EDIT: If the mods are done messing with this thread title and want to change it back to something that actually related to the article the original title was: "China Censors/Forbids Mobile Texting Messages."
BEIJING — As the Chinese government expands what it calls a campaign against pornography, cellular companies in Beijing and Shanghai have been told to suspend text services to cellphone users who are found to have sent messages with “illegal or unhealthy content, such as pornography” state-run news media reported Tuesday.
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
I usually can see the rationale for things, but China needs to stop the ban against smut. I could understand if they were trying to stop exploitation of women, but I've seen too many hookers in China to think they give a damn about that lol.
It's just a relic from the Maoist era and really needs to go. Lonely men need an outlet!!
On January 21 2010 12:05 akevin wrote: Lol, whats with their war on pornography? They already have a massive shortage of women...what are all the bachelors going to do?
Go gay? jkz. I don't see what the point of doing this is.
It reminds me of 1984 where the government was very strict about controlling sex. This is what happens when governments act only to direct people's activities to things they consider "beneficial" to society, rather than balancing that with individual rights like privacy and liberty.
Come on people, dont comment on a matter you dont know. Porn related sms is a pain the ass here in China, I am very happy that the Chinese goverment wants to stop this shit, they could have done this sooner. One of my classmate(a girl) spend a lot of time explained herself to her boyfriend after her boyfriend se the porn sms on her cell. I personally received some, its annoying as hell. Its good that they put in some effort to stop this.
On January 21 2010 12:18 Archerofaiur wrote: There is not better way to prevent cataclysmic social rebellion than the creation of millions of restless, unmarried and horny men.
haha
i heard someone saying a country with a big percentage of youth male over females is going into war or into revolution. O_O
This is targeted at mass spam SMSs in China lol, not random censorship. But obviously no Enhlish news source decided to explain that bit since leaving that out helps with their "China evil" message.
On January 21 2010 12:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: This is targeted at mass spam SMSs in China lol, not random censorship. But obviously no Enhlish news source decided to explain that bit since leaving that out helps with their "China evil" message.
Thanks for the clarification Carnivorous. Western MSM strikes again.
On January 21 2010 12:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: This is targeted at mass spam SMSs in China lol, not random censorship. But obviously no Enhlish news source decided to explain that bit since leaving that out helps with their "China evil" message.
On January 21 2010 12:05 akevin wrote: Lol, whats with their war on pornography? They already have a massive shortage of women...what are all the bachelors going to do?
On January 21 2010 12:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: This is targeted at mass spam SMSs in China lol, not random censorship. But obviously no Enhlish news source decided to explain that bit since leaving that out helps with their "China evil" message.
Yea, it's actually quite a big problem in China. Whenever i turn on my phone there's like 1000 spammy texts in my inbox.
On January 21 2010 12:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: This is targeted at mass spam SMSs in China lol, not random censorship. But obviously no Enhlish news source decided to explain that bit since leaving that out helps with their "China evil" message.
Yea, it's actually quite a big problem in China. Whenever i turn on my phone there's like 1000 spammy texts in my inbox.
Yeah, thats why i think its good that the Chinese goverment try to do something to stop it. I receive a few sms a week asking me to wire money to some random account -_-
Someone needs to ban OP for the title of this thread. Completely misleading. Has nothing to do with "pedos". It's more like "China infringes on free speech again".
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Why don't the mobile phone companies work on blocking this themselves? It seems like the customers would appreciate not having thousands of sex spam texts and prefer providers that blocked them.
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
On January 21 2010 12:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: This is targeted at mass spam SMSs in China lol, not random censorship. But obviously no Enhlish news source decided to explain that bit since leaving that out helps with their "China evil" message.
As someone with family in China, this is correct to my knowledge. Of course, my relatives might just be + Show Spoiler +
evil Chinese propaganda spreaders trying to pull the wool over my eyes
Hilarious that people actually belive that it's a law to prevent spam. They could have got a legislation similar to those implemented in the US or Europe. If they have to create the law with "undisclosed criteras" it's obvious to me that they got something that they dont want to show.
That people in China say that it's nothing to be worried about doesnt suprise me the least. They are so fed with this bullshit from childhood that they actually belive it, Reminds of when I heard some friends arguing and when I aked them what was going on all the chinese guys pointed at the taiwanese guy and said "He says that Taiwan doesnt belong to China!!". Not that it's any proof of anything I've said previously, but I think it's a nice anecdote.
Also, I belive the article should say "It's a part of their campaign to regulate speech". Now, let the flame war begin.
On January 21 2010 15:05 Robinsa wrote: Hilarious that people actually belive that it's a law to prevent spam. They could have got a legislation similar to those implemented in the US or Europe. If they have to create the law with "undisclosed criteras" it's obvious to me that they got something that they dont want to show.
That people in China say that it's nothing to be worried about doesnt suprise me the least. They are so fed with this bullshit from childhood that they actually belive it, Reminds of when I heard some friends arguing and when I aked them what was going on all the chinese guys pointed at the taiwanese guy and said "He says that Taiwan doesnt belong to China!!". Not that it's any proof of anything I've said previously, but I think it's a nice anecdote.
Also, I belive the article should say "It's a part of their campaign to regulate speech". Now, let the flame war begin.
You don't even know how to spell "believe" or "ask". You pretty much gave yourself away as an idiot before anybody had to reply!
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
basically sums everything up. topic shud end here.
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
On January 21 2010 15:05 Robinsa wrote: Hilarious that people actually belive that it's a law to prevent spam. They could have got a legislation similar to those implemented in the US or Europe. If they have to create the law with "undisclosed criteras" it's obvious to me that they got something that they dont want to show.
That people in China say that it's nothing to be worried about doesnt suprise me the least. They are so fed with this bullshit from childhood that they actually belive it, Reminds of when I heard some friends arguing and when I aked them what was going on all the chinese guys pointed at the taiwanese guy and said "He says that Taiwan doesnt belong to China!!". Not that it's any proof of anything I've said previously, but I think it's a nice anecdote.
Also, I belive the article should say "It's a part of their campaign to regulate speech". Now, let the flame war begin.
You don't even know how to spell "believe" or "ask". You pretty much gave yourself away as an idiot before anybody had to reply!
Youre right. Your arguments are too strong for me to respond to. I dare not have a discussion against a fierce opponent like you.
As a side note I'm not a native speaker of english and I'm a dyslectic.
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
but no, no, no, china = evil!
you realise that ALL people are able to be killed? anyone with a weapon or, hell, any functioning limbs could kill someone
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
but no, no, no, china = evil!
I don't understand the point of your post.
text messaging is not private. it has NEVER been a private or secure method of communication. why you guys are then getting all up-in-arms about the chinese govt intercepting text messages seems completely out of proportion. text messaging is not, and has never been a private method of communication. nevermind the fact that according to all anecdotal evidence from people who ACTUALLY LIVE IN CHINA this is to stop a really fucking annoying SMS spamming problem!
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
but no, no, no, china = evil!
you realise that ALL people are able to be killed? anyone with a weapon or, hell, any functioning limbs could kill someone
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
but no, no, no, china = evil!
you realise that ALL people are able to be killed? anyone with a weapon or, hell, any functioning limbs could kill someone
On January 21 2010 12:22 Kennigit wrote: The title of this thread is EXTREMELY misleading....
It is indeed flat out wrong when it comes to the picture the news actually presents. Someone should edit it.
On January 21 2010 15:36 lazz wrote: text messaging is not private. it has NEVER been a private or secure method of communication. why you guys are then getting all up-in-arms about the chinese govt intercepting text messages seems completely out of proportion. text messaging is not, and has never been a private method of communication. nevermind the fact that according to all anecdotal evidence from people who ACTUALLY LIVE IN CHINA this is to stop a really fucking annoying SMS spamming problem!
It is a private method of communication. Not the most secure, but nonetheless private and you have to really overstep some boundaries to get to read them. Anything labelled "from: to: " falls under that category. You don't intercept text messages for the same reason you don't intercept mail, unless of course you're China. A country it seems in so much denial they wouldn't sense my cock down their throat if they thought it was to save the bees. You don't make an anti-spam law that accidentally covers a great deal of peoples privacy to stop something like this. If they really want to stop spam, then stop spam. This is ridiculous.
