China has warned the Nobel Peace Prize committee not to award the prize to well-known dissident Liu Xiaobo.
The Chinese foreign ministry said giving him the prize would be against Nobel principles.
Mr Liu is serving a long prison sentence for calling for democracy and human rights in China.
A foreign ministry spokeswoman told reporters in Beijing that Liu Xiaobo was serving a jail term because he had violated Chinese law.
Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize would send the wrong message to the world, the spokeswoman said.
It would run contrary to the aims of its founder to promote peace between peoples, and to promote international friendship and disarmament, she added.
Mr Liu is serving an 11-year prison sentence for drafting Charter 08, which called for multiparty democracy and respect for human rights in China.
The ruling Communist Party perceived this to be a threat against it.
More than 100 Chinese scholars, lawyers and campaigners have urged the Nobel Peace Prize committee to honour him this year.
The former Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has also voiced his support for the campaign. Trade talks
The head of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said on Monday that a senior Chinese official had warned him that awarding the peace prize to Liu Xiaobo would affect relations between Oslo and Beijing.
China and Norway are now engaged in talks over a bilateral trade deal, which some say could serve as a blueprint for an agreement between China and the European Union.
Energy-rich Norway is also keen to export its offshore exploration know-how to China.
The Norwegian oil firm Statoil said last month that it was hoping to look for shale gas in China.
China was furious when the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, the year of the Tiananmen Square crackdown by Chinese authorities on protesters.
The government tried to exert pressure on the committee last year when another dissident, Hu Jia, was nominated for the prize.
The committee will announce this year's winner in 10 days.
Actually, they seem more to be threatening Norway, but... The image of bullying the Nobel committee (chosen by the Norwegian Parliament), especially for the Nobel Peace Prize, is too hilarious not to impart. Seems to me they're putting too much stock on anyone caring about who wins.
I can honestly say that I don't remember the last time I cared about someone winning a Nobel prize... ever... If anything, China is just calling way more attention to this by voicing out against it than it would've gotten otherwise.
This is funny because most of my friends and family in China agree with the Chinese government on this issue. And they're all completely educated and very familiar with the west, most of them have traveled or studied in the states. And for them, there reasoning is that they view that the act exists in itself, (self centered) will have little impact on ministry politics, but destabilize already unstable parts of China while making no effect on stable regions/social circles (like the ones they themselves are part of)
I completely disagree of course. But its an interesting perspective. People in the west often have this view that everyone in China is oppressed and brainwashed by the government, but most of the upper middle class are very well educated and secular, but prefer the economic and social stability of the status quo over the economic and social upheavals of a democratic uprising.
And since I've lived in the states for over five years now I feel kind of self centered when I advocate Chinese democracy. Because I'm not the one whos going to be potentially shot or killed or disenfranchised or dislocated in the democratic uprising.
I just keep my political viewpoints/hostilities more close to home nowadays. I still support those fighting for democracy in China, but it just seems a bit hypocritical now to do the same now that I'm in the safety of the arguably equally oppressive States, completely unnaffected by the consequences a political upheaval might have on citizens of China, particularly the extreme lower class and the middle class. (Only of course, we're more oppressive towards 3rd world countries then our own citizens, so people don't care as much)
I can honestly say that I don't remember the last time I cared about someone winning a Nobel prize... ever... If anything, China is just calling way more attention to this by voicing out against it than it would've gotten otherwise.
People in Western nations are usually dissensitized towards this kind of thing, especially those viewing Starcraft 2 Esports forums :p. But it carries a lot more politic heft towards the general public, especially those in China, and for those whom do actively advocate/fight for Chinese democracy.
On September 29 2010 06:56 LegendaryZ wrote: I can honestly say that I don't remember the last time I cared about someone winning a Nobel prize... ever... If anything, China is just calling way more attention to this by voicing out against it than it would've gotten otherwise.
On September 29 2010 07:00 Half wrote: This is funny because most of my friends and family in China agree with the Chinese government on this issue. And they're all completely educated and very familiar with the west, most of them have traveled or studied in the states. And for them, there reasoning is that they view that the act exists in itself, (self centered) will have little impact on ministry politics, but destabilize already unstable parts of China while making no effect on stable regions/social circles (like the ones they themselves are part of)
I completely disagree of course. But its an interesting perspective. People in the west often have this view that everyone in China is oppressed and brainwashed by the government, but most of the upper middle class are very well educated and secular, but prefer the economic and social stability of the status quo over the economic and social upheavals of a democratic uprising.
And since I've lived in the states for over five years now I feel kind of self centered when I advocate Chinese democracy. Because I'm not the one whos going to be potentially shot or killed or disenfranchised or dislocated in the democratic uprising.
I just keep my political viewpoints/hostilities more close to home nowadays.
I'm not sure anyone is advocating an armed rebellion or full scale war. Most of the international hope for progress in China is invested in the gradual opening of the society and eventually the government. At least, closer to the that idea than a "democratic uprising". Very few people with an actual grasp on the situation are holding their breaths until the Chinese poor rise up.
I can honestly say that I don't remember the last time I cared about someone winning a Nobel prize... ever... If anything, China is just calling way more attention to this by voicing out against it than it would've gotten otherwise.
now china can censor everything that their people will hear. so Mao takes the nobel prize this year.
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
And gave it to him before he actually did anything.
I've already lost a lot of respect for the nobel peace prize, giving it to this guy, despite China's threats, would give it some respect though.
On September 29 2010 07:00 Half wrote: This is funny because most of my friends and family in China agree with the Chinese government on this issue. And they're all completely educated and very familiar with the west, most of them have traveled or studied in the states. And for them, there reasoning is that they view that the act exists in itself, (self centered) will have little impact on ministry politics, but destabilize already unstable parts of China while making no effect on stable regions/social circles (like the ones they themselves are part of)
I completely disagree of course. But its an interesting perspective. People in the west often have this view that everyone in China is oppressed and brainwashed by the government, but most of the upper middle class are very well educated and secular, but prefer the economic and social stability of the status quo over the economic and social upheavals of a democratic uprising.
And since I've lived in the states for over five years now I feel kind of self centered when I advocate Chinese democracy. Because I'm not the one whos going to be potentially shot or killed or disenfranchised or dislocated in the democratic uprising.
I just keep my political viewpoints/hostilities more close to home nowadays.
I'm not sure anyone is advocating an armed rebellion or full scale war. Most of the international hope for progress in China is invested in the gradual opening of the society and eventually the government. At least, closer to the latter than a "democratic uprising". Very few people with an actual grasp on the situation are holding their breaths until the Chinese poor rise up.
Even small changes can huge repercussions. I'm not arguing for a police state, but its important to note that China is extraordinarily stable for its size and cultural stratification.
For instance, the Urumqi Riots last year (I was actually in the Xinjiang province when it happened on a vacation with relatives and friends) was primarily blamed on, ironically, the lack of government response. The police refrained from offensive actions for an hour after being mobilized and fully deployed. This was partly due to the fact that the Prime Minister was in Italy (?, or something western European country). During that hour is where the vast majority of the 800 ish killed died. (9:30 to 10:30 am)
Then, the subsequent round up of violent (and nonviolent ) perpetrators was a disaster. A lack of unified government response caused perpetrators to escape far enough that the vast majority of them remain uncaught. A wave of violence also spiked, and actually forced us to leave as soon as we were able, caused by fleeing rioters.
My point is that China isn't as stable as it seems. There is no justification for atrocities such as the Tienanmen Square Massacres, but at the same time, China is still unstable and heavily developing in some areas, and a democratic reform will cause large economic damage, and a notable loss in human life.
I'd be fully prepared to bear that for my own country of residence. I value freedom very highly, its probably one of my core convictions. But asking of the same on another country, one where I have a lot of friends and family, who really don't want the same, from the view of what is now an "outsider" seems a tad bit hypocritical.
On that note, that isn't to say I would want Oslo to capitulate to the demands of the Chinese government. That would be horrible. Was just wanting to expand some perspectives. And of course, I also know many friends and family who hate the communist party to death, some out of ideology, some out of very substantial reasons.
Charter 08 is a petition for Democratic Elections. Liu Xiaobo is inciting revolution.
"...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
That is the worst argument for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize that I've ever heard. Not only did he take office in the midst of these wars, he also led the withdrawal from these wars.
On-topic: yeah, China... ... tsk tsk. Warning the Nobel committee to not award the Nobel Peace Prize to a political prisoner is only going to make them look worse to the rest of the world, what were they thinking?
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.
I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations?
Both educated and (lower) middle class are aware of most situations (except maybe the gulags). Actually, educated ppl are actually the worst kind to convince as their answer is "as long as I get my share of the national growth, i don't give a flying f* about democracy and poor ppl's rights". For instance, I heard that from a chinese lawyer with UK education. O.o
Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this?
The gov sucks at internet control. If there's one thing you can dismiss right away it's the "great firewall of china". It's bullshit propaganda and such a nice topic for western media. You can only get caught if you post it in a stupid way.
And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
They generally don't make things up. But they do tell half truth because of their ignorance. Get info on the writers of the news, only trust those with credential and deep knowledge of the place.
I really like your last point, because there is worse doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at ourselves.
And if i might add, trust locals to take care of their business. Support, don't lead and specially don't go on your high horse.
On September 29 2010 07:13 composition wrote: Charter 08 is a petition for Democratic Elections. Liu Xiaobo is inciting revolution.
"...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
Your second quote is from Mao, am I right ? I don't understand your point -_-
I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this?
A lot of the more educated upper middle class and there university age young adults are very aware of China's actions and there perception by the west. The only bias is that they generally tend to agree that the statistics are exaggerated by the west. (For instance, Tienanmen might be ~400-500 dead while western sources put that at 2000-3000). However, partly out of traditional Chinese values like respect and stability, and partly out of there own interests in maintaining the status quo (which they primarily benefit from).
Most dissidents are people who have been genuinely wronged by the government yet are also educated enough to be able to resist in any meaningful way, or idealistic scholars and young people from upper class families.
Most lower middle class and lower class people are aware, but they tend to note care, or feel like they are exaggerated, because they tend to put more value on state controlled media (which is so hilariously propoganda its fucking hilarious. For instance, the amount dead at Urumqi got lower the farther I moved out of the regions. Generally, in my experience, death tolls only go up :D)
Some of the lower class does get abused heavily, but often, the abuse isn't really relevant to whats going on in Beijing, but corrupt statesmen who would be corrupt anyway regardless of system, and even when the fault lies in government, they often aren't educated enough to be able to stand up for themselves, so there cries are usually unheard.
Regarding the internet, not really, but it has happened. Though never in a western website. In fact they don't really care about there international image that much, nobody important cares about it either, its just another tool. However, making a lot of noise and being recognized on national sites can lead to some trouble.
And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
Not much. In terms of frequency I can't give you an unbiased judgement, nor can anyone really, but the fact that tortures, rapes, and other brutality's occur on a notable basis isn't really too debatable. It definitely is far more authoritarian then eastern Europe lol, you can't comapre the towo. Substantial abuses do happen regularly. And Chinese news channels have been a good source of humor lol.
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
Well, theirs going to be a political or economic interest behind every single politically relavent message propagated nowadays. This could lead to a loss of "truth", but also, not necessarily be untrue. That being said, China is a pretty brutal Authoritarian government on some accounts. They're far worse then Italy or Greece. However, the atrocitys commited by the state don't really reach the of pure despotism, and the standard of living is higher then another very comparable case, India, another huge, multicultural developing country. India does have democracy, but it is incredibly corrupt and unstable. Entire provinces are basically controlled by militant organizations.
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
That is the worst argument for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize that I've ever heard. Not only did he take office in the midst of these wars, he also led the withdrawal from these wars.
On-topic: yeah, China... ... tsk tsk. Warning the Nobel committee to not award the Nobel Peace Prize to a political prisoner is only going to make them look worse to the rest of the world, what were they thinking?
Renaming troops and putting goverment contractors in doesnt replace lost life in Afg or Iran(soon)/q.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
People I know (middle class citizens) don't really care that much. Low class people, like farmers, don't even know. It's the higher class, more educated people, that raise their voice, like students.
China is definitely not ready for democracy yet. Democracy does not promote action or radical changes, and relies on stability. China is not stable, internally, and externally. With elements like Tibet, Xinjiang, and social unrest, China has to be able to maintain a hard line to prevent uprisings. Also, with China rising on the international stage, it will become involved in political power play between the world powers. Democracy can't be build on unstable foundations. If China transitions to democracy too early, it will go the way of Russia.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
This is just pathetic. You're going to discourage the celebration of courage under extreme circumstances? What a sad message to send to your people and your children.
On September 29 2010 07:56 Emon_ wrote: This is just pathetic. You're going to discourage the celebration of courage under extreme circumstances? What a sad message to send to your people and your children.
Nobody on this thread has voiced that Liu Xiaobo shouldn't be awarded for his courage and his sacrifice for human rights.
The committee must be loving this. PR is always good - first Obama and now this?
We have a debate in Sweden about whether we should be giving the prices that we are responsible of to less known people or if we need to do like the Norwegian committee and give it to well known figures like Obama.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
Really...? Social turmoil in this time would be disastrous for China. People aren't ignorant, they just want a stable life.
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Keep in mind India is hardly stable, entire provinces are under the control of violent militants.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
I'd respect this opinion so much more if your tag said "China". Who are you to choose for them whether they want Freedom or Security? Especially considering a lot of people I know are fully aware and chose security.
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Keep in mind India is hardly stable, entire provinces are under the control of violent militants.
Bad. Sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the good of the nation. For example, the one-child policy. Without it, China would be having HUGE overpopulation and food shortage issues.
This is going to sound quite pessemistic, but China, like the USA is currently one of the new Political, Economical and miltiairy superpowers, they can say anything they want, can virtually do anything they want and get away with it. the USA is beginning to lose its grasp on their position as the most dominant country in the world. China however should not become indeed like India, India is a democracy but is in a worse position at this moment then China is(granted the Hindu has a class system).
