China threatens Nobel committee - Page 10

On September 29 2010 13:18 Judicator wrote:


Semi-serious, if you see whats going on a daily basis there, democracy is pretty much a legal sham show. Like if I saw my political hopeful doing half the things they do, I would move the fuck out.

Case in point, the two primary parties are fighting over something, either supposed corruption, their political futures, or whatever. That isn't what is important, what's stupid about the whole process in a far more Confucian society is that one of the parties brings out a octopus (think World Cup Paul) to make a point. Whoever the octopus picks is good for the general idea, except the octopus picks the opposing party's candidate...then the debate devolves into why octopus would pick that way (maybe it's the lighting). Keep in mind this is all happening in the congressional building. Never mind debating things that actually matter, keep focusing on the octopus.

Not to mention the whole corruption fiasco of the past president who still refuses to turn over the money; the fucking equivalent of Nixon doing Watergate, except he robbed the Treasury along with it when he moved out, then refusing to turn over the money. Best part is that people have been saying for years about the corruption that's so obvious that people can figure out stuff from photographs (the equivalent of Obama rolling up in a Bentley).

When you got the population and ethnic diversity of the size that China has, democracy on the national level simply does not work and elections would be a nightmare like they are now in Taiwan.

On September 29 2010 13:25 vindKtiv wrote:
Half, you obviously don't get it. If the United States is not a democracy, then this whole point is wrong.

If the United States is not a democracy (it is "more" democratic, whatever that means) and the corporations did not succeed because of democracy (but rather, succeeded because of the lack of), then HOW can it be an example as a country where democracy is more beneficial? This is a point that you dodge over and over, and it is a point I am convinced that you cannot answer. Just stop.

If the United States is not a democracy (it is "more" democratic, whatever that means) and the corporations did not succeed because of democracy (but rather, succeeded because of the lack of), then HOW can it be an example as a country where democracy is more beneficial? This is a point that you dodge over and over, and it is a point I am convinced that you cannot answer. Just stop.

On September 29 2010 13:29 Taku wrote:
Yep, if China went for democracy and all that, they definitely would be much better off. I mean just look at India. /s

The reasoning behind this posturing is because giving that dissident a prize would be endorsing him, which would be interpreted as meddling in China's internal affairs, and *that* is a live wire you don't want to touch. Especially now that China has all sorts of soft power.

On September 29 2010 13:37 kaisen wrote:

That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country.

On September 29 2010 13:18 Judicator wrote:


Semi-serious, if you see whats going on a daily basis there, democracy is pretty much a legal sham show. Like if I saw my political hopeful doing half the things they do, I would move the fuck out.

Case in point, the two primary parties are fighting over something, either supposed corruption, their political futures, or whatever. That isn't what is important, what's stupid about the whole process in a far more Confucian society is that one of the parties brings out a octopus (think World Cup Paul) to make a point. Whoever the octopus picks is good for the general idea, except the octopus picks the opposing party's candidate...then the debate devolves into why octopus would pick that way (maybe it's the lighting). Keep in mind this is all happening in the congressional building. Never mind debating things that actually matter, keep focusing on the octopus.

Not to mention the whole corruption fiasco of the past president who still refuses to turn over the money; the fucking equivalent of Nixon doing Watergate, except he robbed the Treasury along with it when he moved out, then refusing to turn over the money. Best part is that people have been saying for years about the corruption that's so obvious that people can figure out stuff from photographs (the equivalent of Obama rolling up in a Bentley).

When you got the population and ethnic diversity of the size that China has, democracy on the national level simply does not work and elections would be a nightmare like they are now in Taiwan.

On September 29 2010 07:33 Grumbaki wrote:
Ok i know i'm gonna get flammed but I guess someone has to play the devil's advocate part.

China is not ready for democracy or freedom of speech.

It's out of the box, now feel free not to read and just flame. If you want insight for someone who actually worked there (and taiwan) as government liaison for a western country and then as lawyer, who is living in the culture for like 10 years, who is regularly attending both side (gov and dissidents) allocutions and who is getting every piece of info he can on socio economic chinese info he can, please read.

First a simple example:
The Xingjiang riots. What happened then? This is off the record speech from both officials and and dissidents.
A sms rumor started in guanzhou that xinjiang minority migrant workers raped and killed a girl. Pure rumor. Spread real fast. Result: 2 dead xinjiang dude.
The info spreads to Xinjiang. Retaliation by Xinjiangren on Han. Gov shuts down the province and retaliate (that's the part that was known in the media).
(remind that China is a clearly racist place. Not so much the institutions but the mentality of the average joe)

Now does that sounds like a educated rational country where you can go full on democracy?

If you're not short sighted, like most dissidents, you dont ask for democracy tomorrow.