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
You could be right. But doesn't the following passage from the OP link bother you ?:
Although China has quietly monitored cellphone text messages for some time, Kan Kaili, a professor of telecommunications at Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunication, said the new measures appeared broader and more intrusive and punitive.
“They are doing wide-ranging checks, checking anything and everything, even if it is between a husband and wife,” he said. “I don’t think people will be very happy about this.”
He said the government had established no clear legal definition of unhealthy content. He also said commercial authorities like phone companies, even though government-owned, should not be involved in checking the contents of private messages. “This is totally wrong,” he said. “This violates citizens’ basic rights.”"
This is from a Chinese professor at a Chinese University. He, not the NYT, is stating the the Chinese government has not provided a legal definition for "unhealthy content". Now, it could be that a definition is in the works and will be forthcoming soon. It could also be that Chinese government officials are angelic enough that they don't need to operate underneath an objective set of laws. Whatever the case, in the west the general opinion is that politicians should be bound by a code of laws that is as precise as reasonably possible.
LOL you realise that ALL text messages sent from phones are able to be intercepted? any joe with a few pieces of hardware and the know-how can intercept text messages!
but no, no, no, china = evil!
I don't understand the point of your post.
text messaging is not private. it has NEVER been a private or secure method of communication. why you guys are then getting all up-in-arms about the chinese govt intercepting text messages seems completely out of proportion. text messaging is not, and has never been a private method of communication. nevermind the fact that according to all anecdotal evidence from people who ACTUALLY LIVE IN CHINA this is to stop a really fucking annoying SMS spamming problem!
No method of communication has ever been "private". Some third party is always able to listen in, if they are in the right place/have the right equipment.
Few methods of communication are "secure" in the sense that they can successfully get to their target (direct verbal communication being one that can't be stopped once it has been uttered).
The fact that individuals in the Chinese government are Able to do these things is ho hum. The problem is what they are using it for. 99% of the messages they stop will probably be spam, unwanted by the receiver, (good for them) the other 1% will be things containing key words like 'Free Tibet'.
The problem is because the individuals in chinese government are not kept accountable to the populace or their laws.
On January 21 2010 15:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: here we go with the china defense rofl
NOTHING BAD HAPPENS HERE GUYS
here we go with the china hate rofl
STOPPING SPAM? CHINA IS EVIL GUYS
The people of China aren't obsessed with monitoring everything the Chinese government does, because by and large, it does not inconvenience them, and, in this case, benefits them. But of course, people living half way around the world knows what's best for the Chinese people and will stop at nothing to denounce everything that happens in China in the name of "for the good of the Chinese people." You are not the Chinese people. If the Chinese people are truly discontent and inconvenienced by what the Chinese government does, the Chinese government would not be in power right now.
On January 21 2010 15:05 Robinsa wrote: Hilarious that people actually belive that it's a law to prevent spam. They could have got a legislation similar to those implemented in the US or Europe. If they have to create the law with "undisclosed criteras" it's obvious to me that they got something that they dont want to show.
That people in China say that it's nothing to be worried about doesnt suprise me the least. They are so fed with this bullshit from childhood that they actually belive it, Reminds of when I heard some friends arguing and when I aked them what was going on all the chinese guys pointed at the taiwanese guy and said "He says that Taiwan doesnt belong to China!!". Not that it's any proof of anything I've said previously, but I think it's a nice anecdote.
Also, I belive the article should say "It's a part of their campaign to regulate speech". Now, let the flame war begin.
You don't even know how to spell "believe" or "ask". You pretty much gave yourself away as an idiot before anybody had to reply!
Considering it says "Japan" I'd assume his native language isn't English, which as he clarifies in a later post, it isn't. No need for such animosity.
On January 21 2010 15:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: here we go with the china defense rofl
NOTHING BAD HAPPENS HERE GUYS
here we go with the china hate rofl
STOPPING SPAM? CHINA IS EVIL GUYS
The people of China aren't obsessed with monitoring everything the Chinese government does, because by and large, it does not inconvenience them, and, in this case, benefits them. But of course, people living half way around the world knows what's best for the Chinese people and will stop at nothing to denounce everything that happens in China in the name of "for the good of the Chinese people." You are not the Chinese people. If the Chinese people are truly discontent and inconvenienced by what the Chinese government does, the Chinese government would not be in power right now.
Thats exactly the problem. Even if they are discontent with the government they wont even be able to text it without facing the risk of going to jail. I dont know what the chinese people want, but I agree with you; It would indeed be best if they could express themselves instead of someone else talkinig for them. Last time I checked people that actually spoke their mind in china ended up in jail, or worse.
They ended up in jail because their opinion did not represent the opinion of the majority of the Chinese people. If they did, there would be protests numbering beyond the few dozen activists you always hear about. It just means that what they were protesting did not concern the vast majority of the Chinese people.
On January 21 2010 16:24 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: They ended up in jail because their opinion did not represent the opinion of the majority of the Chinese people. If they did, there would be protests numbering beyond the few dozen activists you always hear about. It just means that what they were protesting did not concern the vast majority of the Chinese people.
Just out of curiosity, what are some of the things about China that you don't like?
On January 21 2010 16:24 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: They ended up in jail because their opinion did not represent the opinion of the majority of the Chinese people. If they did, there would be protests numbering beyond the few dozen activists you always hear about. It just means that what they were protesting did not concern the vast majority of the Chinese people.
Well I guess we differ on that point. I do belive that people other than the majority should be allowed to speak their mind. I would go as far as to say that ANY chinese should be allowed to speak his mind, like you and me.
With this in memory it's no wonder people dont protest in masses no more:
The bureaucracy and compulsive obsession with it is one of the things that irk me about it. It goes against the general Chinese goal of results/efficiency. It's gotten better in recent years, but there's still much to do. It's also a breeding ground for corruption, which is why it has gotten a lot of attention lately and why the situation is improving. It's mostly a relic from the dynastic eras I guess, which is one of the drawbacks of the Chinese belief in traditionalism - mistakes and inefficiencies do tend to take a while to be corrected, even though they're usually recognized very early.
Another thing is the generally atrocious state of public bathrooms. They are the most disgusting places on the face of the planet TBH. I understand that China has 1.3 billion people, but come on, like, seriously. And you even have to pay to use some of them lol. If you open a bathroom for pay, the least you could do is make sure there is a modicum of hygiene involved.
@ robinsa
Protests are destabilizing in nature, and destabilization tends to lead to a lot of harm for no real net result. Refer to my post earlier in the thread - it usually ends up being a period of chaos and ends up in another regime that's the exact same as every other one before it in everything except its name, because that's the only really efficient way to govern China. This is a case where the beliefs and rights of the individual have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
Protests are destabilizing in nature, and destabilization tends to lead to a lot of harm for no real net result. Refer to my post earlier in the thread - it usually ends up being a period of chaos and ends up in another regime that's the exact same as every other one before it in everything except its name, because that's the only really efficient way to govern China. This is a case where the beliefs and rights of the individual have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
It seems like the civil rights movement in the USA is a very clear refutation of your argument. Am I wrong?
On January 21 2010 16:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Protests are destabilizing in nature, and destabilization tends to lead to a lot of harm for no real net result. Refer to my post earlier in the thread - it usually ends up being a period of chaos and ends up in another regime that's the exact same as every other one before it in everything except its name, because that's the only really efficient way to govern China. This is a case where the beliefs and rights of the individual have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
On January 21 2010 16:37 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: It seems like the civil rights movement in the USA is a very clear refutation of your argument. Am I wrong?
How does the civil rights movement have to do with protests relating to the governance of China? Politically and culturally, the scenario is entirely different, and not very comparable.
The history of the USA is different from the history of China. The cultural attitudes of the US allowed for it to work; the same scenario in China would've changed nothing. I would even go as far to say that the 1989 protests are, themselves, a proof of my statement - people died, and, ultimately, nothing changed. The end. The people of China simply need a stable overarching government, there's no way around it. Any challenges to the authority of the government destabilizes it and throws the country into chaos that would be better avoided.
On January 21 2010 16:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Protests are destabilizing in nature, and destabilization tends to lead to a lot of harm for no real net result. Refer to my post earlier in the thread - it usually ends up being a period of chaos and ends up in another regime that's the exact same as every other one before it in everything except its name, because that's the only really efficient way to govern China. This is a case where the beliefs and rights of the individual have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
On January 21 2010 16:37 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: It seems like the civil rights movement in the USA is a very clear refutation of your argument. Am I wrong?
How does the civil rights movement have to do with protests relating to the governance of China?
Are you saying that Sheep's point is: Protests maybe good in the west but in China they are "destabilizing in nature...[that] lead to a lot of harm for no real net result" ?
My point is that protests can lead to lasting, positive change -- that is, "real net result[s]".
On January 21 2010 16:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Protests are destabilizing in nature, and destabilization tends to lead to a lot of harm for no real net result. Refer to my post earlier in the thread - it usually ends up being a period of chaos and ends up in another regime that's the exact same as every other one before it in everything except its name, because that's the only really efficient way to govern China. This is a case where the beliefs and rights of the individual have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
On January 21 2010 16:37 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: It seems like the civil rights movement in the USA is a very clear refutation of your argument. Am I wrong?
How does the civil rights movement have to do with protests relating to the governance of China?
Are you saying that Sheep's point is: Protests maybe good in the west but in China they are "destabilizing in nature...[that] lead to a lot of harm for no real net result" ?
My point is that protests can lead to lasting, positive change -- that is, "real net result[s]".
Is this wrong?
Protests in China, as they have in history, go beyond their original intended scope, and thus becomes an arbitrary, often unreasonable set of mixed demands that does nothing besides destabilize the country. As a result, they either get crushed, or they succeed, but they become yet another governing body that eventually imposes the same rules in order to maintain order.
On January 21 2010 16:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The history of the USA is different from the history of China. The cultural attitudes of the US allowed for it to work; the same scenario in China would've changed nothing. I would even go as far to say that the 1989 protests are, themselves, a proof of my statement - people died, and, ultimately, nothing changed. The end. The people of China simply need a stable overarching government, there's no way around it. Any challenges to the authority of the government destabilizes it and throws the country into chaos that would be better avoided.
You could certainly be right that "the people of china simply need a stable overarching government..." However, it is also true that if a group of individuals wanted to remain in power that would be a very convenient argument to use to justify the actions they use to maintain stability.
Which leads to my next question: Are you parents Chinese? What do they do? Are they connected to the government?
On January 21 2010 16:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: @ robinsa
Protests are destabilizing in nature, and destabilization tends to lead to a lot of harm for no real net result. Refer to my post earlier in the thread - it usually ends up being a period of chaos and ends up in another regime that's the exact same as every other one before it in everything except its name, because that's the only really efficient way to govern China. This is a case where the beliefs and rights of the individual have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
This is where our opinions differ I guess. Even though I do agree that some people are disposable for the greater good I do not belive they can be classified as that because political views, but rather on actions. I must however say that I deeply respect you for actually giving an honest answer. Really nice to see someone from the "china side" bring an actual argument and not just go "China hater". Big kudos.
lol "Hey guys, we're gonna read all your texts to each other but it's okay because we're doing it to catch pedos and pedos have no rights anyway and you're all potential pedos so you all potentially have no rights. So it's fine."
This is a huge invasion of privacy. I'm amazed they have the audacity to attempt this.
On January 21 2010 16:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Which leads to my next question: Are you parents Chinese? What do they do? Are they connected to the government?
I am ethnically Chinese, yes, and both my parents are full blooded ethnic Chinese. I was born in the USA, but spent approximately half of the first 8 years of my life in China, alternated with time spent in the US.
My parents were both born in China, and no, they're not connected to the government. They lived in China for the first half of their lives, going to college and then working for a few years in China before coming to the US for graduate school, where they settled. I am currently attending college in NYC, but make regular visits to China, as my grandparents and various uncles/cousins/other relatives still live there.
However, it is also true that if a group of individuals wanted to remain in power that would be a very convenient argument to use to justify the actions they use to maintain stability.
Again, if the Chinese government were displeased and angered enough, the CCP would not be in power right now. The fact that they're in power and have people defending their actions is proof that what they're doing is beneficial to the majority of the people. Dynastic changes in Chinese history were always, without fail, brought on by tyrannical rule that angered the people. Droughts and famines played a part, but if it was a wise and just, or even average, ruler, without a reputation of failures (warranted or unwarranted), there would not be enough cause for a revolution. It matters little what the government says, all that matters is the effects of the actions.
This is where our opinions differ I guess. Even though I do agree that some people are disposable for the greater good I do not belive they can be classified as that because political views, but rather on actions. I must however say that I deeply respect you for actually giving an honest answer. Really nice to see someone from the "china side" bring an actual argument and not just go "China hater". Big kudos.
I mean, the difference in opinion can really go so far. Think about a democracy - if you're in the US, let's say you voted for McCain and not Obama. Your beliefs have been sacrificed in favor of the belief o the majority, and so Obama is now president, despite a sizable portion of the populace objecting to it.
On January 21 2010 16:57 KwarK wrote: lol "Hey guys, we're gonna read all your texts to each other but it's okay because we're doing it to catch pedos and pedos have no rights anyway and you're all potential pedos so you all potentially have no rights. So it's fine."
This is a huge invasion of privacy. I'm amazed they have the audacity to attempt this.
Again, this goes back to my point on the different priorities that the Chinese people place on things compared to a western populace. For China, eliminating spam SMSs (a mundane, common, everday problem) and the benefits much outweigh the vague idea that some people might be having private texts read and censored. "Hey, I don't send any questionable texts, and this could only bring me a positive benefit. Hurray government regulation!" is the general thought process for most of the population. As the NY Times article demonstrates, this is thought of a gross invasion of privacy and downright appalling by western standards. In china, the reaction is basically the complete opposite.
On January 21 2010 15:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: here we go with the china defense rofl
NOTHING BAD HAPPENS HERE GUYS
here we go with the china hate rofl
STOPPING SPAM? CHINA IS EVIL GUYS
The people of China aren't obsessed with monitoring everything the Chinese government does, because by and large, it does not inconvenience them, and, in this case, benefits them. But of course, people living half way around the world knows what's best for the Chinese people and will stop at nothing to denounce everything that happens in China in the name of "for the good of the Chinese people." You are not the Chinese people. If the Chinese people are truly discontent and inconvenienced by what the Chinese government does, the Chinese government would not be in power right now.
In the video provided by Robinsa which displays the last memorable attempt to organize a peaceful movement against the government you can clearly see unarmed people being shot and killed for simply displaying their "discontent." When I see human beings that happen to reside within your borders speaking out for basic human rights and freedoms being killed it becomes a concern of mine and many others; whether you like it or not.
On January 21 2010 17:06 7Strife wrote: In the video provided by Robinsa which displays the last memorable attempt to organize a peaceful movement against the government you can clearly see unarmed people being shot and killed for simply displaying their "discontent." When I see human beings that happen to reside within your borders speaking out for basic human rights and freedoms being killed it becomes a concern of mine and many others; whether you like it or not.
Yes, it did indeed start out as a peaceful movement, with the intent of bettering Chinese society. Most people in china recognize that. However, this peaceful movement also outgrew itself. My grandparents, parents, and other relatives were all in Beijing during that. What happened was not a peaceful march on Washington like in the USA civil rights movement. What happened was a few students calling for rights around the city, and hoards of people taking this as an opportunity to riot, steal, loot, and kill. In a country with such a huge population density, chaos spreads quickly and is difficult to contain. For a Chinese citizen whose house got broken into and his properties looted because some other people decided to protest about something he doesn't care about, he becomes angry and does NOT want these protests, whatever their intent, to continue, because they're bringing him only harm. Again, it's about the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.
On January 21 2010 17:06 7Strife wrote: In the video provided by Robinsa which displays the last memorable attempt to organize a peaceful movement against the government you can clearly see unarmed people being shot and killed for simply displaying their "discontent." When I see human beings that happen to reside within your borders speaking out for basic human rights and freedoms being killed it becomes a concern of mine and many others; whether you like it or not.
Yes, it did indeed start out as a peaceful movement, with the intent of bettering Chinese society. Most people in china recognize that. However, this peaceful movement also outgrew itself. My grandparents, parents, and other relatives were all in Beijing during that. What happened was not a peaceful march on Washington like in the USA civil rights movement. What happened was a few students calling for rights around the city, and hoards of people taking this as an opportunity to riot, steal, loot, and kill. In a country with such a huge population density, chaos spreads quickly and is difficult to contain. For a Chinese citizen whose house got broken into and his properties looted because some other people decided to protest about something he doesn't care about, he becomes angry and does NOT want these protests, whatever their intent, to continue, because they're bringing him only harm. Again, it's about the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.
The desire of the masses doesn't out weight the few. It doesn't matter if the whole population wants to gas the Jews; it still isn't right.
The desire of the masses doesn't out weight the few. It doesn't matter if the whole population wants to gas the Jews; it still isn't right.
What's "right" or "wrong" is vague enough that it doesn't factor into the concerns of the Chinese. If everyone in China wanted to gas all the Jews in China, it will happen. If they don't, it won't happen. that's all there is to it.
Morality and what is "right" and "wrong" are arbitrary constraints, subject to change depending on the population in question. Vegetarians consider eating animals to be wrong, yet many people still do it. Should everyone stop eating meat because a minority thinks so? Ultimately, your beliefs can only govern your own actions (provided, of course, that it does not interfere with others in a detrimental way. If it does, it no longer becomes your own actions), and this is all the more true in China. If your belief happens to coincide with the majority opinion, good for you. If it does not, there's honestly not much you can do about it.
Chinese people really dont give a shit most of the time. Sometimes the government does stuff out of order (like most governments, including western ones, don't give me shit that the US doesn't do stupid stuff all the time) and then people will kick up a ruckus
But the god damned vast majority is just racist western reporting obsessed with launching some crappy propaganda campaign against chinese people. I hate it and it drives me insane Most chinese people don't give a SHIT about all the western media complaining about "human rights" and this and that and "china evil" because it is always taken completely out of perspective
Human rights are just as bad or worse in western countries. Honestly i see articles like this as just a form of blatant xenophobia and racism
On January 21 2010 17:33 BrTarolg wrote: You know what
Chinese people really dont give a shit most of the time. Sometimes the government does stuff out of order (like most governments, including western ones, don't give me shit that the US doesn't do stupid stuff all the time) and then people will kick up a ruckus
But the god damned vast majority is just racist western reporting obsessed with launching some crappy propaganda campaign against chinese people. I hate it and it drives me insane Most chinese people don't give a SHIT about all the western media complaining about "human rights" and this and that and "china evil" because it is always taken completely out of perspective
Human rights are just as bad or worse in western countries. Honestly i see articles like this as just a form of blatant xenophobia and racism
I agree, all governments do shitty stuff. Most of them do however get criticism for it.
Criticising a system can't be racist. It would be like saying that critizising the war in Iraq would be racism towards americans. I do however think that not writing about unjustices is stupid.
I don't get very upset by the articles at all but I always end up amazed when the "China can't do anything wrong" crowd arrives to blame it on propaganda and racism without providing a single argument to the discussion. China is a rising super power and some people expect it not to be critizised and written about?
You act as if we are "wrong" to tell Chinese what they should do (because we are not a citizen, etc.) but then blatantly tell us what we should do. Just shows how flawed your logic is; and your capacity for being selfishly motivated.
Remember, as you said...
Morality and what is "right" and "wrong" are arbitrary constraints
You could defend that with anything. I could rape and pillage a village of children then go on a rant and tell everyone to think out of the box a little like you.
On January 21 2010 18:03 7Strife wrote: You could defend that with anything. I could rape and pillage a village of children then go on a rant and tell everyone to think out of the box a little like you.
You could, but because no one else will agree with you, that won't get you anywhere except life in jail.
Why can't Chinese protest and freely express their collective frustration at the government?
Which deserves a complicated answer but the crux of the matter is:
People understand traditions, they understand the need for order; However, they do not understand the rule of law.
Note, the people, not individuals, not the intellectuals and as a collective, the society works by having these ancient and fundamental rules in place for the continuation of the Chinese nation.
Tradition dictates a strong central authority. Tradition dictates that when that authority is ineffective, the people will struggle to overthrow it.
The may fourth movement in 1917 was an example of this. When the central authority can not act on behalf of the collective, people took to the streets. It ultimately came to nothing in substance but laid the ground for violent struggles later on.
The problem with China and Chinese society in general is the lack of power sharing and lack of a legal framework that actually works.
The first problem, lack of power sharing is unique to China and its history. A decentralized China is weak as states and regions competes for dominance. What is the concern of Shandong to people in far south? Every successful Chinese dynasties began with a powerful central authority ruling with often cruel and unforgiving suppression.
The second problem, as I've mentioned before, as it stands, modern China still lack a recognized and appreciated legal authority. People understands the emperor's laws, or rather a set of rules that forbids them to do this or that.
they don't understand how law can benefit them except maybe the vague definition that laws exists to make society function.
That's how the populace sees it, that's how the Chinese government understands it. Unlike a democratic country, China do not have institution for smooth self correction. The government simply do not function in this way, the political structure do not adjust itself for popular demand as popular opinion in the state's opinion is often the wrong one.
It's the old China thinking, the ruling party sees any expression of dissatisfaction as a challenge to it's power and it's legitimacy as the ruling party come from a populace that accepts the compromise that a strong and effective government is better than anything else.
1989 protests failed because of this. The western world saw this as an atrocity, the Chinese saw this as a harsh but necessary tragedy. The people do not weep for the course of the dead students, they weep because they let a bunch of naive youths kill themselves.
That's all changing though, even at snail's pace. The urban and educated class who appreciates western values is on the rise.
In 20 years, the remnants of feudal China and its mentality will be replaced by them. The only question remains, can China grow itself into a suitable society in time.
Haduken, great post. Very interesting to hear, it coincides very well with my overall impression of these things. Especially considering that every time there's a thread on China here, some guy (usually from China) comes along and says something like "yeah, that's totally just western bias", even though it clearly isn't. Deprivation of freedom is deprivation of freedom, wherever you are, and the Chinese government have shown they are not interested in discussion on any terms but exclusively their own. Which makes it clear that China is in the news for the same reasons North Korea would be if we knew what ever even happened there.
On January 21 2010 13:57 lazz wrote: LOL this is just an antispam measure and all you guys are going on about big brother and 1984 lololol
did u read the article?
China Mobile, one of the nation’s largest cellular providers, reported that text messages would automatically be scanned for “key words” provided by the police, according to China Daily, a state-controlled English-language newspaper. Messages will be deemed “unhealthy” if they violate undisclosed criteria established by the central government, the newspaper said.
i'm sure the government and police are doing this to keep spammers under control as if they've got too much free times on their hands, amirite?
Because obviously this one article written form a western perspective is the end all be all on this issue. How could Iazz have been so blind? I guess we all owe you a heartfelt apology in light of the knowledge that reading this short NY Times article has, in fact, made you an expert on this particular subject. Do accept our sincerest apologies.
r u really that retarded that u couldn't even read properly what i have posted? judging by ur comments i doubt that u do not have the intelligence to properly comprehend 2 simple paragraphs. but are intentionally debunking any valid arguments by personal attacks, sarcastic remarks and blind denial.
if u could actually provide a constructive and objective arguments based on the topic of the thread people might actually take u seriously.
I have a friend over there who says people are sick of the governments bullshit. Revolution always happens when things get better.. not at their worst. Don't be surprised if there's a coo in the next half a decade.
I think it's great. Hell, I already hate these porn spams to my email already of "see my webcam!" etc, imagine getting that crap on your phone too! >.<
On January 21 2010 17:15 7Strife wrote:
The desire of the masses doesn't out weight the few. It doesn't matter if the whole population wants to gas the Jews; it still isn't right.
Joke? The idea of democracy is built upon "majority rules"! Or ... supposedly *coughs election of 2000*.
On January 21 2010 19:47 edahl wrote: Haduken, great post. Very interesting to hear, it coincides very well with my overall impression of these things. Especially considering that every time there's a thread on China here, some guy (usually from China) comes along and says something like "yeah, that's totally just western bias", even though it clearly isn't. Deprivation of freedom is deprivation of freedom, wherever you are, and the Chinese government have shown they are not interested in discussion on any terms but exclusively their own. Which makes it clear that China is in the news for the same reasons North Korea would be if we knew what ever even happened there.
That's because there clearly is bias. Western media does not cover both sides of the issue for pretty much any topic regarding China.
