seem like a good option

 

you have to get the entire international community to care and cut China out. They care greatly about their economic standing. Take it away and squash all their progress. 
 

that won’t happen because of things mentioned about how everyone uses China but also because we’re not really in a good spot for organizing international support on that level. For quite a few reasons. 

 

 

we (the USA) might be able to rally much of the world against both the human rights atrocities and the general belligerence that they are engaged in (and accelerating)... 

 

except we have a booger-eating-moron joke of a distraction as the president of the USA... who has spent just as much time antagonizing potential allies in any actions against china as he has antagonizing china.   By definition of the current power balance in the world, whatever actions that take place would HAVE to be led by the USA, but what potential allies' leader in this in their right mind would sign-up to this task with the Donald leading it?  it would be like marching to war behind Nero, blindfolded with an anvil tied around your ankle;   or like signing a blank check over to your meth-addict brother-in-law... they all KNOW that nothing good can possibly come from any action led by the Orangutan.  

 

this is the DEFINITION of a situation that requires both strong smart leadership and steady skillful diplomacy.   it makes you throw-up in your mouth even THINKING those words in the same sentence as Donald J Trump.   

 

I am loathe to  admit it...but it is true;   right now we (citizens of the world) really cannot wish-for/conceive-of/work-towards any sort of positive progress on ANY issue, large or small, facing the world.     As long as Donald J Trump is President of the United States, the only "positive" actions that can be contemplated are all defensive measures... trying to limit the damage this asshat can inflict on the long-run viability of all of the apparatus that exists in the world to potentially enact positive change (and to protect against negative change from clearly bad actors like China and Russia)  

 

 

what a ****ing sucky situaton.... 

 

[Renegade7]

@mcsluggo  This is a problem that's been growing before Trump got to office and will not go away just because he does.  While it's understandable to say Trumps plan isnt working, this isnt what this thread is about.  

 

@No Excuses I jus want to say I'm sorry to hear what you and your girlfriend are going through.  I'm sure you're both past the point of being angry and want a plan that doesnt revolve around thoughts and prayers.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Renegade7

[mcsluggo]

im not saying trump is the source of all problems in the world.. there were plenty before (including this one), and will plenty after he is gone  (including this one)

 

But i am also not just saying that Trump's "plan" for China isn't working, although it clearly isn't .... i am also saying that  NO plan on China can work as long as the big cheeto is lodged in the center of the gears of all the domestic and international mechanisms that might potentially lead to progress.   

[nonniey]

On 9/29/2019 at 6:01 AM, No Excuses said:

 

China is not upfront and how you arrive at this conclusion is beyond my understanding. We barely know the scale of atrocities happening in Xinjiang because reporters aren’t let in and the entire region is under surveillance lockdown. 

 ".........the west is the root of all evil in the world. " Benning has always followed that line.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

im not saying trump is the source of all problems in the world.. there were plenty before (including this one), and will plenty after he is gone  (including this one)

 

But i am also not just saying that Trump's "plan" for China isn't working, although it clearly isn't .... i am also saying that  NO plan on China can work as long as the big cheeto is lodged in the center of the gears of all the domestic and international mechanisms that might potentially lead to progress.   

 

And I'm saying "no ****".  Like what's the plan even if he wasnt in office is why I made the thread

[kfrankie]

The 20th century taught us many things in hindsight, including the following:

 

(1) We didn't go in hard enough or quickly enough in World War II, and if had we would have discovered and liberated the death camps sooner.

 

(2) We went in too hard in Vietnam, and after the dust settled many people believe we never should have been there.

 

(3) Communist governments inevitably result in a starving population, and many of those people also mysteriously disappear.

 

(4) Fascist governments inevitably lead to starving neighbors, many of which are killed in wars due to imperialist aggression.

 

(5) Democratic nations are capable of electing really bad leaders, some of whom take on traits of the fascist or communist governments we've seen in the past 100 years.

 

(6) America has free elections, which means we can throw out the bad leaders every 4 years or so.  We can also elect new bad leaders, but generally our citizens have been pretty responsible (at least with regard to the Presidency).