1/ Create a middle class. Middle class is the key to democratic country and the evolution to this.
For china this means a lot of evolutions:
- Raising the workers wages. (we're close to Lewis' point in china, cf recent strikes)
- Changing the status of migrant workers, who are now denied basic access to public services.
- Mass education: current system is hugely flawed and bars social promotion by studies

2/ Create conditions to stop inequalities:
- real access and process of citizen complaints against government.
- health care (huge factor of financial anxiety for middle class actually)
- real property law with fair court access and no expropriations.
- stop corruption, specially in local authorities level.

Sounds far fetch but the main point of having this stance is that chinese ppl actually agree with my 1 and 2. Even old time party members i talked to.

Once those are installed, freedom of speech can come and then democracy. They'll come by popular demand.

People in the western world are often talking out of their ash on china. This hurts the cause more than it helps it. Soft power is the way with chinese culture. This is the meaning of me taking the timeto post and the potential flame.

Last things you have to know, the debate I exposed is also running within the central gov. Some officials are burning their carreers for it. Don't make the whole thing a undicerned evil. If anything, local authorities are the one to blame for a lot of crappy situations.

Cautionary points:
- i do not support a lot of chinese stances (beyond the ones i already mentionned) like unfair imprisonnement, death penalty and so on. Don't make me full on evil just for what i stated before.
- no i do not spit on China. I lived there, I wanna go back more than anything. I was called "nai huangbao" several times (it's the white to chinese equivalent of "Bounty")
- This post isn't pro or against M. Liu's potential prize. Charter 08 is one of (if not the) main movement and will play a big part in future china's history. I regularly met some of the co signers of the charter in HK or Europe, this is a damn legit peaceful movement. They might be asking to much too soon tho.
- Look for "barefoot lawyers". This is the main "dissident" movement i fully support, even actively when i was there and could do it. They act efficiently and have a real chance to make things change faster than louder movements. Please spread the word.
- I don't hold the only truth. This is a touchy subject and i'll understand the flame. Please make some decent reasoned points, i'll be happy to take them.

On September 29 2010 13:42 Half wrote:
Are you really so Naive as to believe that top level Chinese officials aren't working towards there own gain? The only difference is that you know about it in Taiwans case.

On September 29 2010 13:52 dybydx wrote:

actually... many of the top cadre in the CPC ranks have a very solid resume. especially in contrast to US presidential candidates like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

you'd also be pretty hard pressed to find any evidence of them amassing personal wealth.

that being said, there are still many in the CPC ranks that fill their own pockets with state resources. but Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are generally perceived very well by the ppl.

On September 29 2010 13:37 kaisen wrote:

That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country.

On September 29 2010 13:34 Half wrote:
The Unite States is a Representative Democracy. It is not a pure democracy. This is its definition. The Success of corporations and other economic drives in this countries history is intrinsically tied to the fact that the U.S. is less authoritarian then other nations at the time. As a society becomes increasingly democratic, the rights of the individual increase, something that is 100% in your interests, because you owe civil liberties like the existence of Starcraft 2, this forum, and over half this nations entertainment and literature. It also confers other benefits, but you are probably too young to relate to them. If you think it isn't, or some sort of class conscious makes you think it isn't, you're wrong, its just youthful naievete.

This isn't to say America is completely free, or that the U.S. government isn't incredibly oppressive, or any moral judgement, but rather, a judgment of personal interest, both on the longer and short term, mostly regardless of class with very few exceptions. Nor did I ever make any judgments about Chinese government in China in this conversation.

Please don't respond unless you actually read the above. If I didn't address your questions fully please re phrase them in a more coherent manner.

You're a complete fool to think that corporations are "American."

Big Corporations are inherently amoralistic, owe no allegiance to any states except for profit, and constantly seek to diminish people of their life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness unless constantly rebuffed. Libertarians and realists (dunno what you are, obviously not either), the people who are ever on guard to fight tyranny have absolutely no defense against big corporations.

When tyranny finally come to the US there won't be a benign purpose behind it like China's communism, which is to safeguard the legacy and return prestige to the collective culture.

No, when it comes the the US it won't try to deprive you of any information, what's gonna happen is it'll drown out any pertinent information in a sea of irrelevance. It'll be a country full of docile consumers, reduced to passivity and egotism, preoccupied with nothing of importance. People will be controlled by inflicting pleasure to the point when we lose sight of ourselves.

On September 29 2010 14:13 .risingdragoon wrote:
Not the individual at all. That hasn't been the case since WWII's economic boom. It powers the few while the majority will languish and the middle class is definitely retreating.

On September 29 2010 14:17 .risingdragoon wrote:
So stop idealizing it.

On September 29 2010 14:19 Half wrote:


When the fuck did I start idealizing it? Are you fucking kidding me? My core argument was about benefits and civil liberties. I literally never Idealized it, your the one who started playing semantics for two pages. I mean, you've come to the agreement that "Democracy", however the fuck you want to define it, is intricately connected to American power.

On September 29 2010 14:23 .risingdragoon wrote:


People generally define democratic principles in egalitarian terms, and apart from fucking economic might. These two factors have always been at odds