Fun fact, the USA can not survive without China, neither can China survive without the USA. the USA has billions(trillions maybe?) of debt in China, and China buys US bonds to keep the yuan value low.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
From what I've seen, most people understand exactly how corrupt the government is and largely agree that there have been many terrible human rights violations. + Show Spoiler +
I have to say though, much of these have been exaggerated by western media though, for example: CNN showing photos of "Chinese police" beating Tibetan monks... when they were actually Nepalese police
They just don't care; as long as their own lives are unaffected (for the most part), it's someone else's problem.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
While i do agree censorship is a bad thing, it goes both ways, does anyone remember the video of tibetian monks hitting chinese babies with clubs?that was taken off BBC after a day, yet we were drown in videos of police brutality.
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
If i can only agree that Qing was worse than Ming, seeing Ming as progressive is romantic illusions. Totalitarian son of the sky bullshit all the way, basically owning the people. The only thing they had going for them is the mandarin exam and even that got flawed. If i had to pick one i'd go Tang.
Oh and please don't get me started on India...without hippies dreams and a Head of state wearing sheets as cloths, it would be seen nowadays as the hellhole it is. Sure, developped regions/cities are fine, but the rest of the place is a huge mess.
(Edit: posted too slow, didn't see that you're not one of the blind India lovers)
Oh and please don't get me started on India...without hippies dreams and a Head of state wearing sheets as cloths, it would be seen nowadays as the hellhole it is. Sure, developped regions/cities are fine, but the rest of the place is a huge mess.
USA is beginning to lose its grasp on their position as the most dominant country in the world.
Oh if only this were true -_-.
China still has a long way to go from #2 to #1. 1000% to be exact.
i did say starting, china indeed has a long way to go to be as dominant as the United States is currently(maybe it will never reach that point admittedly) but it is happening, They have a disgusting growth in economy(which may even grow TOO fast for the country itself) and with economic power comes political power.
USA is beginning to lose its grasp on their position as the most dominant country in the world.
Oh if only this were true -_-.
China still has a long way to go from #2 to #1. 1000% to be exact.
i did say starting, china indeed has a long way to go to be as dominant as the United States is currently(maybe it will never reach that point admittedly) but it is happening, They have a disgusting growth in economy(which may even grow TOO fast for the country itself) and with economic power comes political power.
Sadly most analysts agree that this will take centuries (If it happens at all). China's current level of growth isn't sustainable. It isn't unsustainable in the sense that its going to cataclysmically collapse or anything, but it will slow substantially. Currently, this is most evident in Real Estate.
USA is beginning to lose its grasp on their position as the most dominant country in the world.
Oh if only this were true -_-.
China still has a long way to go from #2 to #1. 1000% to be exact.
Yeah... China won't reach #1 territory. The US will be trying everything in its power to keep China down. Mass media is only 1 facet.
Thats the thing,what can the USA do apart from mass media? what good will it do in terms of China's economical power?people won't stop buying Chinese products just because they are made in a country where human rights are being violated
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
If i can only agree that Qing was worse than Ming, seeing Ming as progressive is romantic illusions. Totalitarian son of the sky bullshit all the way, basically owning the people. The only thing they had going for them is the mandarin exam and even that got flawed. If i had to pick one i'd go Tang.
The Qing were extremely conservative and xenophobic. They stifled scientific and social advancements for fear of being overthrown. China completely stagnated during that period.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
From what I've seen, most people understand exactly how corrupt the government is and largely agree that there have been many terrible human rights violations. + Show Spoiler +
I have to say though, much of these have been exaggerated by western media though, for example: CNN showing photos of "Chinese police" beating Tibetan monks... when they were actually Nepalese police
They just don't care; as long as their own lives are unaffected (for the most part), it's someone else's problem.
That, Synapse is absolutely correct and that is what annoys me.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
I'd respect this opinion so much more if your tag said "China". Who are you to choose for them whether they want Freedom or Security? Especially considering a lot of people I know are fully aware and chose security.
You can't be serious Half. That isn't even going to warrant a pertinent reply. Use your head. Basing your opinion on my stance because of my origin? Base it on the content, you ___. Do you know whether the tag is accurate, whether I am from China, moved to USA, vice versa? I feel like calling you an idiot but I'll just ignore you.
On September 29 2010 08:01 buhhy wrote:
Really...? Social turmoil in this time would be disastrous for China. People aren't ignorant, they just want a stable life.
Very true, I agree with the notion that they don't care because all they care about is themselves and just want a stable life. Seeing someone dying on the street and not calling the ambulance because you don't want to be disturbed--is that ignorant? Ignorant of that person's life? Try to see the connection and if you think otherwise I welcome a constructive reply.
On September 29 2010 08:20 buhhy wrote: The Qing were extremely conservative and xenophobic. They stifled scientific and social advancements for fear of being overthrown. China completely stagnated during that period. Sure, the Tang and Han were the greatest dynasties, but the Ming was far from the worst.
For every problem Ming had, Qing had. For problems Ming did not have, Qing had too.
Kudos for ppl like 孙中山 and 张学良 for acting selflessly cleaning up the mess that was left behind.
just to link economics with the democracy speech i had earlier: with a middle class, china could stop (or lower) being dependent on exports to the US. 2 birds one stone. And we all know that another was to get first when you are second is to shoot the first in the back.
The US currently "owe" China 867.7 billions $ (may 2010) out of 12,594.8 billions $ national debt.
You can't be serious Half. That isn't even going to warrant a pertinent reply. Use your head. Basing your opinion on my stance because of my origin? Do you know whether the tag is accurate, whether I am from China, moved to USA, vice versa? I feel like calling you an idiot but I'll just ignore you.
Seriously, you're fucking annoying.
It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with your position of residence. It has to do with your advocating changes for someone else country, that have nothing to do with you, and will not negatively effect you in any way, and in the end of the day, you get a kick out of feeling morally superior.
Like, literally, if China democratically reforms and say, a hundred thousand people die, you literally wouldn't be effected at all by the deaths of a hundred thousand human beings.
Tell me, do you support the U.S invasion to liberate the Iraqi people?
Freedom requires sacrifice. I'd sacrifice for my country. And if this were your country you lived in, you'd have to sacrifice too. But please don't fucking going around telling other people that they have to sacrifice when your in some fucking 1st world country eating doritos and browsing a gaming website.
On September 29 2010 07:35 esperanto wrote: I am always interessted to see the chinese point of view on these topics. Are the ppl in china aware of the cencoring and the human-rights violations? Would someone get in trouble to post about that on a forum like this? And how much of this is just made up by wester media?
There are alot of proven human-rights violations in china, it is easy to criticize china for that and for its lack of democracy. But we also have human rights violations in europe/usa (situation of refugees coming to greece or italy, cases of police-brutality...) it often makes we wonder if we also might be "manipulated" to take our "superior" democracy for granted.
A minority understands this--some adults, some young adults. Large majority are ignorant of it because they assume the government is working for their best. [Plus China is big, and a lot of stuff are censored, [news/internet], so information is hard to come by to a lot of people to even begin with] It disgusts me to speak with Chinese who have this sentiment. If you try to open their eyes, they just turn a blind eye to it. Many adults were born into this Communist society so they see things lighter than we do and see it as a way of life. The belief that the people who died at Tiananmen Square deserved it because they "disturbed" the government or attempted to "corrupt" the youth, is a very likely mindset for many older citizens of China. It disgusts me. Why don't the youth see this? Some do, but a whole damn lot go along with it because their parents do, censorship, etc.
While i do agree censorship is a bad thing, it goes both ways, does anyone remember the video of tibetian monks hitting chinese babies with clubs?that was taken off BBC after a day, yet we were drown in videos of police brutality.
Yep, you are right, there is censorship, propaganda world wide. But a good warning is: don't use it as an excuse to justify it. Two wrongs dont make a right.
You can't be serious Half. That isn't even going to warrant a pertinent reply. Use your head. Basing your opinion on my stance because of my origin? Do you know whether the tag is accurate, whether I am from China, moved to USA, vice versa?I feel like calling you an idiot but I'll just ignore you.
[HALF]It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with your advocating changes for someone else country, that have nothing to do with you, and will not negatively effect you in any way, and in the end of the day, you get a kick out of feeling morally superior.
Tell me, do you support the U.S invasion to liberate the Iraqi people? [HALF] [/QUOTE]
Sweet, I never knew responding to a response could be as easy as saying the same thing twice cause they fail to actually read the content because[possibly] they are so full of themselves, believe in their stance that they fail to actually understand the material. And just want to defend themselves.
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
If i can only agree that Qing was worse than Ming, seeing Ming as progressive is romantic illusions. Totalitarian son of the sky bullshit all the way, basically owning the people. The only thing they had going for them is the mandarin exam and even that got flawed. If i had to pick one i'd go Tang.
The Qing were extremely conservative and xenophobic. They stifled scientific and social advancements for fear of being overthrown. China completely stagnated during that period. Sure, the Tang and Han were the greatest dynasties, but the Ming was far from the worst.
Hehe we actually agree mate. I'm just being a bit rougher on the Ming as I only take into account in my personnal ranking the long lasting non challenged dynasties. That limits the list.
Anyway glad ot go all "superman vs batman" nerd about chinese dynasties on TL. Very good surprise
Basing your opinion on my stance because of my origin? Do you know whether the tag is accurate, whether I am from China, moved to USA, vice versa?
Am I wrong? Are you posting this from Mainland China, and plan to live there on a long term basis?
I read your post sir and it was dumb. I don't care that I could be wrong. That I might be wrong. If you are going to tell me that I am wrong, go ahead and do so. Tell me that you are living in mainland China of this post. Otherwise, stfu.
You can't be serious Half. That isn't even going to warrant a pertinent reply. Use your head. Basing your opinion on my stance because of my origin? Do you know whether the tag is accurate, whether I am from China, moved to USA, vice versa? I feel like calling you an idiot but I'll just ignore you.
Seriously, you're fucking annoying.
It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with your position of residence. It has to do with your advocating changes for someone else country, that have nothing to do with you, and will not negatively effect you in any way, and in the end of the day, you get a kick out of feeling morally superior.
Like, literally, if China democratically reforms and say, a hundred thousand people die, you literally wouldn't be effected at all by the deaths of a hundred thousand human beings.
Tell me, do you support the U.S invasion to liberate the Iraqi people?
Freedom requires sacrifice. I'd sacrifice for my country. And if this were your country you lived in, you'd have to sacrifice too. But please don't fucking going around telling other people that they have to sacrifice when your in some fucking 1st world country eating doritos and browsing a gaming website.
As I see you have edited your post in the meanwhile, I'll respond to it again.
You are correct, someone OUTSIDE of a system wanting to change that same system is very icky. Bare my diction. Let us go over what I responded to. I responded to your comment that you based your opinion of mine on where my "residence is". Very immature and naive. You do not know whether I have moved to China from USA, or immigrated to USA. Jumping to automatic conclusions is 101 of things not to do in discussions.
"Seriously, you're fucking annoying"--If you can't be mature enough to read another's opinion without being emotionally jerked then the door is that way. --->>>>>>>>
Back to the actual content, I do not support U.S. liberating the Iraqi people. Other countries have no business of interfering, yes. But how does this pertain to me replying to a question on how people in China feel about this? Again, you do not know if I'm not in China, or recently in it. Second, I am telling the inital asker what people's sentiment were. I was not persuading him to interfere with the country or nor am I doing the same. Please stop with the sophistry and misleading disgust.
Basing your opinion on my stance because of my origin? Do you know whether the tag is accurate, whether I am from China, moved to USA, vice versa?
Am I wrong? Are you posting this from Mainland China, and plan to live there on a long term basis?
I read your post sir and it was dumb. I don't care that I could be wrong. That I might be wrong. If you are going to tell me that I am wrong, go ahead and do so. Tell me that you are living in mainland China of this post. Otherwise, stfu.
I recently came from China. Lived there for 19 years. I do plan on returning some day.
"you don't care if you could be wrong"? So you just admitted to being ill-tempered and favored jumping to conclusions. I see. Whatever floats your sinking boat of logic.
I was not persuading him to interfere with the country or nor am I doing the same.
No, your marginalizing everyone who is in the country and has something to lose for not sacrificing it for your ideals. Ideals which I happen to agree with, but is not your choice.
"you don't care if you could be wrong"? So you just admitted to being ill-tempered and favored jumping to conclusions. I see. Whatever floats your sinking boat of logic.
Yes, I could be wrong. However, I was not. Your main refutation of my points is that I could be wrong, despite the fact that I am not. And then you accuse me of sophistry. wtf.
I recently came from China. Lived there for 19 years. I do plan on returning some day.
Why did you leave? If it isn't for political reasons I don't think your really at a moral vantage to talk.
Again, you do not know if I'm not in China, or recently in it. Second, I am telling the inital asker what people's sentiment were. I was not persuading him to interfere with the country or nor am I doing the same. Please stop with the sophistry and misleading disgust.
Wait I'm the one whos being a sophist?
Seriously, do you live in mainland China, or have you recently left due to political ostracism/asylum. Your entire argument is
I was not persuading him to interfere with the country or nor am I doing the same.
No, your marginalizing everyone who is in the country and has something to lose for not sacrificing it for your ideals. Ideals which I happen to agree with, but is not your choice.
I recently came from China. Lived there for 19 years. I do plan on returning some day.
Why did you leave? If it isn't for political reasons I don't think you really your at a more vantage to talk.
All of this is evasion because up to your previous post, I have answered all your quesitons and you have yet to simply respond to mine directly. I said what you comparing my answer to the man's question to US interfering in Iraq is irrelevant and misleading. If you have a problem with me calling you out on sophistry how about you reveal the connection you see so cleary so I could possibly be persuaded instead of answering my question without answering anything.
"No, your marginalizing everyone who is in the country and has something to lose for not sacrificing it for your ideals. Ideals which I happen to agree with, but is not your choice." Do expand on this, if you wish, I do not comprehend this.
