this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
223 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm guessing Tom Cotton thinks, "they all look alike."

[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Cotton looks like pretty much every other Republican senator to me, except maybe a little younger. All these R WASPs are the same to me.

[–] tpyo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I never realized how similar wasps were to each other. Though I actually love the ones that fly with their own wings and wouldn't mind being able to call an exterminator for the ones who have to use planes

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"so, are you Chinese or Japanese?"

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

"Are you telling me Russians and Indians are also Asians?"

[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

as much as i hat how tiktok runs their platform, as well as the CCP and how they run the country, that senator is an asshole trying to make it about him being chinese and all of the discourse attached to that topic.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

He's not chinese. Singapore and China are separate countries.

[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

yes exactly, that's the point

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 2 points 9 months ago

I know. You made it sound as if what was wrong was trying to make it about his nationality and not the fact that the guy isn't even from China.

[–] WarlockLawyer@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think the poster meant ethnically since the CEO is only a few generations removed from China.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I think the poster meant ethnically since the CEO is only a few generations removed from China.

Tom Cotton is only a few generations from his Confederate soldier ancestor, a couple more from his slave owning ancestor. source

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Che_Donkey@lemmy.ml 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Let's see how it plays out...

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Should've gotten Cotton Hill. He'd be an asshole but at least he'd get the nationality right.

[–] ratman150@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He's Laotian aren't you mister Khan?

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ah Cotton, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold... in space!

[–] observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca 16 points 9 months ago

While it's a stupid question which he wouldn't have asked a white guy, it's not wholly illegitimate. Shou Zi Chew has major business ties to Mainland China, which is not a secret.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What the actual fuck. Was he trying to get him to go all CCP on him and denounce the massacre at Tiananmen Square? What a fucking racist piece of shit.

[–] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca 23 points 9 months ago

yea, he expected him not to be willing to discuss Tienanmen Square, since no one in china would want to discuss the genocide.

Of course, considering hes not Chinese, he had not problem.

[–] grimsolem@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago

Someone should repost this to a cringe sub

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Holy shit that hurts to watch. Glad to see bald-faced McCarthyism in government again. I look forward to my imprisonment for either being a Jewish communist or because I'm in an interracial marriage. /s

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Woah buddy, pick a lane. Save some self-righteousness for the rest of us. /s

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Sorry. You have the sharing stick now. Remember, today's theme is "defeated sarcasm."

load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] pycorax@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

As a Singaporean myself, I'm not sure what the gotcha here is? Just because you're Singaporean doesn't mean you won't have connections with the CCP. There's a case that happened recently where a Singaporean spied on the US for China.

It doesn't help that Singaporean Chinese have been the target of psyops from China. It's not an uncommon train of thought from China that all ethnic Chinese regardless of their nationality owe their loyalty to China.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Even if he was. Who cares? Why would it matter

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

The GOP is worried that their attacks on Taylor Swift is driving away younger voters, so they're going to pivot to a TikTok ban

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure they're trying to make "we need more control over the internet" into a national security issue, similar to during the cold war. So basically tie him in with a party people in the US really dislike.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

Pretty sure they’re trying to make “we need more control over the internet” into a national security issue

This is exactly it. Section 230 already has limitations, if a site fails to act when notified they lose the protections. However, the government have completely failed in their responsibility to actually enforce it. Instead, we get the classic "think of the children!!" bullshit while they try and rip away key parts of how the internet functions.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It wouldn't. Just like how the Senator's next question about Tiananmen Square and follow up false statement about "hundreds of thousands" of people dying there also has nothing to do with it.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


During Wednesday's tense congressional testimony over online safety for children, Sen. Tom Cotton repeatedly asked Singaporean TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew if he's ever been a part of the Chinese Communist Party.

Chew was joined by four other social media companies' CEOs Wednesday for a combative hearing on protecting children online in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Other companies represented included X, Meta, Snap, and Discord, all of which have come under fire for failing to protect children from online predators, harassment, or exploitation, among other issues.

"The worries about Chinese influence through the parent company are harder to put to bed," Jamie MacEwan, senior media analyst at Enders Analysis, previously told Business Insider.

"So long as ByteDance is the owner, it will be difficult to convince politicians that managers in Beijing are not exercising undue operational control, or accessing sensitive data, whatever internal measures have been put in place," MacEwan said.

During another tense hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in March 2023, Zaveri noted, lawmakers bungled Chew's name, pressed him on whether he had ties to China, and failed to give him a chance to respond during rants on the Chinese Communist Party.


The original article contains 325 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 39%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!