 

(7) Many fascist and communist regimes also hold free elections which are not free, but instead fixed (see October 2002 Iraq election where Saddam received 100% of the votes cast by the 11,445,638 eligible voters.  And all of the eligible voters actually cast votes, so 100% turn-out to boot! Talk about getting out the vote)

 

(8) In june of 1989, soldiers in China's People's Liberation Army military mowed down hundreds (maybe thousands??) of pro-democracy protesters with machine guns, and steamrolled a few of them with tanks. Its hard to tell how many, because all reporting of the incident was suppressed.  Not just by taking away cameras, but by shooting people with cameras. This was done at the behest of the Communist Party of China.  The same political party remains in complete control of China, with Xi Jinping being installed as the General Secretary in 2012 and leader of the Central Military Commission, which also made him the "Paramount Leader" of China (i.e. Captain Crunch).

 

(9) The Communist Party of China is the same government that instituted the infamous "one child policy" which was was enforced through forced sterilization and abortion (Talk about "keep the government off of my body" but for the opposite reason people here use that slogan), and stiff financial penalties (with exceptions).  Of course, this policy resulted in thousands of cases of infanticide, particularly of baby girls.  It was officially ended in 2015-- not 1915.  Imagine that for a moment...

 

(10) At times and for various reasons, our government must meet with and/or negotiate with the leaders of communist/fascist regimes such as China's.  Whenever we do so, criticism is sure to follow (perhaps rightly so). But hey, keep the lines of communication open.

 

(11) China would rather allow its people to starve than give in to political reforms encouraged by the West.  Sanctions through the U.N. would be a non-starter because China is a permanent member of the security council, which holds veto power over any resolution for sanctions.  Even if sanctions were imposed, its not clear what effect they would have.  China has shown the ability to self sustain, because at the end of the day the government will allow the population to starve and they still want to reduce their population by about 500 million people (mostly the ones that would be most susceptible to starvation).  The military will remain well fed and well supplied, and their R&D departments are on top of things by virtue of an extensive network of espionage. 

 

(12) That leaves the United States as the only nation with any sort of economic leverage over China, due to the extensive trade relationship.  So, tariffs anyone??

 

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, kfrankie said:

Sanctions through the U.N. would be a non-starter because China is a permanent member of the security council, which holds veto power over any resolution for sanctions.  Even if sanctions were imposed, its not clear what effect they would have.  China has shown the ability to self sustain, because at the end of the day the government will allow the population to starve and they still want to reduce their population by about 500 million people (mostly the ones that would be most susceptible to starvation).  The military will remain well fed and well supplied, and their R&D departments are on top of things by virtue of an extensive network of espionage. 

 

 

Sanctions can be imposed outside of the UN structure.  EU imposed sanctions against Russia for Ukraine.  US probably could have ralied allies to join in on sanctions against Russia for election interference.  

 

Yes, at the end of the day, whether China will capitulate to sanctions depends on them.  But one would think continuing infliction of human rights violations against Uighurs wouldn't be worth the economic hit.  Who knows.

 

But if US has to go at it alone, yes, I would support sanctions against China for human rights violations.  I wouldn't even care if we called it tariffs.

[kfrankie]

21 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Sanctions can be imposed outside of the UN structure.  EU imposed sanctions against Russia for Ukraine.  US probably could have ralied allies to join in on sanctions against Russia for election interference.  

 

Yes, at the end of the day, whether China will capitulate to sanctions depends on them.  But one would think continuing infliction of human rights violations against Uighurs wouldn't be worth the economic hit.  Who knows.

 

But if US has to go at it alone, yes, I would support sanctions against China for human rights violations.  I wouldn't even care if we called it tariffs.

 

I was being factious about the tariffs suggestion.  My ultimate point here is that if there is any country to is capable of withstanding "harsh," "severe," "long-lasting," and "over-punitive" economic sanctions it would be China.  The government has demonstrated a disregard for its own citizens in favor of political idealism, and an ability to isolate its population from the type of communication that is an every day part of our life.  China probably makes Putin jealous. There is no good solution here, and the United States cannot fix this problem.  In fact, the best solution might be to allow China to fade back into isolationism, while providing some sort of covert funding for the purpose of getting the potential victims that are not yet locked away out of the country. But how do we identify "potential" victims, who gets them out, how would they leave (the Western, Northern, Eastern, and Southern routes are not good options), and where would they ultimately go.  They can't all come here, and good luck convincing Europe to take any more Muslim refugees....  The ironic thing here is, if we could gain the support of Russia, a military solution might be plausible.  But no one wants to team up with Russia again, and assuming military action was successful Putin would be left with extensive additional leverage in that region.

 

But I'm sure China's communist regime would be fine with the idea of increased isolation.