Why did you leave? If it isn't for political reasons I don't think you really your at a more vantage to talk. [/QUOTE] My family and my choice of leaving is none of your business. And I need to double check this but are you saying that if I didn't leave China for political reasons then I'm not at a vantage to talk? Kinda confused due to your grammar but I am guessing thats what you meant. I really have nothing to say to such bigotry. Does this mean I have to leave CHINA only for poliitcal reasons? What happens if I left it for 49% political 51% other, or 51% political or 49% other. Or what if I left for 50/50%, how does your logic proceed?
Their politics have always been terrible. For a developed nation, lack of freedom of speech is extremely shocking. I also love how they have virtually no labor laws (unless that's changed recently....)
All of this is evasion because up to your previous post, I have answered all your quesitons and you have yet to simply respond to mine directly. I said what you comparing my answer to the man's question to US interfering in Iraq is irrelevant and misleading. If you have a problem with me calling you out on sophistry how about you reveal the connection you see so cleary so I could possibly be persuaded instead of answering my question without answering anything.
"No, your marginalizing everyone who is in the country and has something to lose for not sacrificing it for your ideals. Ideals which I happen to agree with, but is not your choice." Do expand on this, if you wish, I do not comprehend this.
My family and my choice of leaving is none of your business. And I need to double check this but are you saying that if I didn't leave China for political reasons then I'm not at a vantage to talk? Kinda confused due to your grammar but I am guessing thats what you meant. I really have nothing to say to such bigotry. Does this mean I have to leave CHINA only for poliitcal reasons? What happens if I left it for 49% political 51% other, or 51% political or 49% other. Or what if I left for 50/50%, how does your logic proceed?
loool.
Seriously. I'm dodging? What the hell am I dodging from? What do you want to crucify me for? Feel free. Am I BM to you? Ok. Sorry. Want a cookie? That perhaps I drew my conclusions in a way that wasn't "Scientifically sound"? Ok. Sure. You haven't even made any accusations against me besides that I "Could" have been wrong, despite the fact that I am not.
Now can you please stop dodging and face the facts? Despite all your silly criticisms, the fact remains that I was 100% right on my assumption. You don't live in China, and weren't driven out by the government or anything. And the fact that you want to return later only compounds my points that you advocate ideals you aren't willing to sacrifice for.
My point is that you have absolutely no right as a person who no longer lives in China to advocate that China's citizens sacrifice for your ideals. Simple as that. Because you won't sacrifice, and haven't already sacrificed. "Go sacrifice for my ideals of freedom". "You should Give up stability because I value it more then freedom". That is pure hypocrisy.
also I made 1 typo. One. Srsly lol do you have any sort of point at all?
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
If i can only agree that Qing was worse than Ming, seeing Ming as progressive is romantic illusions. Totalitarian son of the sky bullshit all the way, basically owning the people. The only thing they had going for them is the mandarin exam and even that got flawed. If i had to pick one i'd go Tang.
The Qing were extremely conservative and xenophobic. They stifled scientific and social advancements for fear of being overthrown. China completely stagnated during that period. Sure, the Tang and Han were the greatest dynasties, but the Ming was far from the worst.
Hehe we actually agree mate. I'm just being a bit rougher on the Ming as I only take into account in my personnal ranking the long lasting non challenged dynasties. That limits the list.
Anyway glad ot go all "superman vs batman" nerd about chinese dynasties on TL. Very good surprise
Lol, actually, just realized that last sentence is pointless, will edit it out.
On September 29 2010 08:58 Deadlyhazard wrote: China.
Their politics have always been terrible. For a developed nation, lack of freedom of speech is extremely shocking. I also love how they have virtually no labor laws (unless that's changed recently....)
China isn't developed. It's like the western world during the industrial revolution. IE: shitty working conditions for little pay. The west grew out of that with time, China will too.
Really...? Social turmoil in this time would be disastrous for China. People aren't ignorant, they just want a stable life.
Very true, I agree with the notion that they don't care because all they care about is themselves and just want a stable life. Seeing someone dying on the street and not calling the ambulance because you don't want to be disturbed--is that ignorant? Ignorant of that person's life? Try to see the connection and if you think otherwise I welcome a constructive reply.
If I see someone dying, calling the ambulance is a very small price for me to pay to save the man. However, if, say I have to cut off my left arm to save this man, I won't do it, since the cost is too high.
However, if, say I have to cut off my left arm to save this man, I won't do it, since the cost is too high.
I would without a second thought I still think hes an idiot -_-.
This would be like me yelling at you for not doing so despite not be prepared to do the same thing myself.
Lol, his question doesn't even relate to China's situation at all. And personally, I would not be able to hack off my own arm on the street, even if it would save someone.
All of this is evasion because up to your previous post, I have answered all your quesitons and you have yet to simply respond to mine directly. I said what you comparing my answer to the man's question to US interfering in Iraq is irrelevant and misleading. If you have a problem with me calling you out on sophistry how about you reveal the connection you see so cleary so I could possibly be persuaded instead of answering my question without answering anything.
"No, your marginalizing everyone who is in the country and has something to lose for not sacrificing it for your ideals. Ideals which I happen to agree with, but is not your choice." Do expand on this, if you wish, I do not comprehend this.
My family and my choice of leaving is none of your business. And I need to double check this but are you saying that if I didn't leave China for political reasons then I'm not at a vantage to talk? Kinda confused due to your grammar but I am guessing thats what you meant. I really have nothing to say to such bigotry. Does this mean I have to leave CHINA only for poliitcal reasons? What happens if I left it for 49% political 51% other, or 51% political or 49% other. Or what if I left for 50/50%, how does your logic proceed?
loool.
Seriously. I'm dodging? What the hell am I dodging from? What do you want to crucify me for? Feel free. Am I BM to you? Ok. Sorry. Want a cookie? That perhaps I drew my conclusions in a way that wasn't "Scientifically sound"? Ok. Sure. You haven't even made any accusations against me besides that I "Could" have been wrong, despite the fact that I am not.
Now can you please stop dodging and face the facts? Despite all your silly criticisms, the fact remains that I was 100% right on my assumption. You don't live in China, and weren't driven out by the government or anything. And the fact that you want to return later only compounds my points that you advocate ideals you aren't willing to sacrifice for.
My point is that you have absolutely no right as a person who no longer lives in China to advocate that China's citizens sacrifice for your ideals. Simple as that. Because you won't sacrifice, and haven't already sacrificed. "Go sacrifice for my ideals of freedom". "You should Give up stability because I value it more then freedom". That is pure hypocrisy.
also I made 1 typo. One. Srsly lol do you have any sort of point at all?
Last post, just to point out how fail 'jumping to conclusions' logic is nothing but fail.
You still havent answered my question to how Iraq + Usa pertains to me answering the man's question. You not only did not draw your conclusions properly, you drew them out of thin air. If you're going to have a logical, intelligent discussion with anyone, that aspect of yours will just kill the discussion. If one person is replying with whatever he feels like accusing just to get his point across, then that is not a discussion. It is an idiot being bigot. If you feel you must advise me to look up the definition, here it is: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. I called you a bigot because you said ONLY if I left the country for Political reasons I could have a say in this. Why am I even trying to explain this to you if you can't even see that simple connection. I am not a stubborn fool however so I'll try to explain. You based again[ you see how your logic repeatedly fails you?] on nothing that I left China for non-political reasons. And on the naive assumption you will only listen to me IF I left for that reason. Does this not sound like "I will only let you talk about God if you believe in God?" Instead of trying to answer my question with questions why dont you just demonstrate your logic of why someone has to leave China for political reasons in order for them to talk about it? And to make you sound more of a moron, my family and I did leave China because we were fed up with the government. And to make you sound More of an idiot, I wish to return so I can try to reform China. Very ambitious but that is my sole reason of going back. Again you with your flawed logic jumped to another conclusion that "I want to return to China= I'm not willing to sacrifice for my ideals".
If you want me to show you an example of your logic, I can go ahead right now and say you are a 2 feet tall, constantly frustrated, bald old man because of denial of any form of love in your life. You see what I did? I just came to a conclusion about you without any form of proof. It is a hyperbole but just to demonstrate the immense stupidity of following such logic.
"also I made 1 typo. One. Srsly lol do you have any sort of point at all?" I was not trying to attack you, I gave a reason to why I had to double check with you. If you felt that way, then no comment.
You could reply, I might even read your reply but this is the end of the discussion for me. You supporting that sort of logic will only bring me in circles.
Really...? Social turmoil in this time would be disastrous for China. People aren't ignorant, they just want a stable life.
Very true, I agree with the notion that they don't care because all they care about is themselves and just want a stable life. Seeing someone dying on the street and not calling the ambulance because you don't want to be disturbed--is that ignorant? Ignorant of that person's life? Try to see the connection and if you think otherwise I welcome a constructive reply.
If I see someone dying, calling the ambulance is a very small price for me to pay to save the man. However, if, say I have to cut off my left arm to save this man, I won't do it, since the cost is too high.
However, if, say I have to cut off my left arm to save this man, I won't do it, since the cost is too high.
I would without a second thought I still think hes an idiot -_-.
This would be like me yelling at you for not doing so despite not be prepared to do the same thing myself.
Lol, his question doesn't even relate to China's situation at all. And personally, I would not be able to hack off my own arm on the street, even if it would save someone.
Agree with the second paragraph.
I shall proceed to try to explain my thoughts. Your original post states that people are not ignorant of their government. They just want a stable life. I am not condoning or chastising people for wanting a stable life I am however saying that not wanting to care about their government's action just because they want a stable life is ignorant.
My metaphor was to demonstrate ignorance. I did not ask whether you would give up your arm. A man not bothering to call the ambulance for a dying man because he doesn't want to be bothered is ignorant of that person's health. You can say that you don't know him so you don't care. But it is still ignorance. Have you understood what I've tried to convey?
Freedom of expression is overrated. The only people who actually have time to express themselves are people who are well off enough that everyday survival isn't their priority (which is a minority in China).
Democracy won't make China better at this moment. The majority of people aren't educated enough to make intelligent decisions and it would open way for scams and exploits.
On September 29 2010 07:53 Grumbaki wrote: Oh and a few last thing.
Despite its past innovations and culture, China was in middle age at the begining of 20th century. Specially socially. Then they had the shittiest time during WW2. Then Mao who was partly paranoid tyrant dumbf*ck partly necessary evil. The country is out of middle age basically since 79 (Deng's call)...that's 30 years! They need some time (once again that doesn't justify the sufferance of people now).
Every country has a founding myth. US is "freedom, land of the braves", France is "kick the ass with anyone with authority". That's just 2 examples, you can find the one of your own country. For china it's "division is weakness, strong central power is prosperity": Check Xinshi Huangdi and the warring states period to understand. It plays a central role in chinese culture and political average joe opinion.
Foreigners opening their mouth too loud will be badly seen for a long time. Beyond Japand and WW2, we generally forget the atrocities that the west did during the trade counters period.
Oh wow. I always though China was a developed nation for some reason. Looked it up and its under 'developing countries.'
The main reason China was fucked during the early 1900s was because of the Qing dynasty. The Ming dynasty was fine and many advancements happened during that time. China really stagnated during the Qing rule, and best of all, Europe came to fuck shit up in the Opium wars. After, everything just went downhill. If China had a democratic government after WWII, we'd be like India today.
If i can only agree that Qing was worse than Ming, seeing Ming as progressive is romantic illusions. Totalitarian son of the sky bullshit all the way, basically owning the people. The only thing they had going for them is the mandarin exam and even that got flawed. If i had to pick one i'd go Tang.
The Qing were extremely conservative and xenophobic. They stifled scientific and social advancements for fear of being overthrown. China completely stagnated during that period. Sure, the Tang and Han were the greatest dynasties, but the Ming was far from the worst.
Hehe we actually agree mate. I'm just being a bit rougher on the Ming as I only take into account in my personnal ranking the long lasting non challenged dynasties. That limits the list.
Anyway glad ot go all "superman vs batman" nerd about chinese dynasties on TL. Very good surprise
Lol, actually, just realized that last sentence is pointless, will edit it out.
On September 29 2010 08:58 Deadlyhazard wrote: China.
Their politics have always been terrible. For a developed nation, lack of freedom of speech is extremely shocking. I also love how they have virtually no labor laws (unless that's changed recently....)
China isn't developed. It's like the western world during the industrial revolution. IE: shitty working conditions for little pay. The west grew out of that with time, China will too.
Oh wow. I always though it was a developed country. Just looked it up, it's listed as 'developing nation.' O_O
Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
All of this is evasion because up to your previous post, I have answered all your quesitons and you have yet to simply respond to mine directly. I said what you comparing my answer to the man's question to US interfering in Iraq is irrelevant and misleading. If you have a problem with me calling you out on sophistry how about you reveal the connection you see so cleary so I could possibly be persuaded instead of answering my question without answering anything.
"No, your marginalizing everyone who is in the country and has something to lose for not sacrificing it for your ideals. Ideals which I happen to agree with, but is not your choice." Do expand on this, if you wish, I do not comprehend this.
My family and my choice of leaving is none of your business. And I need to double check this but are you saying that if I didn't leave China for political reasons then I'm not at a vantage to talk? Kinda confused due to your grammar but I am guessing thats what you meant. I really have nothing to say to such bigotry. Does this mean I have to leave CHINA only for poliitcal reasons? What happens if I left it for 49% political 51% other, or 51% political or 49% other. Or what if I left for 50/50%, how does your logic proceed?
loool.
Seriously. I'm dodging? What the hell am I dodging from? What do you want to crucify me for? Feel free. Am I BM to you? Ok. Sorry. Want a cookie? That perhaps I drew my conclusions in a way that wasn't "Scientifically sound"? Ok. Sure. You haven't even made any accusations against me besides that I "Could" have been wrong, despite the fact that I am not.
Now can you please stop dodging and face the facts? Despite all your silly criticisms, the fact remains that I was 100% right on my assumption. You don't live in China, and weren't driven out by the government or anything. And the fact that you want to return later only compounds my points that you advocate ideals you aren't willing to sacrifice for.
My point is that you have absolutely no right as a person who no longer lives in China to advocate that China's citizens sacrifice for your ideals. Simple as that. Because you won't sacrifice, and haven't already sacrificed. "Go sacrifice for my ideals of freedom". "You should Give up stability because I value it more then freedom". That is pure hypocrisy.
also I made 1 typo. One. Srsly lol do you have any sort of point at all?
I really have nothing to say to such bigotry
You need to look up the definition of bigotry.
Last post, just to point out how fail 'jumping to conclusions' logic is nothing but fail.
You still havent answered my question to how Iraq + Usa pertains to me answering the man's question. You not only did not draw your conclusions properly, you drew them out of thin air. If you're going to have a logical, intelligent discussion with anyone, that aspect of yours will just kill the discussion. If one person is replying with whatever he feels like accusing just to get his point across, then that is not a discussion. It is an idiot being bigot. If you feel you must advise me to look up the definition, here it is: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. I called you a bigot because you said ONLY if I left the country for Political reasons I could have a say in this. Why am I even trying to explain this to you if you can't even see that simple connection. I am not a stubborn fool however so I'll try to explain. You based again[ you see how your logic repeatedly fails you?] on nothing that I left China for non-political reasons. And on the naive assumption you will only listen to me IF I left for that reason. Does this not sound like "I will only let you talk about God if you believe in God?" Instead of trying to answer my question with questions why dont you just demonstrate your logic of why someone has to leave China for political reasons in order for them to talk about it? And to make you sound more of a moron, my family and I did leave China because we were fed up with the government. And to make you sound More of an idiot, I wish to return so I can try to reform China. Very ambitious but that is my sole reason of going back. Again you with your flawed logic jumped to another conclusion that "I want to return to China= I'm not willing to sacrifice for my ideals".
If you want me to show you an example of your logic, I can go ahead right now and say you are a 2 feet tall, constantly frustrated, bald old man because of denial of any form of love in your life. You see what I did? I just came to a conclusion about you without any form of proof. It is a hyperbole but just to demonstrate the immense stupidity of following such logic.
"also I made 1 typo. One. Srsly lol do you have any sort of point at all?" I was not trying to attack you, I gave a reason to why I had to double check with you. If you felt that way, then no comment.
You could reply, I might even read your reply but this is the end of the discussion for me. You supporting that sort of logic will only bring me in circles.
Last post, just to point out how fail 'jumping to conclusions' logic is nothing but fail.
I was right. Its only fail if I jumped to conclusions and was wrong.
I can go ahead right now and say you are a 2 feet tall, constantly frustrated, bald old man because of denial of any form of love in your life. You see what I did? I just came to a conclusion about you without any form of proof. It is a hyperbole but just to demonstrate the immense stupidity of following such logic.
Except you are wrong.
Instead of trying to answer my question with questions why dont you just demonstrate your logic of why someone has to leave China for political reasons in order for them to talk about it
I already did read my previous post.
Look your post isn't coherent anymore sorry.
I shall proceed to try to explain my thoughts. Your original post states that people are not ignorant of their government. They just want a stable life. I am not condoning or chastising people for wanting a stable life I am however saying that not wanting to care about their government's action just because they want a stable life is ignorant.
My metaphor was to demonstrate ignorance. I did not ask whether you would give up your arm. A man not bothering to call the ambulance for a dying man because he doesn't want to be bothered is ignorant of that person's health. You can say that you don't know him so you don't care. But it is still ignorance. Have you understood what I've tried to convey?
Stop generalizing. Most people I know who want a stable life in mainland China are very secularily educated, and less ignorant then you.
Really...? Social turmoil in this time would be disastrous for China. People aren't ignorant, they just want a stable life.
Very true, I agree with the notion that they don't care because all they care about is themselves and just want a stable life. Seeing someone dying on the street and not calling the ambulance because you don't want to be disturbed--is that ignorant? Ignorant of that person's life? Try to see the connection and if you think otherwise I welcome a constructive reply.
If I see someone dying, calling the ambulance is a very small price for me to pay to save the man. However, if, say I have to cut off my left arm to save this man, I won't do it, since the cost is too high.
However, if, say I have to cut off my left arm to save this man, I won't do it, since the cost is too high.
I would without a second thought I still think hes an idiot -_-.
This would be like me yelling at you for not doing so despite not be prepared to do the same thing myself.
Lol, his question doesn't even relate to China's situation at all. And personally, I would not be able to hack off my own arm on the street, even if it would save someone.
Agree with the second paragraph.
I shall proceed to try to explain my thoughts. Your original post states that people are not ignorant of their government. They just want a stable life. I am not condoning or chastising people for wanting a stable life I am however saying that not wanting to care about their government's action just because they want a stable life is ignorant.
My metaphor was to demonstrate ignorance. I did not ask whether you would give up your arm. A man not bothering to call the ambulance for a dying man because he doesn't want to be bothered is ignorant of that person's health. You can say that you don't know him so you don't care. But it is still ignorance. Have you understood what I've tried to convey?
Regime reform does not come without a price. Your example shows that you believe radically changing a country's governing structure is "as simple as calling 911". Likewise, you seem to believe the Chinese authoritarian government is akin to a fatal injury. Now, explain why you think that. Tell me why you believe a limited freedom of expression is so important that damage to social stability is justified. Tell me how you plan to change the government without causing said instability; look at the Soviet Union for a recent example.
On September 29 2010 09:28 jpak wrote: Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
Man how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that illegal Mexicans risk their lives crossing the border into the US? (Bite on this one, please)
Let's blame the country taking on the refugees and not the one sending them, let's not deal with them at all because there's no economic payoff in doing so. China doesn't send aid for NK at all, no not at all.
Also, there is no concept of "rights" in Chinese culture, there won't be thanks to a little island called Taiwan where the "democratic" process has really resulted in some great leaders.
On September 29 2010 09:27 FishForThought wrote: Freedom of expression is overrated. The only people who actually have time to express themselves are people who are well off enough that everyday survival isn't their priority (which is a minority in China).
Democracy won't make China better at this moment. The majority of people aren't educated enough to make intelligent decisions and it would open way for scams and exploits.
On September 29 2010 09:28 jpak wrote: Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
Man how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that illegal Mexicans risk their lives crossing the border into the US? (Bite on this one, please)
Let's blame the country taking on the refugees and not the one sending them, let's not deal with them at all because there's no economic payoff in doing so. China doesn't send aid for NK at all, no not at all.
Also, there is no concept of "rights" in Chinese culture, there won't be thanks to a little island called Taiwan where the "democratic" process has really resulted in some great leaders.
Eh, are you serious about the Taiwan bit, or is that sarcasm, what does Taiwan have to do with Chinese culture?
On September 29 2010 09:28 jpak wrote: Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
Man how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that illegal Mexicans risk their lives crossing the border into the US? (Bite on this one, please)
Let's blame the country taking on the refugees and not the one sending them, let's not deal with them at all because there's no economic payoff in doing so. China doesn't send aid for NK at all, no not at all.
Also, there is no concept of "rights" in Chinese culture, there won't be thanks to a little island called Taiwan where the "democratic" process has really resulted in some great leaders.
Is there any particular reason human rights aren't recognized in China? Is it because of how the government controls the people, or is it just a general idea that's spread or not spread throughout the land?
I think now they have to give it to Liu Xiaobo just to make a point. Maybe even reference the "official" Chinese point of view while they are explaining why the guy deserves it. The Chinese even tried to put pressure on the U.S. President not to meet with the Dalai Lama.
China is still a developing country, hell they still receive foreign aid for development. Billions of dollars in it. They have needs to address and their economy is not the wtfownage fix all that some people think it is. Its a country that has a decent potential for major unrest (compared to lets say the US). So I can see why they do not want to give legitimacy to someone who runs counter to what they are trying to do.
Freedom of expression is overrated. The only people who actually have time to express themselves are people who are well off enough that everyday survival isn't their priority (which is a minority in China).
Democracy won't make China better at this moment. The majority of people aren't educated enough to make intelligent decisions and it would open way for scams and exploits.
This is completely wrong. The current regimes primary victims are in fact, the sustenance class, those who are actively working just to put food on the table, the uneducated, the lower class. The rest are protesters, who are prosecuted because of protests.
If your poor there is a very real chance the government can legitimately screw you over completely, and you given no way to legally redress the issue. If you speak out, you are beaten. You don't get the pomp of any "secret police". Thats reserved for lofty professors. No, police officers literally just start punching you on the streets. These are the real victims, and there are woefully little people from the East or West to tell there stories.
Anyone else who is prosecuted or killed primarily for three reasons-Part of the Falun Gun, Actively advocating Tibetan succession, or protesting against aforementioned grievances and the arrest of protesters itself. These people are a minority. Which isn't to marginalize them, but not the real issue at hand because two of the three are basically heavily tied to the injustice on regional, provincial levels.
On September 29 2010 09:28 jpak wrote: Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
Man how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that illegal Mexicans risk their lives crossing the border into the US? (Bite on this one, please)
Let's blame the country taking on the refugees and not the one sending them, let's not deal with them at all because there's no economic payoff in doing so. China doesn't send aid for NK at all, no not at all.
Also, there is no concept of "rights" in Chinese culture, there won't be thanks to a little island called Taiwan where the "democratic" process has really resulted in some great leaders.
Is there any particular reason human rights aren't recognized in China? Is it because of how the government controls the people, or is it just a general idea that's spread or not spread throughout the land?
People don't care about human rights unless the abuse hits close to home. For every terrible human rights abuse, there are millions who aren't abused. The majority aren't exposed to it, aren't threatened by it, and thus, don't care. It's the same for all humans, not just Chinese.
On September 29 2010 09:28 jpak wrote: Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
Man how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that illegal Mexicans risk their lives crossing the border into the US? (Bite on this one, please)
Let's blame the country taking on the refugees and not the one sending them, let's not deal with them at all because there's no economic payoff in doing so. China doesn't send aid for NK at all, no not at all.
Also, there is no concept of "rights" in Chinese culture, there won't be thanks to a little island called Taiwan where the "democratic" process has really resulted in some great leaders.
I'm not gonna argue about the similarities between China/NK and U.S/Mexico because I honestly don't know enough about the immigration issue to make fair arguments as to why one's different from another. I'll tell you what IS different, though. Kicked out Mexicans don't have to worry about the gulags and the concentration camps back in their country. Sure, they may have to worry about drug wars and all, but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
And which country's cropping North Korea because of fear of instability? China. South Korea didn't send aid to the North for some time (they sent some recently, but very small compared to previous aids).
On September 29 2010 09:37 mangomango wrote: I think now they have to give it to Liu Xiaobo just to make a point. Maybe even reference the "official" Chinese point of view while they are explaining why the guy deserves it. The Chinese even tried to put pressure on the U.S. President not to meet with the Dalai Lama.
This is a slightly different issue. Every single person in China hates the Dalai Lama, because to them, all he's done is promote the independence of Tibet. + Show Spoiler +
To make things worse, the entire Western world supports this cause based on supposed "inhumane treatment" of Tibetans by the Chinese, which is entirely anti-China media bullshit. While the Chinese government spends millions upon millions of dollars supporting infrastructure development in Tibet, they are blamed for all things undesirable in the former serfdom that was Tibet. Tibet would wither and die in a day as an independent country. Warning the president not to meet with the Dalai Lama was not merely a politically driven decision.
But yes, the Nobel committee definitely will give Liu Xiaobo the prize now.
On September 29 2010 09:28 jpak wrote: Everytime China comes up in the news, I think about those 400,000 North Korean "refugees" who are basically ghosts in China. In China, they're not even recognized as refugees, the definition of which is spelled out by the U.N (which is what you would think when thinking about refugees). If they're caught, they get sent back, where they'll most likely die. Even if they're not, they're most likely to be abused by the local population for labor and for sex. I may not know much about the Tibetan revolts and all, but the North Korean refugee issue alone really makes me sick towards China.
Man how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that illegal Mexicans risk their lives crossing the border into the US? (Bite on this one, please)
Let's blame the country taking on the refugees and not the one sending them, let's not deal with them at all because there's no economic payoff in doing so. China doesn't send aid for NK at all, no not at all.
Also, there is no concept of "rights" in Chinese culture, there won't be thanks to a little island called Taiwan where the "democratic" process has really resulted in some great leaders.
Is there any particular reason human rights aren't recognized in China? Is it because of how the government controls the people, or is it just a general idea that's spread or not spread throughout the land?
To many modern-day Chinese, it is the government's job to make sure their lives dont suck dick. Job well done, nobody cares about "human rights" or "freedom of expression" - Chinese society doesn't seem to have the notion that freedom of speech is something that everyone should have. Unlike in the US, when things go bad, it's not immediately the government's fault... maybe that has something to do with the lack of "need" of freedom of speech.
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
50% is not 100%. NK is 100%. It's government POLICY to deal with defectors in that matter (the corruption in there is actually border guards getting bribes to look the other way). What you're talking about is corruption, which is not unique to just Mexico.
It's all bullshit on Nobel Prize anyway, as if it's news to everyone that the most major powers in the world are concerned about global political penis comparisons more than their population welfare. It's pretty sickening. Every thread in general section about global politics has always been the same diatribe. A mass of ignorance speaking about a topic drowning out the few educated voices that actually deserve to discuss things.
People are always more interested in bashing and putting down others than attempting to better their own lives.
Freedom of expression is overrated. The only people who actually have time to express themselves are people who are well off enough that everyday survival isn't their priority (which is a minority in China).
Democracy won't make China better at this moment. The majority of people aren't educated enough to make intelligent decisions and it would open way for scams and exploits.
This is completely wrong. The current regimes primary victims are in fact, the sustenance class, those who are actively working just to put food on the table. The rest are protesters, who are prosecuted because of protests.
He's solely talking about freedom of expression, which is for some reason, the most talked about issue regarding China other than.
The sustenance class suffers mainly because of economic trouble. When working in a shitty environment with little pay, knowing you're easily replaceable is the only way of putting food on the table, it's no surprise millions desperately apply. The situation is very similar to the western industrial revolution. The west grew out of it, China probably will too.
Yes, the disparity between the upper class and the lower class is growing, but the overall living condition is improving as well. Once a stable middle class is established, the government can shift towards a more communist system like the US and Canada, and gap can be closed again. It's just a matter of time.
