85
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Summary

Brazilian authorities uncovered "slavery-like" conditions at BYD’s factory construction site in Bahia, rescuing 163 Chinese workers subjected to withheld passports, withheld wages, and unsanitary conditions.

The site, managed by contractor Jinjiang Group, was shut down, and BYD faces scrutiny despite its promises to cooperate.

The case highlights tensions between Chinese investment and local labor standards, sparking debates in Brazil and China over worker rights.

Experts see this as an example for Chinese investors to respect Brazil's independent judiciary while noting it won’t deter future Chinese investments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

It sure as hell looks like that’s what you did.

[-] rah@feddit.uk -3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

looks like

To you. Maybe re-read what I've written.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Okay.

You say that as if Western nations aren’t themselves brutal, oppressive and exploitative.

Still looks like "What about the Western nations? No one is completely blameless." To me.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

"What about the Western nations? No one is completely blameless."

That would only make sense if I had introduced the concept of Western nations. OP did that, not me.

Maybe re-read not just what I wrote, but the whole thread.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Okay, I've re-read the thread.

It still looks like you're both engaging in whataboutism to me. You still haven't explained how this is not implying that no one is completely blameless, making the argument invalid.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

It still looks like you're both engaging in whataboutism to me.

shrug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason ?

You still haven't explained how this is not implying that ...

It's not on me to show that what I've said is not something you think it is, it's on you to show that what I've said is something you think it is.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

You're denying you're engaging in whataboutism, so yes it is on you. You have made a claim now.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

You have made a claim now.

It's you who made the claim that I am engaging in "whataboutism". It's on you to show that what you've said is true.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

I already did. More than once. And then you made the claim that you were not. So the burden of proof is now on you. It's not my fault if you made a claim you can't back up.

Incidentally, you haven't even bothered explaining what you did mean if you weren't engaging in whataboutism and I think we both know why.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 57 minutes ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago)

I already did.

I don't believe you have. Could you quote the text where you demonstrate that I'm engaging in "whataboutism"?

you haven't even bothered explaining what you did mean if you weren't engaging in whataboutism

I meant what I wrote. If you're confused about the meaning of anything I've written, feel free to ask me to clarify, I'm happy to explain.

I think we both know why

I think you're not engaging in this discussion in good faith.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

I meant what I wrote.

That's not an explanation. So all I can assume is that you were engaging in whataboutism. I asked you what you were doing if it wasn't whataboutism multiple times and you refuse to say. I have no other option than to assume I'm correct and you are refusing to admit it.

I believe the general order of events is for you to insult me now.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 51 minutes ago

That's not an explanation.

Indeed. I'm not sure why you expected an explanation.

all I can assume is that you were engaging in whataboutism

That's not rational.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago

Without an alternate explanation to the one I came up with, it's absolutely rational to continue with my explanation.

If you wish to offer an alternate one for me to consider, feel free. You won't because you were, in fact, engaging in whataboutism. And now you're being ridiculous about it.

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
85 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39504 readers
2243 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS