No one is imposing values on anybody by wearing a pro LGBT shirt. We are not talking about 'sanctioning Afghanistan and pretending it's about the theocratic regime's anti LGBT tendencies when it's actually geopolitics'. We are talking a tourist in a slave based monarchy that purports itself to be an international tourism destination kicking someone off for wearing a shirt. And a supposed communist standing for all of it.
The real insanity of the situation is that the tourist went to Qatar at all. What is the point of paying Doha's prices just to virtue signal? Everyone should know by now what Qatar and the gulf monarchies stand for. Which doesn't reflect better on Chen or anyone else in any way.
Let me put it this way. If someone claimed that their traditional culture is one of persecution of LGBT people then I wouldn't see this aspect of their way of life as worth preserving. Nothing should change one's mind on this. That doesn't necessarily mean I will personally move against megachurch pastors in my neighborhood. It means at the very least that I won't be approving of them, which is what Chen just did. Joe Redditor seeing this as an opportunity to farm updoots online shouldn't even factor into the equation. There is, again, a massive escalation gap between bombing a country until 'everyone has rights' and being patronizing in media.
The West is patronizing about literally everything from culture to economic policy. That hasn't stopped the rest of the world from chartering their own course, and adopting western positions when it suits them. So merely wearing a shirt shouldn't drive anyone 'on the fence' towards the anti LGBT camp. If it does, then odds are they weren't on the fence at all, which Qatar in general clearly isn't.
There is another discussion that can be had about the ideal that exists within China and pro China spaces about absolute non interventionism. As in, China will do business with everyone. They won't seek remake the world in their image. Whatever sort of society you have will be bolstered by chinese commerce. You can be anything in between the (idealized) extremes of horrifying dictatorship to liberal democracy. Odds are if you pay for an internet kill switch then china will provide it. If you pay for a rail line then china will also provide that service. You see this argued well in a lot of videos by politicians and elites from subsaharan Africa. And even saying all this, I'd argue that the correct position that someone like Chen should adopt is to not comment at all. If Chen Weihua doesn't want to interfere in Qatari affairs he can stay shut. China has it's own internal struggle over LGBT rights, which takes on a local tinge as it's also a conflict over what aspects of 'bourgeois' society they are ready to adopt or suppress. If someone stands with gulf aristocrat social mores in this one issue, then they can't be comrades when it comes to LGBT rights.
No one is imposing values on anybody by wearing a pro LGBT shirt. We are not talking about 'sanctioning Afghanistan and pretending it's about the theocratic regime's anti LGBT tendencies when it's actually geopolitics'. We are talking a tourist in a slave based monarchy that purports itself to be an international tourism destination kicking someone off for wearing a shirt. And a supposed communist standing for all of it.
The real insanity of the situation is that the tourist went to Qatar at all. What is the point of paying Doha's prices just to virtue signal? Everyone should know by now what Qatar and the gulf monarchies stand for. Which doesn't reflect better on Chen or anyone else in any way.
Let me put it this way. If someone claimed that their traditional culture is one of persecution of LGBT people then I wouldn't see this aspect of their way of life as worth preserving. Nothing should change one's mind on this. That doesn't necessarily mean I will personally move against megachurch pastors in my neighborhood. It means at the very least that I won't be approving of them, which is what Chen just did. Joe Redditor seeing this as an opportunity to farm updoots online shouldn't even factor into the equation. There is, again, a massive escalation gap between bombing a country until 'everyone has rights' and being patronizing in media.
The West is patronizing about literally everything from culture to economic policy. That hasn't stopped the rest of the world from chartering their own course, and adopting western positions when it suits them. So merely wearing a shirt shouldn't drive anyone 'on the fence' towards the anti LGBT camp. If it does, then odds are they weren't on the fence at all, which Qatar in general clearly isn't.
There is another discussion that can be had about the ideal that exists within China and pro China spaces about absolute non interventionism. As in, China will do business with everyone. They won't seek remake the world in their image. Whatever sort of society you have will be bolstered by chinese commerce. You can be anything in between the (idealized) extremes of horrifying dictatorship to liberal democracy. Odds are if you pay for an internet kill switch then china will provide it. If you pay for a rail line then china will also provide that service. You see this argued well in a lot of videos by politicians and elites from subsaharan Africa. And even saying all this, I'd argue that the correct position that someone like Chen should adopt is to not comment at all. If Chen Weihua doesn't want to interfere in Qatari affairs he can stay shut. China has it's own internal struggle over LGBT rights, which takes on a local tinge as it's also a conflict over what aspects of 'bourgeois' society they are ready to adopt or suppress. If someone stands with gulf aristocrat social mores in this one issue, then they can't be comrades when it comes to LGBT rights.