The thing is, haduken is right. There are many problems with China and its government. The difference between haduken and pretty much everybody else that criticizes China however, is that he actually knows what he's talking about. I'm not saying this because he has the word China next to his name, I'm saying this because he actually demonstrates an understanding of the social, cultural, and political climate of China, something which posts such as
On January 21 2010 15:05 Robinsa wrote: Hilarious that people actually belive that it's a law to prevent spam. They could have got a legislation similar to those implemented in the US or Europe. If they have to create the law with "undisclosed criteras" it's obvious to me that they got something that they dont want to show.
That people in China say that it's nothing to be worried about doesnt suprise me the least. They are so fed with this bullshit from childhood that they actually belive it, Reminds of when I heard some friends arguing and when I aked them what was going on all the chinese guys pointed at the taiwanese guy and said "He says that Taiwan doesnt belong to China!!". Not that it's any proof of anything I've said previously, but I think it's a nice anecdote.
Also, I belive the article should say "It's a part of their campaign to regulate speech". Now, let the flame war begin.
or
On January 21 2010 15:37 {88}iNcontroL wrote: here we go with the china defense rofl
NOTHING BAD HAPPENS HERE GUYS
or
On January 22 2010 00:42 Tfact_rats wrote: go go gadget communism
I have a friend over there who says people are sick of the governments bullshit. Revolution always happens when things get better.. not at their worst. Don't be surprised if there's a coo in the next half a decade.
clearly do not. I don't think anyone here that defends the Chinese government really thinks that it's perfect and can do no wrong, but it just comes off that way because all of their posts concerning China inevitably are posts explaining why the people criticizing China really have no clue what they're talking about. It doesn't help that so many people buy into the image portrayed by western media where the Chinese are a clueless brainwashed lot with no freedoms. Obvious solution is for them to adopt western policies and ideals! Freedom! Democracy!
Edit: Regarding the original article, I'm all for less spam. Would you (Americans) argue that it's somebody's constitutional right to send you spam e-mails? Seems like the same thing to me. As for monitoring text messages, I'm not going to pretend the US Gov't doesn't monitor my texts as well looking for keywords that might indicate I'm a terrorist. If you're not an enemy of the state, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If you are, I hope for your sake you're smart enough not to use such obvious means to communicate.
On January 21 2010 18:03 7Strife wrote: You could defend that with anything. I could rape and pillage a village of children then go on a rant and tell everyone to think out of the box a little like you.
You could, but because no one else will agree with you, that won't get you anywhere except life in jail.
You get a life in jail because morality isn't arbitrary. Hence his point.
On January 21 2010 19:47 edahl wrote: Haduken, great post. Very interesting to hear, it coincides very well with my overall impression of these things. Especially considering that every time there's a thread on China here, some guy (usually from China) comes along and says something like "yeah, that's totally just western bias", even though it clearly isn't. Deprivation of freedom is deprivation of freedom, wherever you are, and the Chinese government have shown they are not interested in discussion on any terms but exclusively their own. Which makes it clear that China is in the news for the same reasons North Korea would be if we knew what ever even happened there.
That's because there clearly is bias. Western media does not cover both sides of the issue for pretty much any topic regarding China.
The thing is, haduken is right. There are many problems with China and its government. The difference between haduken and pretty much everybody else that criticizes China however, is that he actually knows what he's talking about.
Exactly. Though I've pretty much given up the idea that there is any chance of intelligent debate in any thread regarding China. Too many idiots who somehow tries to claim that they would know more about what's good for the people and what's going on in a country despite never having even stepped foot there. It's pretty amazing. Amazingly retarded.
What it really comes down to, is this. Some people are very very petty in life and have nothing better to do than bitch about another country to make themselves feel better.
i dont know if someone got enough time on their hands to make this news, its interesting regardless
No, he is just one of the 2k chinese people that gets sentenced to death each year, if he was not chinese, either american or englishman then it would had been news.
i dont know if someone got enough time on their hands to make this news, its interesting regardless
No, he is just one of the 2k chinese people that gets sentenced to death each year, if he was not chinese, either american or englishman then it would had been news.
but but
he killed a man
dont you think this could open up an interesting debate? Maybe he did a "right thing", but its still a crime, isnt it?
On January 21 2010 18:03 7Strife wrote: You could defend that with anything. I could rape and pillage a village of children then go on a rant and tell everyone to think out of the box a little like you.
You could, but because no one else will agree with you, that won't get you anywhere except life in jail.
You get a life in jail because morality isn't arbitrary. Hence his point.
If everyone in his community agreed with his set of morals, then it becomes the new "right" thing to do. Morality changes. It used to be moral, even obligatory, to beat your wife. Is it now? No. Because morality changes, rather arbitrarily at times. It used to be moral to own slaves. Then people decided no, that's wrong, and now, slavery is illegal in the US. If you think morality has always been static, then you have not noticed any of the changes that have occurred in history.
On January 21 2010 18:03 7Strife wrote: You could defend that with anything. I could rape and pillage a village of children then go on a rant and tell everyone to think out of the box a little like you.
You could, but because no one else will agree with you, that won't get you anywhere except life in jail.
You get a life in jail because morality isn't arbitrary. Hence his point.
If everyone in his community agreed with his set of morals, then it becomes the new "right" thing to do. Morality changes. It used to be moral, even obligatory, to beat your wife. Is it now? No. Because morality changes, rather arbitrarily at times. It used to be moral to own slaves. Then people decided no, that's wrong, and now, slavery is illegal in the US. If you think morality has always been static, then you have not noticed any of the changes that have occurred in history.
I think that the interesting question is "WHY" morality changes as it does. Is it random? Is it a result of a dialectic (of either the idealistic or materialistic kind)? Is it, simply, a result of the accumulation of knowledge (morality as scientific?)
On January 21 2010 18:03 7Strife wrote: You could defend that with anything. I could rape and pillage a village of children then go on a rant and tell everyone to think out of the box a little like you.
You could, but because no one else will agree with you, that won't get you anywhere except life in jail.
You get a life in jail because morality isn't arbitrary. Hence his point.
If everyone in his community agreed with his set of morals, then it becomes the new "right" thing to do. Morality changes. It used to be moral, even obligatory, to beat your wife. Is it now? No. Because morality changes, rather arbitrarily at times. It used to be moral to own slaves. Then people decided no, that's wrong, and now, slavery is illegal in the US. If you think morality has always been static, then you have not noticed any of the changes that have occurred in history.
Oh, and sheep, I don't know if this (what I describe below) is your position, but if it is I think it is wrong. The idea that the moral views of the "Majority" dictate the rules of society is wrong. The first example that comes to mind is Ancient Sparta. This was a society where the minority ruled and the 'morality' of the minority is what prevailed (for a time). So, I think that your position should not be that "the majority" is what dictates morality but, instead, the most powerful group. I think in many cases the most powerful group is the majority -- but that is not necessarily true. This is a danger now because the level of power that can be attained by any particular group with the proper wealth and technology is frightening. In the west there are institutional checks on this power accumulation. I imagine there is something similar in China -- but I don't know.
They could completely ban text messages all over the world and I wouldn't be affected in the slightest. I would even be happy as I wouldn't be getting all this stupid ads.
Its so ironic how people really overestimate the influence the government in china has on its people
Its almost the other way around, the government has very little influence in the general direction of the public and how they go about daily life and business. Its mostly dog eat dog and get on with your own damn life, because the government isnt going to step in and help you out.
On January 22 2010 21:18 BrTarolg wrote: Its so ironic how people really overestimate the influence the government in china has on its people
Its almost the other way around, the government has very little influence in the general direction of the public and how they go about daily life and business. Its mostly dog eat dog and get on with your own damn life, because the government isnt going to step in and help you out.
Have to second this. Western media has build a very bad image of China. Try to talk to someone that has been to China, they will probably tell you how much fun they had.
I am french and I am living in China and totally agree with Carnivorous Sheep.
In France, the president Sarkozy is a very close friend of all the medias owners such as Bouygues, Lagardere, ... It's like Obama was a good friend of Rupert Murdoch, but also all the other TV and newspapers guys. The problem is that a very few part of the french population is aware of that... I feel so much more comfortable in China. Yeah I have to use a proxy to go to facebook and youtube, so what? China's population is 1.4 billion and you have no other choice than control it carefully. We had some riots in France in 2005, I can't imagine what I could have become in a 1.4 billion ppl country...
