what part of they are chinese citizens was hard for you to understand?

i understand that perfectly, which is why i responded sarcastically to a point trying to connect this to TikTok's "argument" re their Singaporean CEO by pasting an infamous digression on that very topic.

seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.

▲

IncreasePosts 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Some people are ethnonationalists, and the CEO of Tiktok, while he is Singaporean, is also ethnically Chinese. It seems pretty clear that is what the line of questioning was about, and just saying you are Singaporean and not Chinese does not answer the unstated question. Like his politics or not, it is obvious that Tom Cotton is not an idiot who does not understand that Singapore is not in China (like conversation was interpreted on the Internet when it happened)

▲

pear01 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the American ethnicity? Should all other ethnicities be subjected to the same round of questioning before the United States Congress?

I'm not sure why you are defending Tom Cotton's intelligence. Rule #1 of asking questions in a courtroom or a congressional setting is to anticipate the answers. Put more strongly, it is often said you should not ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If he thought he was going to elicit some Chinese "ethnonationalist" response, then he failed, and as such, was idiotic in pursuing this line of questioning. I agree with you he knows Singapore is not in China. That's not what makes his line of questioning stupid. It is that he essentially asks the same question multiple times and gets the same answer. The reason he looks dumb is because his line of questioning is dumb.

If he had some evidence the CEO was an "ethnonationalist" he could have confronted him with that. He doesn't and he didn't, so instead he committed himself to a bs line of questioning that ended up embarrassing him. If there is an unstated question as you claim, he could have asked it directly. He didn't. Why is that?

What did he achieve by this line of questioning, besides making himself look like a fool? This is his one job, he's one of only 100 people (really less) who gets these opportunities and this is the best he can do? Why are you making excuses for him? Demand better from your representatives.

I should note I am really straining to be charitable to your view. I think the real unstated, obvious subtext here is a white guy from Arkansas with the last name "Cotton" is openly trading in the same type of racist dog whistling his ancestors more than likely engaged in. I mean if we are just going to randomly accuse people of being ethnonationalists why not start with the Senator? Since you see no problem with crafting lines of inquiry based on your rather broad statement that "some people are ethnonationalists" (ok... and?) then maybe we should start with the Senator himself. I mean, why not? What makes the Tiktok CEO a more compelling suspect? I think it's obvious why the clip resonated beyond the feeble questioning - it's because many Americans can empathize with the CEO in this case. If the Senator had done his basic homework he would know Singapore doesn't allow dual citizens, so he already had his answer at the first question, which he would have already known if he had done any basic research. They are supposed to prepare for these things you know.

I mean I really am just disappointed in you, as an American citizen. The idea you need to have your representatives ask these kinds of questions in the United States on the off chance someone is an ethnonationalist... it just feels ironic. You should probably read up on your history most people who ask these types of questions from the seats of power in the United States Senate have historically been the ethnonationalists. As I stated if Cotton had evidence of his views, he could have raised them. Or asked about them directly. Instead he essentially asked the same question about his citizenship numerous times. Why?

I appreciate you replying in what I take to be good faith though. I don't mean to turn it into a question of race/ethnicity alone, which I gather will only alienate you. Then again, you are the one who brought up "ethnonationalism". I'm not even sure I know what exactly you mean by that term, but I find your invocation of it here to be suspect. But I am trying to be charitable to your position. The point remains his line of questioning did not clear up any "ethnonationalist" notions, but honestly I felt I had to edit this and be more straightforward with my criticism of your rejoinder. I just think you might want to consider why this clip resonated, instead of the straw man you seemed to posit (internet thinks Cotton thinks Singapore is in China).

▲

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact you shouldn't ask questions you don't know the answer to is one of the indicators that the judicial and legislative systems is broken. That's a principle that is hostile to inquisitive and curious reasoning.

▲

pear01 2 hours ago | parent [-]

a cross examination or a congressional hearing is not a university lecture.

would you like your liberty to be at risk just so a judge or a senator can satisfy their curiosity at your expense? do you have any idea what the penalties can be for failing to comply with a judicial or congressional subpoena? is the penalty of perjury consistent with "inquisitive and curious reasoning"? or is that an instrument of "hostility"?

it would not be a free country if the judicial and legislative systems were equated with "inquisitive and curious reasoning". if they want to serve that function they can give up their power to deprive people of their liberty.

▲

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If you want to flip the script and attack subpoenas, sure. Involuntary subpoena power is hostile in and of itself. It's form of indentured servitude or temporary slavery without even an accusation of crime or wrongdoing. I think it's morally abhorrent and I am not advocating for violence enforced subpoena power of those not even under indictment of misconduct to exist. These subpoenas themselves are not an exhibition of being 'free' as you proudly use the word.

I don't see how what you're saying as attacking what I'm saying. You're attacking involuntary subpoena power. I don't disagree with you. It's an interesting red herring, and I find it an interesting topic, so I'm happy to discuss it but not under the pretenses you are weakening my argument. But it's not impossible to get rid of subpoena power and still have judicial or legislative powers, even if you argue the judicial system will be less effective or some such (personally I think the benefits of being 'free' outweigh the advantages of subpoena).

	▲	pear01 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, I simply don't know what point you are making. If you are trying to propose some alternative system that is one thing. I'm merely clarifying that your statement does not make sense in the context of the system we already have. It is not meant to be a red herring. The reason that adage about "don't ask questions..." even exists among trial lawyers is because of the state's great power over its own citizens (and others it has authority over). Now I guess maybe what you are saying is that the state shouldn't have these powers, and therefore we should be able to more freely ask and answer questions in courts and congress, then fine. But I'm not sure I agree with that or I want to engage with whatever you proposed alternative is. I think simply it doesn't comport to equate some kind "hostility to inquisitive and curious reasoning" to the adage, because the point is that the courts are not a venue for such a thing. Now if you think they should be, that is a separate argument. I don't see how any institution that has the power to deprive people of their liberty could ever be a venue for "inquisitive and curious reasoning". Which is why I said the courts and congress are not the universities. In fact, there is very good historical literature that elucidates the role of the university as something of a sovereign entity in the Western tradition given this almost definitional tension with the institutions of the state. In reading the subtext in your comment, I think we may agree in more than a few areas, but we are just coming at this from slightly different directions. Again, the adage came up with respect to Cotton's performance as an examiner in the context where people in his position have great power to damage those sitting before him. It's an adversarial system by design. If you want to redesign it fine, but the adage makes sense given this is the system. It applies to Cotton in this case as well, even if he is the state here, because naturally even though there will not be any real consequences for him, he still falls under the same risks re the success of making an argument in this kind of venue if you ask a question without considering the answer you will be eliciting. I also don't really think him asking essentially the same question about his citizenship multiple times is a species of "inquisitive and curious reasoning" anyway. So while I think I may sympathize with your general notions I'm not sure I really know what you are getting at.