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
50% is not 100%. NK is 100%. It's government POLICY to deal with defectors in that matter (the corruption in there is actually border guards getting bribes to look the other way). What you're talking about is corruption, which is not unique to just Mexico.
Policy doesn't mean anything, its actions that matter.
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
50% is not 100%. NK is 100%. It's government POLICY to deal with defectors in that matter (the corruption in there is actually border guards getting bribes to look the other way). What you're talking about is corruption, which is not unique to just Mexico.
Policy doesn't mean anything, its actions that matter.
Again, I can't elaborate on the situation in Mexico, because of lack of info (perhaps you would like to enlighten me and the rest of TL on that).
What I'm truly mad about, however, is how little the situation of refugees in Northeast China is talked about compared to the situation in Mexico, even in outside communities. I guess drugs highlight attention, and/or the Chinese are good at shutting voices up on that issue.
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
50% is not 100%. NK is 100%. It's government POLICY to deal with defectors in that matter (the corruption in there is actually border guards getting bribes to look the other way). What you're talking about is corruption, which is not unique to just Mexico.
Policy doesn't mean anything, its actions that matter.
Again, I can't elaborate on the situation in Mexico, because of lack of info (perhaps you would like to enlighten me and the rest of TL on that).
What I'm truly mad about, however, is how little the situation of refugees in Northeast China is talked about compared to the situation in Mexico, even in outside communities. I guess drugs highlight attention, and/or the Chinese are good at shutting voices up on that issue.
Actually I think I misunderstood the comparison your making :/. I retract my previous comment lol.
Ok It's one thing to say a populace is not ready for major change (such as a transition to democracy) but it's another to say that they aren't ready for fundamental human rights that the Chinese government's denies them.
ALL people should be able to express their opinions (I wish some wouldn't, as we all do) but its that simple. Human rights are human rights, and everybody, every single human being (unless they've done something grotesque to deserve their revocation) deserves to have them honored. But in China this is not the case for some people which is why I'm hesitant to believe anything they Chinese government says, unless some changes take place.
That said, China also has some serious serious environmental issues that should arguably take precedence over anything political at this juncture. Pollution, flooding, over development, CO2 emissions (they have now overtaken the U.S.) are just a few. While they are the largest producers of renewable energy, they also have the largest economic growth which they are apparently unwilling to sacrifice (can't blame them) for the environment.
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
50% is not 100%. NK is 100%. It's government POLICY to deal with defectors in that matter (the corruption in there is actually border guards getting bribes to look the other way). What you're talking about is corruption, which is not unique to just Mexico.
Policy doesn't mean anything, its actions that matter.
Again, I can't elaborate on the situation in Mexico, because of lack of info (perhaps you would like to enlighten me and the rest of TL on that).
What I'm truly mad about, however, is how little the situation of refugees in Northeast China is talked about compared to the situation in Mexico, even in outside communities. I guess drugs highlight attention, and/or the Chinese are good at shutting voices up on that issue.
I'm possibly missing the topic of argument here but I don't see how this has to do with the topic. (Assuming any thread with China stays on topic at all ...) The refugees you discuss do not actually have official refugee status in China. A majority of it are illegal immigrants that you speak of, much like what occurred after the US denied Cambodians refugee status after American blunders in the region occurred. While the situation is very much unfortunate, I'm not sure where you were going with the whole thing.
On September 29 2010 10:13 MadVillain wrote: Ok It's one thing to say a populace is not ready for major change (such as a transition to democracy) but it's another to say that they aren't ready for fundamental human rights that the Chinese government's denies them.
ALL people should be able to express their opinions (I wish some wouldn't, as we all do) but its that simple. Human rights are human rights, and everybody, every single human being (unless they've done something grotesque to deserve their revocation) deserves to have them honored. But in China this is not the case for some people which is why I'm hesitant to believe anything they Chinese government says, unless some changes take place.
That said, China also has some serious serious environmental issues that should arguably take precedence over anything political at this juncture. Pollution, flooding, over development, CO2 emissions (they have now overtaken the U.S.) are just a few. While they are the largest producers of renewable energy, they also have the largest economic growth which they are apparently unwilling to sacrifice (can't blame them) for the environment.
Valid points but I should point out, you are never truly free as long as you allow a government over you. You are always limited in your freedom in exchange for the security your nation provides you. Obviously you pick and choose accordingly accordingly. But the idea that Western ideals are the only thing that provides human freedoms are naive and notably biased.
Freedom of expression is overrated. The only people who actually have time to express themselves are people who are well off enough that everyday survival isn't their priority (which is a minority in China).
Democracy won't make China better at this moment. The majority of people aren't educated enough to make intelligent decisions and it would open way for scams and exploits.
This is completely wrong. The current regimes primary victims are in fact, the sustenance class, those who are actively working just to put food on the table, the uneducated, the lower class. The rest are protesters, who are prosecuted because of protests.
If your poor there is a very real chance the government can legitimately screw you over completely, and you given no way to legally redress the issue. If you speak out, you are beaten. You don't get the pomp of any "secret police". Thats reserved for lofty professors. No, police officers literally just start punching you on the streets. These are the real victims, and there are woefully little people from the East or West to tell there stories.
Anyone else who is prosecuted or killed primarily for three reasons-Part of the Falun Gun, Actively advocating Tibetan succession, or protesting against aforementioned grievances and the arrest of protesters itself. These people are a minority. Which isn't to marginalize them, but not the real issue at hand because two of the three are basically heavily tied to the injustice on regional, provincial levels.
If you're poor and barely able to put food on the table, what can the government do to screw you over? Shoot you? Take your kids? The current regime officially doesn't treat their people unfairly.. its the corrupt officials in between that takes advantage of the uneducated people.
Making things democratic won't un-corrupt these people. In fact, it would make it easier for create corrupted representative pretending to cater to your interest so you will vote for him.
The only way for China to change, is for everyone to become more educated. This is slowly happening but it will take time.
On September 29 2010 09:00 aimaimaim wrote: tl;dr the whole thread .. but he DID violate chinese law ..
Did he? It isn't really that clear cut--remember after all that freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Chinese constitution, and he claims his views are not subversive at all but merely progressive suggestions.
Okay, this is great discussion. Pretty knowledgeable, people fighting views with views, largely centrist discussion instead of polarized, etc. People not in the know ask questions instead imposing their ignorance on others.
Where was this when people were making shit up in the china/japan thread? I was the only one to speak earnestly there.
having lived in china gotta say that if the chinese feel like they lack "basic human rights" that's not stopping them from being (generally) much happier than americans and much more proud of their country
Democracy is not needed in china or even called for by the general populace.
I imagine a good comparison to advocates of democracy in china would be advocates of communism in the U.S during the 50's
but that's not a government-sponsored activity (I will not elaborate on that due to lack of info, but it's safe to say that much). North Korea CHOOSES to send those people who flee because the government fails to provide basic needs to camps.
Very naive aren't you.
50% of the Mexican Government has close ties to drug Cartels.
50% is not 100%. NK is 100%. It's government POLICY to deal with defectors in that matter (the corruption in there is actually border guards getting bribes to look the other way). What you're talking about is corruption, which is not unique to just Mexico.
Policy doesn't mean anything, its actions that matter.
Again, I can't elaborate on the situation in Mexico, because of lack of info (perhaps you would like to enlighten me and the rest of TL on that).
What I'm truly mad about, however, is how little the situation of refugees in Northeast China is talked about compared to the situation in Mexico, even in outside communities. I guess drugs highlight attention, and/or the Chinese are good at shutting voices up on that issue.
I'm possibly missing the topic of argument here but I don't see how this has to do with the topic. (Assuming any thread with China stays on topic at all ...) The refugees you discuss do not actually have official refugee status in China. A majority of it are illegal immigrants that you speak of, much like what occurred after the US denied Cambodians refugee status after American blunders in the region occurred. While the situation is very much unfortunate, I'm not sure where you were going with the whole thing.
In my first post I already stated that they're basically GHOSTS in China with no legal status. Do these NKs qualify to be refugees? I'll go by the U.N definition:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;"
If you go by the bold part of the definition, NKs in China can definitely be considered refugees (in case you say "OH, it's hunger, which is purely economic problem" I'll tell you that, according to defectors who successfully made the unusually long journey to South Korea , even complaining about a particular day's ration is considered enough reason to be sent to camp because that is seen as the state being less than perfect. The State sees it as a political threat, which is to say that complaining about being hungry is a political opinion, in this case). Yet, China refuses to recognize them as such, even though they're part of the U.N and in agreement with the definition set by the Convention above, and they're promptly sent back if caught.
In my original post, I was just venting my own frustration that I had with China, and I was just meaning to share that. I think it's for the good of this topic that we stop discussing about this here for the time being.
I m Chinese, not currently residing in China and I would have agreed to have him arrested.
In China there is a difference between criticizing the gov policy and calling for a revolt. The tone of Charter 08 is more associated with revolt. The language of the text clearly played with ppl's fear and exaggerated the current situation in PRC like it was in the days of Qing.
In the West, such action is probably tolerable, but China such declarations are typical red herring for revolutions. If he is genuine about making changes in the best interest of the ppl, he should have taken a more moderate approach.
On September 29 2010 10:29 LaoShuAiDaMi wrote: having lived in china gotta say that if the chinese feel like they lack "basic human rights" that's not stopping them from being (generally) much happier than americans and much more proud of their country
Democracy is not needed in china or even called for by the general populace.
I imagine a good comparison to advocates of democracy in china would be advocates of communism in the U.S during the 50's
I agree with this 100%. A new revolution / governmental reform is pretty much the last thing Chinese people want anyway, so freedom of speech isn't much of an issue.
Most people assume that the Chinese government holds power over the people when it's quite the opposite. History has shown REPEATEDLY, China has always been ruled by the people. The idea of Mandate of Heaven has been prevalent throughout society. In fact, one can argue that Mao's Communist government had already been overthrown as soon as Deng came into power. Chinese politics have always operated under a very simple system. Don't fuck up or people will have your head on a pike. A pity the US doesn't work the same way since we're still ennuied with the notion that two party system is the only way to go *sigh*. =(
On September 29 2010 10:46 synapse wrote: I agree with this 100%. A new revolution / governmental reform is pretty much the last thing Chinese people want anyway, so freedom of speech isn't much of an issue.
Also, I love your username XD
well there is nothing wrong with gov reforms. the gov is reforming every day as we speak. China is one of the first countries with a solid plan to implement carbon tax!
anyways, there are true patriots like 孙中山 who wholeheartedly try to reform the gov for the benefit of the ppl. but then there are also ppl who stir up troubles for personal fame and gains.
Liu's declaration focused more on humiliating the current gov and cause chaos rather than genuinely helping the ppl's cause. don't just talk about freedom and democracy. do something constructive like start building 200,000km of railroad!
I think he should get it just because he was imprisoned for trying to better China. If he had not been sentenced to prison time he would have never been considered for this.
On September 29 2010 10:54 KissBlade wrote: Most people assume that the Chinese government holds power over the people when it's quite the opposite. History has shown REPEATEDLY, China has always been ruled by the people. The idea of Mandate of Heaven has been prevalent throughout society. In fact, one can argue that Mao's Communist government had already been overthrown as soon as Deng came into power. Chinese politics have always operated under a very simple system. Don't fuck up or people will have your head on a pike. A pity the US doesn't work the same way since we're still ennuied with the notion that two party system is the only way to go *sigh*. =(
Not that literally.
I do think Chinese people trust the central government to take an expanded view and act toward the long-term prosperity of the majority, and do indeed look the other way when gov, excluding corruption, skim off the top a bit or knock a few heads. It's a choice a collectivist society would make.
This is in direct contrast to the west where there's never not been fear and suspicion of large central authority, where through out the ages the house of kings and noblesmen are a den of snakes. People trust the laws of competition to pit power against power to find a sense of balance.
On September 29 2010 11:01 KissBlade wrote: That's actually what I hate most about where US politics are currently headed. It's a WHOLE LOT OF TALK and a WHOLE LOT LESS OF DO.
Kind of like what my friend Charlotte (she's Brit), pointed out about Obama. DO NOTHING; WIN NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.
Meanwhile, people still bitch at Bloomberg because he's big money despite the fact that he was the one person keeping the NYC ship afloat.
Some might argue that that was the way America was designed. This GRIDLOCK in American politics emphasizes the fact that if anything is going to get done in Congress, it has endure the debates and the fights. Now is it an outdated system of government? Maybe. You can look up on this issue of Gridlock in American politics online.
My comment is a little sloppy, but I hope you get the point.
On September 29 2010 11:06 GreEny K wrote: I think he should get it just because he was imprisoned for trying to better China. If he had not been sentenced to prison time he would have never been considered for this.
there are a ton of students like him in China who are very outspoken about freedom and democracy. they are more of an annoyance than anything else. alot of em are loose cannons that end up causing more damage to the society they are trying to help.
the real ones that deserve nobel prizes are those who actually did something to help and done so selflessly.
Deng Xiao Ping being a great example. He cleaned up all the mess left behind by the early generation of hardcore communists. He disagreed strongly against the hardline policies but he did not revolt despite having the power to do so.
of course, he would not have gotten a nobel prize because he did not put a revolt to rest, he just PREVENTED it from happening.
China is a horrible place that does terrible things. From human rights to pollution to censorship to executions they are the worst. If you disagree they send you to a "reeducation camp" or maybe just kill you. They force abortion all the time and hate religion (because it calls for human rights/equality, they want atheist sheep). Its unbelievably messed up in China and I feel bad for the majority of the people who live there who have to suffer.
I don't care about Nobel peace prizes or anything but this is where I like liberals in that they take on a common enemy aka China. I hope they keep pressuring China constantly and make them change but I think the revolt will come from the Chinese people when they get fed up with government. It would be nice to see the revolution but with 2 billion people I hope it comes more as a revelation than a huge bloody conflict.
Yeah, people really gotta think in terms of the Chinese scope.
If a social upheaval on the level 9-11 got a few thousand people killed in the US, something on a similar scale would get tens of thousands of people killed, easy. It's the flipside of having so many people, small policy changes can send shockwaves through the whole society.
On September 29 2010 11:16 blitzkrieger wrote: China is a horrible place that does terrible things. From human rights to pollution to censorship to executions they are the worst. If you disagree they send you to a "reeducation camp" or maybe just kill you. They force abortion all the time and hate religion (because it calls for human rights/equality, they want atheist sheep). Its unbelievably messed up in China and I feel bad for the majority of the people who live there who have to suffer.
I don't care about Nobel peace prizes or anything but this is where I like liberals in that they take on a common enemy aka China. I hope they keep pressuring China constantly and make them change but I think the revolt will come from the Chinese people when they get fed up with government. It would be nice to see the revolution but with 2 billion people I hope it comes more as a revelation than a huge bloody conflict.
All I see is rhetoric. You're so ignorant you contradict yourself and probably don't even know it.
On September 29 2010 10:13 MadVillain wrote: Ok It's one thing to say a populace is not ready for major change (such as a transition to democracy) but it's another to say that they aren't ready for fundamental human rights that the Chinese government's denies them.
ALL people should be able to express their opinions (I wish some wouldn't, as we all do) but its that simple. Human rights are human rights, and everybody, every single human being (unless they've done something grotesque to deserve their revocation) deserves to have them honored. But in China this is not the case for some people which is why I'm hesitant to believe anything they Chinese government says, unless some changes take place.
Sorry but i can't follow you there.
1- Freedom of speech is a right but it's not absolute. Check out EU laws on that you'll be surprised. try to pull some Nazi shit over here and you'll lose in court every time.
2- we're talking of a country were a racist troll pulls his phone in the east, get 2 ppl killed in the process, that triggers a racist reaction in the west with several dozen deads and all ends up in poorly trained and equipped military killing more people (lower estimates are 200) to stop the riots (in a discriminatory way). Go back to page one, this is a short description of the actual 2009 Xingjiang events.
now you tell me that you want absolute freedom of speech (and thus press) in a country like that? Fox news china much???
On September 29 2010 11:16 blitzkrieger wrote: China is a horrible place that does terrible things. From human rights to pollution to censorship to executions they are the worst. If you disagree they send you to a "reeducation camp" or maybe just kill you. They force abortion all the time and hate religion (because it calls for human rights/equality, they want atheist sheep). Its unbelievably messed up in China and I feel bad for the majority of the people who live there who have to suffer.
I don't care about Nobel peace prizes or anything but this is where I like liberals in that they take on a common enemy aka China. I hope they keep pressuring China constantly and make them change but I think the revolt will come from the Chinese people when they get fed up with government. It would be nice to see the revolution but with 2 billion people I hope it comes more as a revelation than a huge bloody conflict.
funny... cause the communist party actually enjoy stronger domestic support than obama or bush.
I love it when Europeans claim that the US is falling to some foreign power for superpower status, and our doom is only a few years away. Such jealousy must bring innovation, as they always list a new way for us to keel over every decade.
Yeah to the people in this thread who are now saying U.S policy should resemble Chinese policy...
Stop. You really don't understand what it means to live in a collectivist society, under collectivist government. Someone here posted that China has a higher government approval rate. Perhaps that is true. However, those who disapprove suffer far more.
Lets talk about a topic that hits close to home. Video Games. Under a collectivist government, video games as we know it will no longer exist. The Game Industry, because it there is a belief that it contributes to social unrest, will be shut down. All forms of media that propagate alternative views -gone-. Things you take for granted, like political satire and social critique in the media-Gone-.
This of course, is by far the least significant loss of freedom you will have to endure. But I imagine most of you are young, and this will be the most relevant.
You can't possibly imagine what America would be like if it were not a free society. To actively advocate on a website like Teamliquid is something I believe can only come from a position of ignorance. To find the current system unsatisfactory and desire change for change itself.
On September 29 2010 10:13 MadVillain wrote: Ok It's one thing to say a populace is not ready for major change (such as a transition to democracy) but it's another to say that they aren't ready for fundamental human rights that the Chinese government's denies them.
ALL people should be able to express their opinions (I wish some wouldn't, as we all do) but its that simple. Human rights are human rights, and everybody, every single human being (unless they've done something grotesque to deserve their revocation) deserves to have them honored. But in China this is not the case for some people which is why I'm hesitant to believe anything they Chinese government says, unless some changes take place.
Sorry but i can't follow you there.
1- Freedom of speech is a right but it's not absolute. Check out EU laws on that you'll be surprised. try to pull some Nazi shit over here and you'll lose in court every time.
2- we're talking of a country were a racist troll pulls his phone in the east, get 2 ppl killed in the process, that triggers a racist reaction in the west with several dozen deads and all ends up in poorly trained and equipped military killing more people (lower estimates are 200) to stop the riots (in a discriminatory way). Go back to page one, this is a short description of the actual 2009 Xingjiang events.
now you tell me that you want absolute freedom of speech (and thus press) in a country like that? Fox news china much???
You're making a lot of assumptions past the "racist reaction in the west."
Freedom of speech doesn't preclude complete idiots talking outta their ass, but it does require an educated class of people to make that distinction (which by the way is starting to buckle in the US).
The central government in China is, for all intents and purposes, too big to fail. You somehow take it out of the equation the whole thing will come down. It'll never happen except for the current gradual democratization.
Who cares, the Nobel peace prize isn't nearly as prestigious as other ones. Not even close. Take a look at its recipient history and you'll lol at all the hypocrisy and drama involved.
I mean, its award criteria are about 3 billion times softer than that of the other Nobel prizes.
I lost all my respect for this award when I found out profiteers such as Le Duc Tho, Afrafat and lol, Al Gore receive this award you know you can stop caring.
On September 29 2010 11:13 dybydx wrote: Deng Xiao Ping being a great example. He cleaned up all the mess left behind by the early generation of hardcore communists. He disagreed strongly against the hardline policies but he did not revolt despite having the power to do so.
Hell yeah, honors should be given to him way more than what they are. Specially out of china.
He gets in the CCP system, rose from the ranks despite openly progressive views, suck it up during the cultural revolution, makes a come back, open china to the world, make pragmatic economic reforms, keeps the conservatives at bay even after 89...
Say whatever you want but this guy and his buddies prevented china to become a new NK. That's prize material to me.
1. I don't think anyone here seriously advocate the communist policy to apply in USA. they are simply criticizing the fantasy of democracy being the all-cure drug for China.
2. If you ever watch TV from mainland China you see news criticizing the gov EVERYDAY. but... there is a difference between constructive criticism and inciting revolt.
3. There are significant restrictions on video games in China. sexually suggestive and extreme violence is banned. although this is in response to parental complaints and such policies are in fact widely supported by the ppl.
On September 29 2010 11:13 dybydx wrote: Deng Xiao Ping being a great example. He cleaned up all the mess left behind by the early generation of hardcore communists. He disagreed strongly against the hardline policies but he did not revolt despite having the power to do so.
Hell yeah, honors should be given to him way more than what they are. Specially out of china.
He gets in the CCP system, rose from the ranks despite openly progressive views, suck it up during the cultural revolution, makes a come back, open china to the world, make pragmatic economic reforms, keeps the conservatives at bay even after 89...
Say whatever you want but this guy and his buddies prevented china to become a new NK. That's prize material to me.
A lot of Chinese would equate Deng as Trotsky to Mao's Stalin. Thankfully he didn't meet as ignoble an end.
On September 29 2010 11:34 Half wrote: Yeah to the people in this thread who are now saying U.S policy should resemble Chinese policy...
Stop. You really don't understand what it means to live in a collectivist society, under collectivist government. Someone here posted that China has a higher government approval rate. Perhaps that is true. However, those who disapprove suffer far more.
Lets talk about a topic that hits close to home. Video Games. Under a collectivist government, video games as we know it will no longer exist. The Game Industry, because it there is a belief that it contributes to social unrest, will be shut down. All forms of media that propagate alternative views -gone-. Things you take for granted, like political satire and social critique in the media-Gone-.
This of course, is by far the least significant loss of freedom you will have to endure. But I imagine most of you are young, and this will be the most relevant.
You can't possibly imagine what America would be like if it were not a free society. To actively advocate on a website like Teamliquid is something I believe can only come from a position of ignorance.
You're also making tons of assumptions. Videogames will be there. Alternative views will be there although not prominent to a large degree. Political and social satire will definitely be there.
It's impossible to imagine America as a collectivist society cus people themselves don't trust eachother. It's in the fucking mindset. "Free society" is too much back-padding, let's go with individualized society, eh?
1. I don't think anyone here seriously advocate the communist policy to apply in USA. they are simply criticizing the fantasy of democracy being the all-cure drug for China.
I would hope so.
2. If you ever watch TV from mainland China you see news criticizing the gov EVERYDAY. but... there is a difference between constructive criticism and inciting revolt.
Yes, I've lived in China for eleven years intermittently throughout my life (I went to an international school). Yes, there are criticisms against the government. However, they are conservative and nationalist to the point where they are only critiques to make the public feel like they are critiquing the government, usually on an agenda the Government already had plans to improve. Criticisms on food health regulatory problems (very common), the availability of addictive video games to minors (ironic, and common), criticisms of corruption by government officials, maybe a heartwarming story of a migrant worker in the big city.
These are not true criticisms so much are they just another extension of government propaganda. Ignoring issues which I see would be restricted (tibet, etc), there are other crucial issues like corruption on a provincial level or the flaws in the government responses to recent earthquakes that are strictly banned.
3. There are significant restrictions on video games in China. sexually suggestive and extreme violence is banned. although this is in response to parental complaints and such policies are in fact widely supported by the ppl.
Yes, I am aware they largely come from consensus of the people. I do not think that China is despotism. It is a collectivism where the needs of the individual are marginalized in favor of the needs of the collective. And guess what? That means that niche activities (like video games) are marginalized in favor of the conservative social collective.
You're also making tons of assumptions. Videogames will be there. Alternative views will be there although not prominent to a large degree. Political and social satire will definitely be there.
Why? In other words, what institution does the individual have? Public opinion is still against violent video games. Under a collectivized society, there is no doubt that it would undergo heavy censorship.
I'm curious, do you know how hard it is to publish politically saturated novels in China? Half of the famous works of literature produced in the U.S., including literature giants such as Bradbary and Vonnegut would not have stood a chance.
Political and Social satire will be greatly limited. Chinese television sucks. Ignoring a few good dramas (that were mostly produced in Taiwan lol), almost all my Chinese friends pretty much exclusively watched subbed or nonsubbed english shows.
On September 29 2010 11:51 .risingdragoon wrote: I don't think any one gives a fuck if you play some games, honestly.
I've already said this, it's when 2-3 hundred million people all play excessive games for long hours, that's when there's a problem.
So are you ready to give up your individual right (or severely detriment) to play games for them?
You don't seem to understand what it means to live in a collectivized society. I'm curious, how many years have to lived in China? Any? I don't think its even worth my time discussing this with you if the number is less then 1, and your just making these statements from some suburb in canada.
Moreover, as a developed nation, social problems are something we strive to deal with on an individual basis. Because we have the resources and development.
(On the issue of illegal drugs, they are illegal due to financial interests and interest in maintaining the status quo. Morality has nothing to do with it)
to nail it down once again: democracy is the goal, not the process. Democracy now would be dramatic for china as for the rest of the world. We have way enough demagogues and populists in power in the west as it is. A huge part of the CCP right now are technocrats and say whatever you want but this is the kind of people who get the job done. Dogmatic communists are being phased out.
risingdragon: what makes you say that i throw assumption? i threw my credentials as much as i could in page 1 of the topic.
On September 29 2010 11:34 Half wrote: Yeah to the people in this thread who are now saying U.S policy should resemble Chinese policy...
Stop. You really don't understand what it means to live in a collectivist society, under collectivist government. Someone here posted that China has a higher government approval rate. Perhaps that is true. However, those who disapprove suffer far more.
Lets talk about a topic that hits close to home. Video Games. Under a collectivist government, video games as we know it will no longer exist. The Game Industry, because it there is a belief that it contributes to social unrest, will be shut down. All forms of media that propagate alternative views -gone-. Things you take for granted, like political satire and social critique in the media-Gone-.
This of course, is by far the least significant loss of freedom you will have to endure. But I imagine most of you are young, and this will be the most relevant.
You can't possibly imagine what America would be like if it were not a free society. To actively advocate on a website like Teamliquid is something I believe can only come from a position of ignorance. To find the current system unsatisfactory and desire change for change itself.
The United States is not a "free" society in any way, and China is not a "collectivist" society in any way. Yes I can imagine what America would be like if it were not a free society because it isn't a free society.
A lot of posts seem to reiterate the "China is bad because it is Communist, the United States is good because it is a democracy" brainwashing. First of all, the United States isn't any where close to a democracy, and if all you can contribute to the discussion is the propaganda trash they threw at you when you were in 5th grade, then I do not see how you can contribute a healthy amount to the thread. Saying that some of the policy adopted by the Communist party in China is wrong would be a quite valid opinion. Saying that all of the policy adopted by the Communist party in China is, quite frankly, pure ignorance.
Honestly, if you guys think China is some corrupt country full of despots while the United States is a white lamb, then you have yet to read into the history of the United States and current events.
On September 29 2010 11:51 .risingdragoon wrote: I don't think any one gives a fuck if you play some games, honestly.
I've already said this, it's when 2-3 hundred million people all play excessive games for long hours, that's when there's a problem.
So are you ready to give up your individual right to play games for them?
Video games are actually a thriving business in China. There are "laws," but they are loose enough for anyone who wants to enjoy video games to enjoy them.
The United States is not a "free" society in any way, and China is not a "collectivist" society in any way. Yes I can imagine what America would be like if it were not a free society because it isn't a free society.
A lot of posts seem to reiterate the "China is bad because it is Communist, the United States is good because it is a democracy" brainwashing. First of all, the United States isn't any where close to a democracy, and if all you can contribute to the discussion is the propaganda trash they threw at you when you were in 5th grade, then I do not see how you can contribute a healthy amount to the thread. Saying that some of the policy adopted by the Communist party in China is wrong would be a quite valid opinion. Saying that all of the policy adopted by the Communist party in China is, quite frankly, pure ignorance.
