←back to thread

Apple Hides Taiwan Flag in Hong Kong

(blog.emojipedia.org)
1456 points pulisse | 5 comments | 07 Oct 19 16:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.262s | source
Show context
yungcoder ◴[08 Oct 19 00:27 UTC] No.21187453[source]▶
Between this and the NBA's capitulation to making the Rockets' GM retract his statements on Hong Kong, at what point does appeasement just become acceptance of China's behavior? Sure, from the individual business' perspective they don't want to risk alienating the Chinese government and losing the Chinese market, but if China sees that they can get their way by simply threatening foreign companies then it will just embolden them to push for more concessions down the road. Quite frankly this all stinks of 1930s European appeasement policy and we all know how that turned out.
replies(13): >>21187691 #>>21187697 #>>21187713 #>>21187714 #>>21187719 #>>21187761 #>>21187898 #>>21187927 #>>21188093 #>>21188535 #>>21188658 #>>21188814 #>>21189201 #
1. everdev ◴[08 Oct 19 01:49 UTC] No.21187898[source]▶
> at what point does appeasement just become acceptance of China's behavior?

This seems to be US policy since Nixon's visit to China. The difference is now we're just more open about it.

replies(2): >>21188275 #>>21188735 #
2. Causality1 ◴[08 Oct 19 03:02 UTC] No.21188275[source]▶
Someday we may regard those "achievements" as the worst strategic mistake by any sitting US president.
replies(2): >>21188678 #>>21188855 #
3. yumraj ◴[08 Oct 19 04:08 UTC] No.21188678[source]▶
Someday? I think we already do.
4. Analemma_ ◴[08 Oct 19 04:20 UTC] No.21188735[source]▶
I think this is as much a "business thing" as a "US policy" thing, and it's been going on much longer than the Nixon administration. IBM sold Nazi Germany the tabulators that powered the Holocaust, Chiquita (then United Fruit) ran slave plantations well into the 50's, et cetera.

Don't expect corporations to stand up for what's right, especially overseas; you're always going to be disappointed.

5. lainga ◴[08 Oct 19 04:47 UTC] No.21188855[source]▶
It wasn't a one-and-done deal between Kissinger and Mao on the first visit. While I think it's fair to assess the US's 1972-(2016? 2017?) policy toward China as regrettable overall, blame must also be put on the Carter (giving the PRC a waiver on the Jackson-Vanik amendment, 1980), Reagan (continuing those waivers), Bush Sr. (rejecting repeated Congressional motions to end that waiver after Tiananmen Square, 1989 and every year of the '90s), and Clinton (permanent normal trade relations, 2000) administrations. Successive administrations seemed to be fairly consistent on keeping China's access to US and world markets intact.