[No Excuses]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@No Excuses I jus want to say I'm sorry to hear what you and your girlfriend are going through.  I'm sure you're both past the point of being angry and want a plan that doesnt revolve around thoughts and prayers

 

There is really no international plan that will end the atrocities in Xinjiang. Completely wiping out Uyghur culture and turning them into a captive population is central to the Belt and Road Initiative since Xinjiang connects China to the rest of Central Asia, South Asia and further into Europe.

 

As long as BRI stands to elevate China’s economy and foreign influence, they will continue on their current track. There are no amount of foreign sanctions or tariffs from the US that will do anything as long as China sees a path to international dominance through BRI and other countries are willing to play along with them. 

 

The only hope is the CCP failing internally and Hong Kong style protests spreading to the mainland. People in HK are well aware that the current repressive state of affairs in Tibet and Xinjiang is eventually everyone’s destiny under CCP rule.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kfrankie]

I'm wondering when Mongolia is going to step up to the plate and start reigning in their neighbor.  Perhaps a Mongolian airlift is the solution.  Talk about an opportunity to finally break through on the international stage.  Seriously, is Mongolia to China as Mexico is to the United States?  The best neighbor is a weak but stable one?  I guess if they were stronger or less stable, China would have already taken them over.  To reunite the ethnic groups, at least at first.

[mcsluggo]

15 hours ago, kfrankie said:

The 20th century taught us many things in hindsight, including the following:

 

(1) We didn't go in hard enough or quickly enough in World War II, and if had we would have discovered and liberated the death camps sooner.

 

(2) We went in too hard in Vietnam, and after the dust settled many people believe we never should have been there.

 

(3) Communist governments inevitably result in a starving population, and many of those people also mysteriously disappear.

 

(4) Fascist governments inevitably lead to starving neighbors, many of which are killed in wars due to imperialist aggression.

 

(5) Democratic nations are capable of electing really bad leaders, some of whom take on traits of the fascist or communist governments we've seen in the past 100 years.

 

(6) America has free elections, which means we can throw out the bad leaders every 4 years or so.  We can also elect new bad leaders, but generally our citizens have been pretty responsible (at least with regard to the Presidency).

 

(7) Many fascist and communist regimes also hold free elections which are not free, but instead fixed (see October 2002 Iraq election where Saddam received 100% of the votes cast by the 11,445,638 eligible voters.  And all of the eligible voters actually cast votes, so 100% turn-out to boot! Talk about getting out the vote)

 

(8) In june of 1989, soldiers in China's People's Liberation Army military mowed down hundreds (maybe thousands??) of pro-democracy protesters with machine guns, and steamrolled a few of them with tanks. Its hard to tell how many, because all reporting of the incident was suppressed.  Not just by taking away cameras, but by shooting people with cameras. This was done at the behest of the Communist Party of China.  The same political party remains in complete control of China, with Xi Jinping being installed as the General Secretary in 2012 and leader of the Central Military Commission, which also made him the "Paramount Leader" of China (i.e. Captain Crunch).

 

(9) The Communist Party of China is the same government that instituted the infamous "one child policy" which was was enforced through forced sterilization and abortion (Talk about "keep the government off of my body" but for the opposite reason people here use that slogan), and stiff financial penalties (with exceptions).  Of course, this policy resulted in thousands of cases of infanticide, particularly of baby girls.  It was officially ended in 2015-- not 1915.  Imagine that for a moment...

 

(10) At times and for various reasons, our government must meet with and/or negotiate with the leaders of communist/fascist regimes such as China's.  Whenever we do so, criticism is sure to follow (perhaps rightly so). But hey, keep the lines of communication open.

 

(11) China would rather allow its people to starve than give in to political reforms encouraged by the West.  Sanctions through the U.N. would be a non-starter because China is a permanent member of the security council, which holds veto power over any resolution for sanctions.  Even if sanctions were imposed, its not clear what effect they would have.  China has shown the ability to self sustain, because at the end of the day the government will allow the population to starve and they still want to reduce their population by about 500 million people (mostly the ones that would be most susceptible to starvation).  The military will remain well fed and well supplied, and their R&D departments are on top of things by virtue of an extensive network of espionage. 

 

(12) That leaves the United States as the only nation with any sort of economic leverage over China, due to the extensive trade relationship.  So, tariffs anyone??

 

 

communism (as referred to in #3) is an economic model...  it resulted in some disastrous economic collapses (and starvation) under Mao.... but it requires some real squinting and imagination to apply that term to China 2019.   There are still many lingering residual state-owned enterprises--- all of the least efficient and most primitive ones--- but mostly the state would LIKE to be able to get those dinosaurs off the hands if it could.... the state interference in more modern industries is MUCH more about authoritarian control than "collectivism".     