Hurf Durf.
I really hate posts like this which begin by assuming that your use of shorthand terminology means that you don't understand its limitations, and then spend a long time in detail proving how retarded you are for mistakes you didn't make. Some original thought please.
I agree with everything you said, and it doesn't refute anything I said. You know theirs a serious issue there.
Like, if I replaced "free" society with "Society with more individual freedoms" and "Collectivism" with "society with less individual freedoms in favor of the majority", a purely semantical issue, your whole pile of self gratifying and overly didactic crap would have been pointless.
Seriously read my posts kthx, and stop being such an ignorant prick.
Video games are actually a thriving business in China. There are "laws," but they are loose enough for anyone who wants to enjoy video games to enjoy them.
These laws directly effect the quality of video games, even for people outside of China See the development of FF14.
Honestly, if you guys think China is some corrupt country full of despots while the United States is a white lamb, then you have yet to read into the history of the United States and current events.
Who the fuck are you talking to. Please, read my posts in this thread before you continue to look any more stupid.
Look I really would like to say that anyone who hasn't lived in a authoritarian country for a period of longer then 1 year independently should really just shut up. Sorry, but your theorycrafting from white suburbia is just as valid or realistic as the bronze league theorycrafting on the SC2gdf.
On September 29 2010 11:53 Grumbaki wrote: to nail it down once again: democracy is the goal, not the process. Democracy now would be dramatic for china as for the rest of the world. We have way enough demagogues and populists in power in the west as it is. A huge part of the CCP right now are technocrats and say whatever you want but this is the kind of people who get the job done. Dogmatic communists are being phased out.
agreed. large chunks of the top CPC staff have engineering background, including Hu and Wen.
since the days of Deng, the party took on a pragmatic approach and try to deliver solid results. the days of everyone holding a "red book" was long over by the time I was born. when i was in school there, it was all about studying hard and deliver real results. i never learned what communism was in school. heck, most of the 80's born wouldn't know either.
On September 29 2010 12:03 .risingdragoon wrote: Which authoritarian country have you lived in?
You're not talking to me BTW.
China, eleven years. There are pros and cons to it system, and I don't understand how any individual could possibly argue they should be applied in whole or part to America.
Unless of course they have a very poor grasp of what the "real world" is, sheltered in white America/random liberal european country there entire life.
On September 29 2010 12:06 .risingdragoon wrote: Why do you think America got to be where it is?
It sure as hell ain't democracy.
First of all, I'm talking about the application of Authoritarian/collectivist principals to America now. Nothing more, nothing less. When did I ever condemn Chinese Authoritarianism? Please ready my first post in this thread.
Second of all, America got to where it is now partly because of democracy. I'll explain in a sec, but regardless of what you think about that, its a moot point to my core position.
Can someone provide some accurate information about the Tienanmen massacre? It just feels like it's always brought up whenever we talk about Chinese human rights. I have heard very conflicting statements about this. The people who I talked too, that were present during the protest all said that most casualties occurred when soldiers (very young recruits) entered beijing and started shooting at residents inside the buildings. However, when they arrived at Tienanmen, where most of the foreign media were present, few students were hurt, some were arrested and later released (many used this chance to leave china). In fact, the person who I talked to, said that the single regret he had about the entire event is not seeking asylum and come to USA. It seems to me that it's the residents who suffered the most, but there was no actual ""masscare" at the Tienanmen.
i think we should settle on the fact that the Chinese and American cultures are very different.
despite all its flaws, the general population in China is satisfied with the communist gov.
and despite all the criticisms, obama and every one of the members in congress and senate won their election by popular vote.
anyways, back on the topic, i dont think Mr. Liu deserve the Nobel Prize. he was a vocal supporter of freedom and democracy, but in my opinion, talk is cheap.
The United States is not a "free" society in any way, and China is not a "collectivist" society in any way. Yes I can imagine what America would be like if it were not a free society because it isn't a free society.
A lot of posts seem to reiterate the "China is bad because it is Communist, the United States is good because it is a democracy" brainwashing. First of all, the United States isn't any where close to a democracy, and if all you can contribute to the discussion is the propaganda trash they threw at you when you were in 5th grade, then I do not see how you can contribute a healthy amount to the thread. Saying that some of the policy adopted by the Communist party in China is wrong would be a quite valid opinion. Saying that all of the policy adopted by the Communist party in China is, quite frankly, pure ignorance.
Hurf Durf.
I really hate posts like this which begin by assuming that your use of shorthand terminology means that you don't understand its limitations, and then spend a long time in detail proving how retarded you are for mistakes you didn't make. Some original thought please.
I agree with everything you said, and it doesn't refute anything I said. You know theirs a serious issue there.
Like, if I replaced "free" society with "Society with more individual freedoms" and "Collectivism" with "society with less individual freedoms in favor of the majority", a purely semantical issue, your whole pile of self gratifying and overly didactic crap would have been pointless.
Seriously read my posts kthx, and stop being such an ignorant prick.
Video games are actually a thriving business in China. There are "laws," but they are loose enough for anyone who wants to enjoy video games to enjoy them.
These laws directly effect the quality of video games, even for people outside of China See the development of FF14.
Honestly, if you guys think China is some corrupt country full of despots while the United States is a white lamb, then you have yet to read into the history of the United States and current events.
Who the fuck are you talking to. Please, read my posts in this thread before you continue to look any more stupid.
I did read your post. I am going to summarize it:
China is bad. United States is good. You wouldn't be able to live in China because China isn't a democracy.
You did not say anything else, but rather layered big words over your argument to make up for the fact that you honestly have no clue about what you are talking about.
I doubt you have walked anywhere outside of your suburban house, and if you have you probably did not make too much of the experience (lived a year in China... LOL). As for me, I have stayed in China for well over a year, my parents are Chinese as well.
Anyone who looks at countries like China, Russia, and hell even Iran and not see a parallel between them and the United States and its history either have a very skewed perception, or very well does not know what they are talking about.
And yes FFXIV isn't coming out in China. It isn't coming out in Brazil either, I guess Brazil must a horrible country to live in. Oh hey, a lot of Chinese games are not released in the United States. I guess the United States must be a horrible place to live in also.
Your arguments are weak, and your ignorance clear. You hide behind excessive words just reiterating the same propaganda junk the media and elementary schools throw at you. If you think the United States cannot learn a thing or two from China just because China isn't a "democracy," then you are wrong.
@half and rising,
i think we should settle on the fact that the Chinese and American cultures are very different.
despite all its flaws, the general population in China is satisfied with the communist gov.
and despite all the criticisms, obama and every one of the members in congress and senate won their election by popular vote.
anyways, back on the topic, i dont think Mr. Liu deserve the Nobel Prize. he was a vocal supporter of freedom and democracy, but in my opinion, talk is cheap.
Mr. Liu was thrown in jail for it. Other than becoming a martyr, I don't see what else he could do. Just dismissing the two cultures as "different" also doesn't really solve anything. China and the United States may be from different continents, but in the end people end up being people.
Yeah, it was. Partly. Not "because of democracy", because democracy is just an expression of economic and social conditions.
America became a free society due to the abundance of resources. America became a superpower because it possessed the single largest piece of unexploited, underdeveloped land in the world. American democracy is just an extension of this, an extension that is sadly becoming less relevant (and should be defended by any citizen worth a damn).
Democracy in America became possible due to the availability of resources available to the individual (well, republican democracy limited to white males). Democracy is power to the people. It doesn't occur when a government body relinquishes its power to the people. That never fucking happens. Its when people gain enough "power" (wealth, social power) to supplement many roles of government. The abundance of individual wealth in America set the foundations that let democratic ideals of the enlightenment (which was again, a response to increased higher standards of living, through totalitarian means this time, but that is independent of America). Democracy contributed to growth in a reciprocal fashion. It was an expression of the growing power of the individual (white, male, decent background, average, etc), and the political system reflected the fact, giving power "to the people".
Moving foward, Americas vast abundance of resources such as oil and steel caused created the first megacorperations. Once again, democracy grew, this time driven by corporate power as opposed to individual power. The core ideology being the same. Power held by individuals outside of government means government open to citizens. This time, Democracy became less "pure" driven more heavily by economics, but democracy nonetheless. Once again, democracy maximizes the power of the individual, or in this case, nongovernmental bodies (corperations), allowing maximal growth.
Moving forward again, near the end of the Cold War, we see the consolidation of American Hegemony, and Americas vast resources have now become mundane after a century of development and exploitation. Here we see another consolidation of American democracy.
The exploitation we see in America is just a furtherment on its wealth acquired through exploitation of its vast natural resources. In this case, viewing human beings as natural resources or forcing natives off there land for theirs.
None of this of course, applied to China. The parralels are extremely strenuous, if not nonexistent. You can literally argue that are inverses of each other. Modern China is a society with its foundations on scarcity, while America is one founded upon abundance.
China is bad. United States is good. You wouldn't be able to live in China because China isn't a democracy.
You did not say anything else, but rather layered big words over your argument to make up for the fact that you honestly have no clue about what you are talking about.
I doubt you have walked anywhere outside of your suburban house, and if you have you probably did not make too much of the experience (lived a year in China... LOL). As for me, I have stayed in China for well over a year, my parents are Chinese as well.
Anyone who looks at countries like China, Russia, and hell even Iran and not see a parallel between them and the United States and its history either have a very skewed perception, or very well does not know what they are talking about.
And yes FFXIV isn't coming out in China. It isn't coming out in Brazil either, I guess Brazil must a horrible country to live in. Oh hey, a lot of Chinese games are not released in the United States. I guess the United States must be a horrible place to live in also.
Your arguments are weak, and your ignorance clear. You hide behind excessive words just reiterating the same propaganda junk the media and elementary schools throw at you. If you think the United States cannot learn a thing or two from China just because China isn't a "democracy," then you are wrong.
Read my posts earlier in this thread. You are an uninformed idiot who resorts to ad-hominem to justify baseless convictions and falsehoods.
I've spent roughly half my life in China Not one. How about this, your allowed to insult me once you spend five months working with the Ford foundation (aunt works there gave me the opportunity during senior year <3) as a volunteer in Sichuan on my ignorance as posed to having a pleasant vacation with your parents kid. Or really, doing anything there on a long term basis away from your parents :3.
On September 29 2010 12:15 Wayra wrote: Can someone provide some accurate information about the Tienanmen massacre? It just feels like it's always brought up whenever we talk about Chinese human rights. I have heard very conflicting statements about this. The people who I talked too, that were present during the protest all said that most casualties occurred when soldiers (very young recruits) entered beijing and started shooting at residents inside the buildings. However, when they arrived at Tienanmen, where most of the foreign media were present, few students were hurt, some were arrested and later released (many used this chance to leave china). In fact, the person who I talked to, said that the single regret he had about the entire event is not seeking asylum and come to USA. It seems to me that it's the residents who suffered the most, but there was no actual ""masscare" at the Tienanmen.
you can go google or check wikipedia for some brief idea of what happened.
overall it was an unfortunate event but it would be unfair to blame any single party to bear the majority of the blame. the students were being over zealous and the gov overreacted. some ppl did get shot by the army but they are generally not as innocent as the West portrayed them to be.
the aftermath was that most students now learn not to confront the gov directly and the gov learned to prevent any critical mass from building and getting out of hand.
Anyone who looks at countries like China, Russia, and hell even Iran and not see a parallel between them and the United States and its history either have a very skewed perception, or very well does not know what they are talking about.
Ok humor me kid. Go on, analyze one. This should be funny.
On September 29 2010 12:15 Wayra wrote: Can someone provide some accurate information about the Tienanmen massacre? It just feels like it's always brought up whenever we talk about Chinese human rights. I have heard very conflicting statements about this. The people who I talked too, that were present during the protest all said that most casualties occurred when soldiers (very young recruits) entered beijing and started shooting at residents inside the buildings. However, when they arrived at Tienanmen, where most of the foreign media were present, few students were hurt, some were arrested and later released (many used this chance to leave china). In fact, the person who I talked to, said that the single regret he had about the entire event is not seeking asylum and come to USA. It seems to me that it's the residents who suffered the most, but there was no actual ""masscare" at the Tienanmen.
Students rallied at Tienanmen Square for democracy. At first it was pretty popular, actually, the president of China even went there and talked with the students. If you had been there at the start, you would of never guessed it would end the way it did.
But then the rallies continued to last for weeks on end, it was getting pretty bad. Some small rioting happened, like at the G20 conferences, but smaller. The government kept telling them to move, and the protesters refused. And of curse, China was still getting over a period of horrid unrest from gangs controlling most of the country, and the nation itself still reeling from Mao's "Great Leap Forward," so the Chinese government overreacted and cleared out the protesters through force, which eventually turned violent, then very violent.
It was a big blunder on China's part and unfortunately the only way to barely save face after it was to ignore the incident and try to stop another one from happening.
On September 29 2010 12:16 vindKtiv wrote: Mr. Liu was thrown in jail for it. Other than becoming a martyr, I don't see what else he could do. Just dismissing the two cultures as "different" also doesn't really solve anything. China and the United States may be from different continents, but in the end people end up being people.
In the last 100 years, there had been tons of martyrs in China and I can tell you that the bar has been raised to very high level. There had also been many lunatics and martyr wannabes. Being hotheaded doesn't get you any credits in China.
If you are not familiar with Chinese history, you can read up on Deng Xiao Ping, Zhang Xue Liang, Sun Zhong Shan. Theses are real heroes worthy of emulation.
Read my posts earlier in this thread. You are an uninformed idiot who resorts to ad-hominem to justify baseless convictions and falsehoods.
No YOU read my posts. You are an uninformed idiot who resorts to ad-hominem to justify baseless convictions and falsehoods.
See what I did there? Because I couldn't refute your argument (in my case, because you didn't provide one, in your case, probably because you just couldn't), I just dodged it.