And to react to OP, yeah porn sms spam is annoying as hell in China.
On January 23 2010 04:56 endy wrote: Yeah I have to use a proxy to go to facebook and youtube, so what? China's population is 1.4 billion and you have no other choice than control it carefully. We had some riots in France in 2005, I can't imagine what I could have become in a 1.4 billion ppl country...
I see the brainwashing and conditioning by the Chinese government is working just as fine as well.
its all about control, and thats one way of getting it. wether its in china, france or usa, its the same result, restricting your rights. wooo, i dont know why people try to defend such decisions. o yea, piss poor education.
On January 22 2010 21:18 BrTarolg wrote: Its so ironic how people really overestimate the influence the government in china has on its people
Its almost the other way around, the government has very little influence in the general direction of the public and how they go about daily life and business. Its mostly dog eat dog and get on with your own damn life, because the government isnt going to step in and help you out.
Have to second this. Western media has build a very bad image of China. Try to talk to someone that has been to China, they will probably tell you how much fun they had.
I had a friend from the netherlands who lived in China for several years and he was ecstatic when he came home. He was pretty shocked. Obviously hes not an example of the entire country, a majority, even a minority.
There's no reason the government needs to step in to clean up cell text spam. It should be a matter for private companies who provide the text services. And if you really don't like it you can just use other means of communication. This just seems like a front for the government getting its hands into text message censorship in general. You know how like, text messaging has been a key part of campaigns against totalitarian regimes recently?? I mean the gig the chinese government is running might not be quite up to that level, but this could help...
If western media is exagerating government problems in china, does that mean we should trust chinese media to tell how completely nice and proper it actually is? Am i wrong in thinking that the chinese government has open control over its media?
On January 23 2010 07:31 zobz wrote: If western media is exagerating government problems in china, does that mean we should trust chinese media to tell how completely nice and proper it actually is? Am i wrong in thinking that the chinese government has open control over its media?
No one said the the Chinese media is trustworthy. All media should be taken with a grain of salt.
On January 23 2010 07:49 synapse wrote: You children clearly have never been to china. The moment you register a mobile phone on a chinese cellphone network, you have 10 messages already.
This.
It's absolutely TERRIBLE how much spam and stuff you get. Honestly, I'm quite glad they're getting rid of this.
That being said, any topic about China eventually leads to this. I have no opinion on this matter, but I will say that the text message throttling would save a crap ton of time.
On January 23 2010 07:31 zobz wrote: If western media is exagerating government problems in china, does that mean we should trust chinese media to tell how completely nice and proper it actually is? Am i wrong in thinking that the chinese government has open control over its media?
You're pulling arguments out of your ass. Noone ever said to believe Chinese media.
As an ethnic Chinese I would like to say that the posts about China needing centralized power and Tiananmen being an unavoidable necessity is pure BS. It was an atrocity, and to think otherwise is to retreat into a shell of rationalization and almost a form of Stockholm Syndrome. People who think like that are traitors to the country in my eyes.
There are reasons that people are protesting and still getting arrested for dissention. It's not because they want the Communist Party to show strength. It's not because they want a strong central power. That's ridiculous and retarded. They want the rule of law and freedom of speech.
Freedom is not free, and that's why it's easy to rationalize. A "compromise that a strong and effective government is better than anything else" is a lie and the fact that many Chinese think this way is abhorrent and shameful to me. It sickens me. But not all people think like that. Many people are dissatisfied with not having their rights, many more than you hear on the news. That's because they are censored and controlled, and the figureheads of such movements locked up, most recently on Christmas Day. The fact that they sacrifice so much while others look on and accept that liberties are taken from everybody, to avoid uncomfortableness and "chaos", disgusts me to my core.
On January 21 2010 16:18 Robinsa wrote: Thats exactly the problem. Even if they are discontent with the government they wont even be able to text it without facing the risk of going to jail. I dont know what the chinese people want, but I agree with you; It would indeed be best if they could express themselves instead of someone else talkinig for them. Last time I checked people that actually spoke their mind in china ended up in jail, or worse.
You know, I think if the Japanese won the war Chinese people would be all fine and dandy right? WRONG robinsa, you are criticizing a government that protected us from your country who raped and destroyed us. So before you say anything about china or comment on the cruelty of the chinese government, think about what your nation did to us first. And by the way, what do you have to say about the japanese refusing to teach kids about the rape of nanking and the negative things they did to China?
On January 23 2010 07:10 Integra wrote:
I see the brainwashing and conditioning by the Chinese government is working just as fine as well.
so now when someone from another country, whos ACTUALLY lived in china, talks about china positively, you call that brainwash? oh plz, enlighten me.
I have something for you. I was born in china and came to canada, and i dont think Canada is that much better. Am i brainwashed? What do u say to that?
On January 28 2010 22:59 snotboogie wrote: As an ethnic Chinese I would like to say that the posts about China needing centralized power and Tiananmen being an unavoidable necessity is pure BS. It was an atrocity, and to think otherwise is to retreat into a shell of rationalization and almost a form of Stockholm Syndrome. People who think like that are traitors to the country in my eyes.
There are reasons that people are protesting and still getting arrested for dissention. It's not because they want the Communist Party to show strength. It's not because they want a strong central power. That's ridiculous and retarded. They want the rule of law and freedom of speech.
Freedom is not free, and that's why it's easy to rationalize. A "compromise that a strong and effective government is better than anything else" is a lie and the fact that many Chinese think this way is abhorrent and shameful to me. It sickens me. But not all people think like that. Many people are dissatisfied with not having their rights, many more than you hear on the news. That's because they are censored and controlled, and the figureheads of such movements locked up, most recently on Christmas Day. The fact that they sacrifice so much while others look on and accept that liberties are taken from everybody, to avoid uncomfortableness and "chaos", disgusts me to my core.
It's okay to disagree but I would like you provide some examples to support the freedom and struggle that you speak of.
Of course people are not happy, who would be happy? but to say that a great or at least influential portion of the populace support the course are unsubstantiated.
Just being Chinese doesn't make you auto-correct on anything about China.
On January 28 2010 22:59 snotboogie wrote: As an ethnic Chinese I would like to say that the posts about China needing centralized power and Tiananmen being an unavoidable necessity is pure BS. It was an atrocity, and to think otherwise is to retreat into a shell of rationalization and almost a form of Stockholm Syndrome. People who think like that are traitors to the country in my eyes.
There are reasons that people are protesting and still getting arrested for dissention. It's not because they want the Communist Party to show strength. It's not because they want a strong central power. That's ridiculous and retarded. They want the rule of law and freedom of speech.
Freedom is not free, and that's why it's easy to rationalize. A "compromise that a strong and effective government is better than anything else" is a lie and the fact that many Chinese think this way is abhorrent and shameful to me. It sickens me. But not all people think like that. Many people are dissatisfied with not having their rights, many more than you hear on the news. That's because they are censored and controlled, and the figureheads of such movements locked up, most recently on Christmas Day. The fact that they sacrifice so much while others look on and accept that liberties are taken from everybody, to avoid uncomfortableness and "chaos", disgusts me to my core.
It's okay to disagree but I would like you provide some examples to support the freedom and struggle that you speak of.
Of course people are not happy, who would be happy? but to say that a great or at least influential portion of the populace support the course are unsubstantiated.
Just being Chinese doesn't make you auto-correct on anything about China.
Thank you, the amount of ignorance in these kind of threads is astounding. It's also very important to note the false pretenses that the ethnic Chinese hold for Western culture and politics; they're almost disillusioned and you can see this in study-abroad Chinese in the States.
And yes, it's a different country, different standards, and different culture. Reforms in Taiwan has led to a re-election of a leader who (allegedly) dramatized his way to the Presidency while funneling billions of bribes out of the country while still maintaining his innocence. I am sure those freedoms would work great with 1.6 billion people. And I am sure the Russian people have nothing but love for Boris Yeltsin too.
On January 23 2010 07:31 zobz wrote: If western media is exagerating government problems in china, does that mean we should trust chinese media to tell how completely nice and proper it actually is? Am i wrong in thinking that the chinese government has open control over its media?
No one said the the Chinese media is trustworthy. All media should be taken with a grain of salt.