 

The 2019 government of china calling itself "communist" is more akin to a dude in Manhattan wearing a Che Guerra hemp/silk-bend t-shirt as he sips his $12 cappuccino than it is to any real economic ideology... it is a fashion statement facade, but the facade is maintained so they don't have to restructure their authoritarian avenues of control ....  also the old state enterprises and collectives are useful (extremely expensive but politically useful and expedient) to keep rural communities and other economic backwaters occupied and effectively suppressed   (the 500 million you say that the Gov of China would like to "reduce"?   but i have no idea where/what you are talking about there)

 

Authoritarianism is a much better description of China 2019 than Communism... even fascism would probably be more accurate.       

[kfrankie]

3 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

communism (as referred to in #3) is an economic model...  it resulted in some disastrous economic collapses (and starvation) under Mao.... but it requires some real squinting and imagination to apply that term to China 2019.   There are still many lingering residual state-owned enterprises--- all of the least efficient and most primitive ones--- but mostly the state would LIKE to be able to get those dinosaurs off the hands if it could.... the state interference in more modern industries is MUCH more about authoritarian control than "collectivism".     

 

The 2019 government of china calling itself "communist" is more akin to a dude in Manhattan wearing a Che Guerra hemp/silk-bend t-shirt as he sips his $12 cappuccino than it is to any real economic ideology... it is a fashion statement facade, but the facade is maintained so they don't have to restructure their authoritarian avenues of control ....  also the old state enterprises and collectives are useful (extremely expensive but politically useful and expedient) to keep rural communities and other economic backwaters occupied and effectively suppressed   (the 500 million you say that the Gov of China would like to "reduce"?   but i have no idea where/what you are talking about there)

 

Authoritarianism is a much better description of China 2019 than Communism... even fascism would probably be more accurate.       

 

Well, there are some who would say that there's never really been a true communist government employed anywhere at any time.  Which is why a litany of countries kept trying it, only to repeatedly fail, after years of violent collectivism, famine, and the destruction of religious institutions.  In China, there is no private ownership of land, the State controls all media, and freedom of religion means that you're free to practice in one of the state-created religious organizations.  Otherwise, you'll be arrested, hunted down, harassed, maybe killed.  Which is a big reason why we're seeing the persecution of these people in Xinjiiang. Sounds pretty Marxist to me, even if those in control have condoned a level of free enterprise (capitalism!! ahhh!!!!) in order to develop infrastructure and economic power.  But capitalism is nothing more than a power tool to CCP, and the pendulum will swing back to Marxism.  The communist economic model, by its very nature, requires an authoritarian government designed to control every aspect of life and suppress opposing viewpoints.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to successfully maintain the model because it stands in direct opposition to the natural human desire for freedom.

Edited October 1, 2019 by kfrankie

[Renegade7]

19 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

There is really no international plan that will end the atrocities in Xinjiang. Completely wiping out Uyghur culture and turning them into a captive population is central to the Belt and Road Initiative since Xinjiang connects China to the rest of Central Asia, South Asia and further into Europe.

 

As long as BRI stands to elevate China’s economy and foreign influence, they will continue on their current track. There are no amount of foreign sanctions or tariffs from the US that will do anything as long as China sees a path to international dominance through BRI and other countries are willing to play along with them. 

 

The only hope is the CCP failing internally and Hong Kong style protests spreading to the mainland. People in HK are well aware that the current repressive state of affairs in Tibet and Xinjiang is eventually everyone’s destiny under CCP rule.

 

A stark reminder that the good guys don't always win.

 

You follow this more then a lot of us, would getting other countries to halt BRI in its tracks, stop doing business with chinese companies with controlled by the government, and forcing multinationals to move their manufacturing out the country wouldnt be enough?

 

Is really the only way to do this is hope for a violent revolution in a country that would make the Syrian Civil War look like Disney on Ice?  Iran had the electoral infrastructure to allow for moderates to be president, that suprised me, China doesnt have that.  I'm not sure what giving China the North Korea treatment would look like given it isnt working either. 

 

Granted, NK is dependent on China for survival and that's probably why, I'm not sold would step into that role to help China the way China is trying to dominant their relationship.  As usual, they arent really friends, jus want similar things.

[mcsluggo]

4 hours ago, kfrankie said:

 

Well, there are some who would say that there's never really been a true communist government employed anywhere at any time.  Which is why a litany of countries kept trying it, only to repeatedly fail, after years of violent collectivism, famine, and the destruction of religious institutions.  In China, there is no private ownership of land, the State controls all media, and freedom of religion means that you're free to practice in one of the state-created religious organizations.  Otherwise, you'll be arrested, hunted down, harassed, maybe killed.  Which is a big reason why we're seeing the persecution of these people in Xinjiiang. Sounds pretty Marxist to me, even if those in control have condoned a level of free enterprise (capitalism!! ahhh!!!!) in order to develop infrastructure and economic power.  But capitalism is nothing more than a power tool to CCP, and the pendulum will swing back to Marxism. 

 

there has also never been a truly capitalist government... and every factor you have described above is authoritarianism 

 

4 hours ago, kfrankie said:

The communist economic model, by its very nature, requires an authoritarian government designed to control every aspect of life and suppress opposing viewpoints.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to successfully maintain the model because it stands in direct opposition to the natural human desire for freedom.

 

Im not particularly a fan of most socialism  (because of efficiency).... but it is a load of crap to say that it will by its very nature lead inexorably to authoritarianism, unless you actually get toward the mythical "true" communism... pure government control of all means of production.   I would imagine that pure capitalism would pretty quickly look authoritarian as well... as completely unregulated power ALSO congeals into the hands of a few.

 

  Northern Europe's flirtations with socialism certainly have not led to authoritarianism.   It has usually just led back towards more market focus when growth stagnates too much...  countries with strong democratic foundations can exist in a wide swath of the middle between the unicorns (pure-ish communism or pure-ish capitalism).    But it is a popular boogey-man to pretend that any move toward socialism is equal to a move towards the Khmer Rouge.

 

 

Sure... there could ALWAYS be backsliding back to maoism........ but China's problems in 1975 were both communism and authoritarianism.... china's problems in 2019 are authoritarianism, absent that backsliding.    

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by mcsluggo

[kfrankie]

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

 

there has also never been a truly capitalist government... and every factor you have described above is authoritarianism 

 

 

Im not particularly a fan of most socialism  (because of efficiency).... but it is a load of crap to say that it will by its very nature lead inexorably to authoritarianism, unless you actually get toward the mythical "true" communism... pure government control of all means of production.   I would imagine that pure capitalism would pretty quickly look authoritarian as well... as completely unregulated power ALSO congeals into the hands of a few.

 

  Northern Europe's flirtations with socialism certainly have not led to authoritarianism.   It has usually just led back towards more market focus when growth stagnates too much...  countries with strong democratic foundations can exist in a wide swath of the middle between the unicorns (pure-ish communism or pure-ish capitalism).    But it is a popular boogey-man to pretend that any move toward socialism is equal to a move towards the Khmer Rouge.

 

 

Sure... there could ALWAYS be backsliding back to maoism........ but China's problems in 1975 were both communism and authoritarianism.... china's problems in 2019 are authoritarianism, absent that backsliding.    

 

 

I appreciate the back and forth.  Problem with this forum in general is that there are not enough thoughtful conservative voices.  I simply don't have the time to continue to hold down the fort.  Then again, its my fault for entering the fray but I though I could bring some balance to the discussion based on the perspectives I have gained.  Here's my point on socialism vs. capitalism, and perhaps its a selfish one-- I can say with confidence that I have worked incredibly hard over the course of the past 20 years to achieve a certain level of success in my profession, against nearly insurmountable odds, and having to pay for most of it on my own.  I like to think of myself as being generous, but I simply cannot get on board with a socialist platform.  With that Tailgate, I'm out...  I might venture into some of the movie threads though.  See some of you in the Stadium!!

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by visionary

[SkinInsite]

NBA like any other large corporation doesn't might a little blood on their money.

[visionary]

 

[No Excuses]

The NBA is doing exactly what I posted on the first page, which is prioritizing $$ and access to the Chinese market. This is pretty much every multinational corporation looking to operate in China, a stipulation for which is to ignore the politics of the most oppressive government since Nazi Germany.

 

What a shameless, sad state of affairs for human rights where dribbling a ball takes precedence over standing up for people’s freedom.

Edited October 7, 2019 by No Excuses

[spjunkies]

I know it'll never happen, but a big part of me is hoping there willbe a fan boycott due to the NBA being so damn spineless. 

 

This situation really has me ticked.