I was meaning to imply that chinese media is exactly what influences alot of people to defend the trustworthiness of china's government, to impliment such laws, to get so involved in private enterprise and the communication industry in particular, which any people depends on to keep themselves and others well informed despite rotten media, as well as to organize protests and such anti-government doings.
They're already censoring the internet heavilly as i understand it. It seems far from paranoid to question their reasons for wanting to get their foot in the door of text messaging, especially given its role in recent uprisings around china.
On January 28 2010 22:59 snotboogie wrote: As an ethnic Chinese I would like to say that the posts about China needing centralized power and Tiananmen being an unavoidable necessity is pure BS. It was an atrocity, and to think otherwise is to retreat into a shell of rationalization and almost a form of Stockholm Syndrome. People who think like that are traitors to the country in my eyes.
There are reasons that people are protesting and still getting arrested for dissention. It's not because they want the Communist Party to show strength. It's not because they want a strong central power. That's ridiculous and retarded. They want the rule of law and freedom of speech.
Freedom is not free, and that's why it's easy to rationalize. A "compromise that a strong and effective government is better than anything else" is a lie and the fact that many Chinese think this way is abhorrent and shameful to me. It sickens me. But not all people think like that. Many people are dissatisfied with not having their rights, many more than you hear on the news. That's because they are censored and controlled, and the figureheads of such movements locked up, most recently on Christmas Day. The fact that they sacrifice so much while others look on and accept that liberties are taken from everybody, to avoid uncomfortableness and "chaos", disgusts me to my core.
It's okay to disagree but I would like you provide some examples to support the freedom and struggle that you speak of.
Of course people are not happy, who would be happy? but to say that a great or at least influential portion of the populace support the course are unsubstantiated.
Just being Chinese doesn't make you auto-correct on anything about China.
One of China's most prominent human rights activists was condemned today to 11 years in prison, prompting a furious backlash from domestic bloggers and international civil society groups.
Liu Xiaobo, the founder of the Charter 08 campaign for constitutional reform, was given the unusually harsh jail term on Christmas Day in an apparent attempt to minimise international attention.
...
Many activists were kept under house arrest or warned not to attend the hearings, but the contemporary artist Ai Weiwei was among those at the courtroom. "This does not mean a meteor has fallen. This is the discovery of a star," he tweeted. "Although this is a sentence on Liu Xiaobo alone, it is also a slap on the face for everyone in China."
...
He told friends that he knew the risk of imprisonment when he drafted Charter 08, which demands the open election of public officials, freedom of religion and expression, and the abolition of subversion laws.
"We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes," the petition says.
Liu was arrested last December before the Charter was made public. Other drafters and signatories have been harassed. The mainstream media have been forbidden to cover the subject and censors have blocked many related internet sites and articles. Many Chinese are unaware that it exists.
Last I checked, there weren't too many people sending porn material via text messaging.
But knowing the Chinese government censorship, they'll probably just come up with a shitload of false positives. Once they tried to have every computer assembled in China come with software that would block porn images, sites, and videos. It was ineffective in blocking porn and somehow came up with false positives as well.
That project was scrapped. Hope this one will get it soon too.
Assume it's actually feasible, I'd say about fucking time, IMO. Cellphone spams pisses me off more than the dinner-time sales call I used to receive in the States.
Btw, it's kind of funny to read this after reading the Fox News thread. It's weird how everyone automatically dismiss Fox News for their "spin", yet no one cares the horribly biased cultural spin on any foreign news.
On January 29 2010 16:53 haduken wrote: ^ and again, who really gave a toss?
Hence my point, he and his course is noble but are by no mean a representation of the society as a whole.
For something like this to succeed, you will need at least some group of powers to back it.
Communist party is huge. I think you grossly misunderstand the political dynamics.
Academics have served the communist party as much as anyone else. They are so very much separated from the majority.
So 8000 people have signed of it? Seriously, even crappy emo sites like mop.com get that many sign-age on their polls.
It seems to me that he was never trying to make a case that there is a problem in china On the basis of the fact that people are trying to do something to stop it. Rather he was saying that there's a problem, and that people who are trying to stop it are often misunderstood as to what they "want".
He's saying that obviously censorship and propoganda in china has been successful to quite some degree. That people think there is no problem, who get most of their information from chinese media, does not at all signify that there is no problem. Why don't you try and tell me that blatant internet censorship, actually trying to prevent the people from having discussions and doing research on the actions of their own government, is not seriously fucked up?
On January 21 2010 16:18 Robinsa wrote: Thats exactly the problem. Even if they are discontent with the government they wont even be able to text it without facing the risk of going to jail. I dont know what the chinese people want, but I agree with you; It would indeed be best if they could express themselves instead of someone else talkinig for them. Last time I checked people that actually spoke their mind in china ended up in jail, or worse.
You know, I think if the Japanese won the war Chinese people would be all fine and dandy right? WRONG robinsa, you are criticizing a government that protected us from your country who raped and destroyed us. So before you say anything about china or comment on the cruelty of the chinese government, think about what your nation did to us first. And by the way, what do you have to say about the japanese refusing to teach kids about the rape of nanking and the negative things they did to China?
I see the brainwashing and conditioning by the Chinese government is working just as fine as well.
so now when someone from another country, whos ACTUALLY lived in china, talks about china positively, you call that brainwash? oh plz, enlighten me.
I have something for you. I was born in china and came to canada, and i dont think Canada is that much better. Am i brainwashed? What do u say to that?
Uhm, actually, yeah man. You seem ultra brainwashed. The anti-japanese sentiment; the government-hugging attitude and the total negligence of how the communist dictatorship have driven the people to starvation, put them in jail for arbitrary reasons, killed them en masse, and even come at them with tanks.
I agree. You do seem brainwashed, because you're bringing in random shit about WW2 that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Not only that, you credit the current government with protecting China from the Japanese when the Communists didn't get into power until 4 years after that war had ended. Maybe you worship your red gods a bit too much.
....You both should take a history course on modern East Asia. Anti-Japanese sentiments are not a result of media brainwashing, there's good historical basis for why many Chinese (and Koreans) do not like the Japanese, and one of the reasons the communist party was able to come into power was because they were able to defend the more rural areas against the Japanese when the nationalists were more focused in big cities, gaining them the support of the rural masses.
snotboogie: When did you leave China? Being ethnically Chinese doesn't really mean anything if your upbringing is completely western and your entire understanding of the country comes from western sources.
On January 30 2010 02:24 snotboogie wrote: I agree. You do seem brainwashed, because you're bringing in random shit about WW2 that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Not only that, you credit the current government with protecting China from the Japanese when the Communists didn't get into power until 4 years after that war had ended. Maybe you worship your red gods a bit too much.
Actually, in the second Sino-Japanese war, the KMP and the CCP had an alliance in order to stop the Japanese invasion, seeing as they had been at civil war since 1927. The communists contributed just as much, if not more, than the nationalists during the war. In the end, it was Chiang Kai Shek who broke the agreements of the Second United Front in the early 1940s, still in the midst of the Japanese invasion, in an attempt to dispose of the communists, whom he viewed as a bigger threat to the ROC than the Japanese invasion. If he had not broken the Second United Front, the Japanese invasion would've been repelled much earlier than 1945, because it was the diverted focus of the KMT on the CCP that allowed the Japanese army to recuperate and recover ground in China.
There are a lot of historical reasons for anti-Japanese sentiment, but it would be outright lying if you think that the governments of China and Korea have never propagated more anti-Japanese sentiments towards the public.
Even besides all that, what does the blind hatred towards the Japanese accomplish? Of course the Japanese government got away with most of the shit that they have done in the past and even now they distort the history they teach to their students and deny/avoid allegations, but just because their government is like that does not mean that the Japanese people as a whole are like that. Government =/= people, and the hate has to stop somewhere.
Justified wasthe wrong word, understandable is probably closer to what I meant to say - there's an easy to see reason underlying the hate is what I'm getting at.
And it's not hate persay, more of a general/strong discontentment at the way things are. If modern day Germany refuses to acknowledge the Holocaust like Japan is doing with its atrocities, I'm sure it would cause just as much, if not more of an uproar. The double standards/general ignorance here is kind of annoying - anyone even hints at the possibility of denying the Holocaust immediately gets jumped on, whereas the Japanese government and educational institutions systemically attempt to suppress knowledge of their WWII atrocities in China/Korea/Southeast Asia/the Pacific.
The thing is that the discontent with the Japanese government almost always spills over into hate for the Japanese people in general; people that often don't even know that their government is doing some really wrong things. Hate their government, yes, sure, you should feel pissed off at what the Japanese government has gotten away with and still do to this day. But hate the Japanese people as a whole? No, there is definitely something wrong with that. This is where the blindness of nationalism comes in.
Also, posters on this forum ALWAYS jump on anti-Japanese sentimentality whenever the opportunity arises for it. There has been far more anti-Japanese posts than anti-Nazism posts on this forum throughout its entire history. I have no idea where you've been getting this double-standard stuff from.
On January 21 2010 12:03 Navi wrote: even if a man doesn't have his mags, he can still use his IMAGINATION
Chiina is fighting a losing war.
I have heard that using imagination is the healthiest thing and pretty much THAT is their target. That is unless ure some kind of maniac... Then pics with real chix are hleathier...must BE!
On January 30 2010 03:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Justified wasthe wrong word, understandable is probably closer to what I meant to say - there's an easy to see reason underlying the hate is what I'm getting at.
And it's not hate persay, more of a general/strong discontentment at the way things are. If modern day Germany refuses to acknowledge the Holocaust like Japan is doing with its atrocities, I'm sure it would cause just as much, if not more of an uproar. The double standards/general ignorance here is kind of annoying - anyone even hints at the possibility of denying the Holocaust immediately gets jumped on, whereas the Japanese government and educational institutions systemically attempt to suppress knowledge of their WWII atrocities in China/Korea/Southeast Asia/the Pacific.
I think we should stop this discussion instead of letting it take over the thread (as has been the case many times before this topic is brought up).
The only reason I brought up anti-japanese sentiment was because his response was so irrelvant to what he quoted.
On January 29 2010 16:53 haduken wrote: ^ and again, who really gave a toss?
Hence my point, he and his course is noble but are by no mean a representation of the society as a whole.
For something like this to succeed, you will need at least some group of powers to back it.
Communist party is huge. I think you grossly misunderstand the political dynamics.
Academics have served the communist party as much as anyone else. They are so very much separated from the majority.
So 8000 people have signed of it? Seriously, even crappy emo sites like mop.com get that many sign-age on their polls.
It seems to me that he was never trying to make a case that there is a problem in china On the basis of the fact that people are trying to do something to stop it. Rather he was saying that there's a problem, and that people who are trying to stop it are often misunderstood as to what they "want".
He's saying that obviously censorship and propoganda in china has been successful to quite some degree. That people think there is no problem, who get most of their information from chinese media, does not at all signify that there is no problem. Why don't you try and tell me that blatant internet censorship, actually trying to prevent the people from having discussions and doing research on the actions of their own government, is not seriously fucked up?
? I think you misunderstood me. I obviously think that it's fucked. But I've being arguing that it's not just the government being evil but rather the society and it's will to accept a government that impose such things on them. Having random 'democratic' advocates popping up left and right don't disapprove this point when you view in context that majority do not share their view even being told about it.
the reason for that is the existing insecurity and benefits that CCP bought to many people. The people don't give a toss but Liu because the situation is really not that bad. You will have to make China some thing like the haiti and ghetto it up 100x to make people revolt.
Gotta think that this move is a move to prevent stuff like exactly that. Controlling the flow of information is step number 1 for stopping any sort of movement. I doubt the government really cares one bit about pornography, this is about control. If you can filter and go through every text message sent, it becomes that much easier to find those with revolutionary sentiments and put them in prison for a long time with a farce of trial. It makes it harder for those people to meet and pass along vital information in a giant country with tons of people. This pornography campaign makes the decisions more palatable both to the citizens and those abroad, but lets call it what it is: control.
You know, I'm envious that you could even think of the "R" word in connection with government cracking down on cellphone porn spam. It really does show that you live a happy life with only trivial worries.
You know, I'm envious that you could even think of the "R" word in connection with government cracking down on cellphone porn spam. It really does show that you live a happy life with only trivial worries.
There are many serious political problems in the U.S. The problem is that many of its people are distracted by pety problems of consumerism to the point where they fail to even recognize there are more serious problems, much less want to organize a revolt.
And you're now demonstrating that the same is true in china. Yes your government needs to step in and take partial control of your cell phone industry and directly regulate messages citizens send to each other, and it's just to stop the spam. Spam sucks. All the power to them.
First they came for the porn, and I did not speak out—because real men don't use porn; Then they came for the pornographers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a pornographer; Then they came for the sexters, and I did not speak out—because I was not a sexter; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
This thread makes me so sad. Basically only few posters even notice that "fighting pornography" is just used as a method of propaganda to justify introduction of strict censorship. This means absolute control over everyone; I assume that ALL the text messages will be stored for years too, or even indefinitely. It's not only a Chinese thing, it also happens in many other countries. And people agree for it; because they seem to buy the garbage that they are fed. As if governments cared about people. They only care for themselves. And always did. Why is this so hard to understand?
On January 21 2010 17:03 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Again, if the Chinese government were displeased and angered enough, the CCP would not be in power right now. The fact that they're in power and have people defending their actions is proof that what they're doing is beneficial to the majority of the people. Dynastic changes in Chinese history were always, without fail, brought on by tyrannical rule that angered the people. Droughts and famines played a part, but if it was a wise and just, or even average, ruler, without a reputation of failures (warranted or unwarranted), there would not be enough cause for a revolution. It matters little what the government says, all that matters is the effects of the actions.
Generaly people who rule a country, usually have some supporters, or, create a special caste of them. I'm not saying that chinese government = ultimate evil, but I would only like to point out, that your logic is completely flawed. In Russia, Poland and other satelite states, members of the communist party; or supporters would receive benefits. Military, police and parts of some strategic utilities would even have their own shops - some people would struggle to buy basic goods (like bread), while others could buy them easily. Students would be forced to participate in events to show their 'love' for communism; those who did it from their own will, usually would benefit from it. Not that I say that this is what exactly happens in China, but it's common sense that the government cares of its supporters and fights the opposition in some way or another.
In fact, I would even say that people in general you will find peole that support even the dumbest theory; like a guy in this thread just wrote that SMS messaging is not a private method of communication. Yes, it is private; it should be kept private. In democratic countries the government should not read it; and other parties should be convicted for trying to do so. If we say that storing all text messages is wrong, then why not follow the old Stasi methods? They could read all the mail in the 1980s, we could easily reintroduce that. Or maybe everyone should get a chip implanted that would record all our actions? After all it would benefit us; because this would certainly prevent some criminal acts.
Some Chinese person in some other thread wrote that such ways need to be introduced in China, because "all people are greedy" and otherwise it would end with a war. I wonder why cant China become democratic in some form of a process - of education perhaps? The answer is simple, the government would lose their power. The guy below seems to be pretty brainwashed:
On January 29 2010 02:40 TwoSugarsAndACream wrote:
On January 21 2010 16:18 Robinsa wrote: Thats exactly the problem. Even if they are discontent with the government they wont even be able to text it without facing the risk of going to jail. I dont know what the chinese people want, but I agree with you; It would indeed be best if they could express themselves instead of someone else talkinig for them. Last time I checked people that actually spoke their mind in china ended up in jail, or worse.
You know, I think if the Japanese won the war Chinese people would be all fine and dandy right? WRONG robinsa, you are criticizing a government that protected us from your country who raped and destroyed us. So before you say anything about china or comment on the cruelty of the chinese government, think about what your nation did to us first. And by the way, what do you have to say about the japanese refusing to teach kids about the rape of nanking and the negative things they did to China?
Again, this logic seems so flawed. Basically you wrote that "everyone who isnt with us, is against us, because you support >the japanese, our enemies from 50 years ago<". You also seem to claim that any other government, would not fight japanese. The US government, in fact is "democratic" (if you can call a 2 party "winner-takes-all" sysem democratic) and somehow fought the Japs. Ok, if you know about pearl harbour, you can see that the democratic government didnt really care about its own people too, but in general they fought the japs and did not have to keep strict control of the whole country for the next 50 years while introducing strict censorship + brainwashing methods.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://chizumatic.mee.nu/images/02449.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7589/cmpedoguy.jpg)