For the sake of rebuttal, I will just say that your arguments are weak, and other than calling me and idiot I can make no more of it. I cannot say much more because I am quite aware that if I say anymore I will provoke you to further derail this thread and fill it with your flame and anger.
And you could've just said "You're arguments fail because they are based solely on emotional appeal." Not only would my sentence have earned you a better grade in English (because in higher level courses, teachers know when you are just using the thesaurus), my sentence is easier to comprehend, and less filled with rage. And by the way, if you weren't so pissed off and reread your post, you'd probably see that your arguments are based way more off of emotional appeal than mine (which is what ad-hominem means, in case you didn't know).
In the last 100 years, there had been tons of martyrs in China and I can tell you that the bar has been raised to very high level. There had also been many lunatics and martyr wannabes. Being hotheaded doesn't get you any credits in China.
If you are not familiar with Chinese history, you can read up on Deng Xiao Ping, Zhang Xue Liang, Sun Zhong Shan. Theses are real heroes worthy of emulation.
Okay point taken. I agree. I guess the Peace Prize wasn't always given based off of merit anyways.
On September 29 2010 12:15 Wayra wrote: Can someone provide some accurate information about the Tienanmen massacre? It just feels like it's always brought up whenever we talk about Chinese human rights. I have heard very conflicting statements about this. The people who I talked too, that were present during the protest all said that most casualties occurred when soldiers (very young recruits) entered beijing and started shooting at residents inside the buildings. However, when they arrived at Tienanmen, where most of the foreign media were present, few students were hurt, some were arrested and later released (many used this chance to leave china). In fact, the person who I talked to, said that the single regret he had about the entire event is not seeking asylum and come to USA. It seems to me that it's the residents who suffered the most, but there was no actual ""masscare" at the Tienanmen.
Well here's the thing, how many leaders of popular uprisings for whatever purpose do you know that are still alive or free after their movement is ultimately a failure after a level of showing that of Tienanmen? Just going off the top of my history knowledge, not very many. But the vast majority of the people behind Tienanmen are, just not in China.
To put it another way, there were a lot of people that stood to gain from a toppled PRC or a drastic change in government (think Russia with Yeltsin), to say that the demonstrations were solely and completely about government reform and all the "positives" would be naive.
For the students who demonstrated and were "forced" to leave China, of course they would, society would ostracize them and their family would be shamed.
Either way, there's something terribly fishy about the whole timing of the ordeal, namely because a lot of reforms and changes were going underway or have already gone under Deng. To say it wasn't a critical time in Chinese history in the modern era would be a lie, but for that kind of change to happen right away and through some kind of poorly informed student movement? No thanks, this isn't the working class who suffered generations of oppression at the hands of the elitists.
Citing corporations and exploitation of "internal" resources as proof of democracy.
Ah I see. You agree with the claim, just not the definition or the ethos.
Are you saying that political systems are independent of economic models? Is your worldview really that shallow? No, they are mirrors of each other, they shape each other. If you're argument is that "The U.S. is not great because some dudes in beards randomly decided to revive roman republicanism with some modification by french dudes", then your right.
However, Democracy has been an integral part of the Unite States growth, and arguing otherwise would be just as silly as saying "Chinese Communism/authoritarianism is not an integral part of China's growth".
Lets think conversely. How would the U.S have become powerful without democracy?
On September 29 2010 12:26 Tankbusta wrote: Students rallied at Tienanmen Square for democracy. At first it was pretty popular, actually, the president of China even went there and talked with the students. If you had been there at the start, you would of never guessed it would end the way it did.
But then the rallies continued to last for weeks on end, it was getting pretty bad. Some small rioting happened, like at the G20 conferences, but smaller. The government kept telling them to move, and the protesters refused. And of curse, China was still getting over a period of horrid unrest from gangs controlling most of the country, and the nation itself still reeling from Mao's "Great Leap Forward," so the Chinese government overreacted and cleared out the protesters through force, which eventually turned violent, then very violent.
It was a big blunder on China's part and unfortunately the only way to barely save face after it was to ignore the incident and try to stop another one from happening.
it was peaceful at first but the students outstayed their welcome and was becoming unruly.
the gov issued alot of warnings before calling in the army. even then it wasnt a shooting gallery. "Tank Man" being a great example of atmosphere at the time. eventually shooting happened.
the greatest crisis was actually NOT the loss of life. the cause of the protest was largely related to Deng's "Open Up" policy. the protest put a huge political blow to Deng. if Deng failed in 1989, you will not be seeing the market reforms that made China what it is today.
Read my posts earlier in this thread. You are an uninformed idiot who resorts to ad-hominem to justify baseless convictions and falsehoods.
No YOU read my posts. You are an uninformed idiot who resorts to ad-hominem to justify baseless convictions and falsehoods.
See what I did there? Because I couldn't refute your argument (in my case, because you didn't provide one, in your case, probably because you just couldn't), I just dodged it.
For the sake of rebuttal, I will just say that your arguments are weak, and other than calling me and idiot I can make no more of it. I cannot say much more because I am quite aware that if I say anymore I will provoke you to further derail this thread and fill it with your flame and anger.
And you could've just said "You're arguments fail because they are based solely on emotional appeal." Not only would my sentence have earned you a better grade in English (because in higher level courses, teachers know when you are just using the thesaurus), my sentence is easier to comprehend, and less filled with rage. And by the way, if you weren't so pissed off and reread your post, you'd probably see that your arguments are based way more off of emotional appeal than mine (which is what ad-hominem means, in case you didn't know).
In the last 100 years, there had been tons of martyrs in China and I can tell you that the bar has been raised to very high level. There had also been many lunatics and martyr wannabes. Being hotheaded doesn't get you any credits in China.
If you are not familiar with Chinese history, you can read up on Deng Xiao Ping, Zhang Xue Liang, Sun Zhong Shan. Theses are real heroes worthy of emulation.
Okay point taken. I agree. I guess the Peace Prize wasn't always given based off of merit anyways.
Look just go do your High School homework kid and stop posting. Come back in a couple years with a better understanding of the real world and the academic one.
Seriously your post is so retarded I don't even know where to start :/.
On September 29 2010 12:15 Wayra wrote: Can someone provide some accurate information about the Tienanmen massacre? It just feels like it's always brought up whenever we talk about Chinese human rights. I have heard very conflicting statements about this. The people who I talked too, that were present during the protest all said that most casualties occurred when soldiers (very young recruits) entered beijing and started shooting at residents inside the buildings. However, when they arrived at Tienanmen, where most of the foreign media were present, few students were hurt, some were arrested and later released (many used this chance to leave china). In fact, the person who I talked to, said that the single regret he had about the entire event is not seeking asylum and come to USA. It seems to me that it's the residents who suffered the most, but there was no actual ""masscare" at the Tienanmen.
Well here's the thing, how many leaders of popular uprisings for whatever purpose do you know that are still alive or free after their movement is ultimately a failure after a level of showing that of Tienanmen? Just going off the top of my history knowledge, not very many. But the vast majority of the people behind Tienanmen are, just not in China.
To put it another way, there were a lot of people that stood to gain from a toppled PRC or a drastic change in government (think Russia with Yeltsin), to say that the demonstrations were solely and completely about government reform and all the "positives" would be naive.
For the students who demonstrated and were "forced" to leave China, of course they would, society would ostracize them and their family would be shamed.
Either way, there's something terribly fishy about the whole timing of the ordeal, namely because a lot of reforms and changes were going underway or have already gone under Deng. To say it wasn't a critical time in Chinese history in the modern era would be a lie, but for that kind of change to happen right away and through some kind of poorly informed student movement? No thanks, this isn't the working class who suffered generations of oppression at the hands of the elitists.
I have an in-law who was there during the protest. He told me there were tons of hooligans who bolstered the size of the thing.
It was never meant to do anything except cause a scene. It's pretty evident a buncha idealistic kids aren't gonna be able to run any government without a willful and speedy takeover by an outside force, such as the Triads. More so it never had any chance of success, so the question is who stood to gain from something that never amounted to a botched protest?
Look just go do your High School homework kid and stop posting. Come back in a couple years with a better understanding of the real world and the academic one.
Seriously your post is so retarded I don't even know where to start :/.
Hey, I can call you an idiot all day too, and I probably won't be wrong. But because something as petty as this really isn't my kind of stuff, I won't. I'm sure your a decent and intelligent human being somewhere in the United States, you probably just aren't that decent in politics and history.
And if you would read further than the first couple of sentences that you don't understand, you'd see that my use of Ad hominem is actually correct. If you still don't understand for whatever reason, then here.
I doubt you have walked anywhere outside of your suburban house, and if you have you probably did not make too much of the experience (lived a year in China... LOL). As for me, I have stayed in China for well over a year, my parents are Chinese as well.
Anyone who looks at countries like China, Russia, and hell even Iran and not see a parallel between them and the United States and its history either have a very skewed perception, or very well does not know what they are talking about.
And yes FFXIV isn't coming out in China. It isn't coming out in Brazil either, I guess Brazil must a horrible country to live in. Oh hey, a lot of Chinese games are not released in the United States. I guess the United States must be a horrible place to live in also.
Your arguments are weak, and your ignorance clear. You hide behind excessive words just reiterating the same propaganda junk the media and elementary schools throw at you. If you think the United States cannot learn a thing or two from China just because China isn't a "democracy," then you are wrong.
Are you saying that political systems are independent of economic models? Is your worldview really that shadow? No, they are mirrors of each other, they shape each other. If you're argument is that "The U.S. is not great because some dudes in beards randomly decided to revive roman republicanism with some modification by french dudes", then your right. However, Democracy has been an integral part of the Unite States growth, and arguing otherwise would be just as silly as saying "Chinese Communism/authoritarianism is not an integral part of China's growth".
Democracy has NEVER been a part of United States growth. Big corporations and politicians go to great strides to MAKE SURE the common people to get as small of a voice as possible. The Gilded Age, American Revolution and Industrial Revolution provide great examples where we have the benefit of hindsight. Is it that bad today? It arguably can be.
Now what I'm trying to argue here, is that your view of the history of the United States and China is skewed and ignorant. What you are trying to argue, is that I'm an idiot. Things clearly aren't meshing together.
While I don't agree with what the state government is saying, I am also not for democracy in China at this stage.
The rate of development in China could not be where its at right now and without severe economic repercussions for the majority of the lower class and farmers without the one party system. Stability and economic growth is essential for a democracy to prosper, so give China a couple of decades and it will naturally grow more democratic.
Democracy has NEVER been a part of United States growth. Big corporations and politicians go to great strides to MAKE SURE the common people to get as small of a voice as possible. The Gilded Age, American Revolution and Industrial Revolution provide great examples where we have the benefit of hindsight. Is it that bad today? It arguably can be.
You don't understand the big corporations that developed in America are intrinsically connected with American Democracy. They are the inevitable consequences of each other. You can just say "America became this way because of corporations". World events part of a complex system are not linear. Corporations exist because of Democracy (among other things), Democracy exists because of corporation (among other things). And the end result is a more free society compared to a more Authoritarian one.
Democracy itself is characterized by the decentralization of power away from a single "State" entity. Corporations are among the powers that fill that role, and the end result is a more free society.
Anything more then that is just perspective. Its a chicken or the egg thing.
Now what I'm trying to argue here, is that your view of the history of the United States and China is skewed and ignorant.
Really now?
I did read your post. I am going to summarize it:
China is bad. United States is good. You wouldn't be able to live in China because China isn't a democracy.
You did not say anything else, but rather layered big words over your argument to make up for the fact that you honestly have no clue about what you are talking about.
I doubt you have walked anywhere outside of your suburban house, and if you have you probably did not make too much of the experience (lived a year in China... LOL). As for me, I have stayed in China for well over a year, my parents are Chinese as well.
Anyone who looks at countries like China, Russia, and hell even Iran and not see a parallel between them and the United States and its history either have a very skewed perception, or very well does not know what they are talking about.
And yes FFXIV isn't coming out in China. It isn't coming out in Brazil either, I guess Brazil must a horrible country to live in. Oh hey, a lot of Chinese games are not released in the United States. I guess the United States must be a horrible place to live in also.
Your arguments are weak, and your ignorance clear. You hide behind excessive words just reiterating the same propaganda junk the media and elementary schools throw at you. If you think the United States cannot learn a thing or two from China just because China isn't a "democracy," then you are wrong.
Highlight where you made that claim. You mean that one sentence in a big mush of incoherent attacks right in the middle? Was I suppose to take that seriously? I mean, you did give so much backing evidence.
Oh yeah I forgot.
And yes FFXIV isn't coming out in China.
Actually it is. Not what I was talking about it.
Its absolutely hilarious how sheepish some of you people can be. Read my posts earlier in the thread. Do they sound anti china to you? No, I aim for perspective and balance. The only thing I spoke against was the idiots who though Chinese politics should be applied to America. And then all you nationalistic kids (who ironically haven't even spent any significant amount of time in China) just lash out with ignorance and vitriol.
On September 29 2010 12:51 TOloseGT wrote: While I don't agree with what the state government is saying, I am also not for democracy in China at this stage.
The rate of development in China could not be where its at right now and without severe economic repercussions for the majority of the lower class and farmers without the one party system. Stability and economic growth is essential for a democracy to prosper, so give China a couple of decades and it will naturally grow more democratic.
majority of the population in China live in rural areas where there are mandatory elections held every 3 years.
in the rural regions, there are alot of local customs and affairs where the village chief resolve the dispute locally. in my grandma's village, they just elected a new chief last year. the previous chief served for ~10 yrs and the one previous served for ~15yrs.
Citing corporations and exploitation of "internal" resources as proof of democracy.
Ah I see. You agree with the claim, just not the definition or the ethos.
Are you saying that political systems are independent of economic models? Is your worldview really that shallow? No, they are mirrors of each other, they shape each other. If you're argument is that "The U.S. is not great because some dudes in beards randomly decided to revive roman republicanism with some modification by french dudes", then your right.
However, Democracy has been an integral part of the Unite States growth, and arguing otherwise would be just as silly as saying "Chinese Communism/authoritarianism is not an integral part of China's growth".
Lets think conversely. How would the U.S have become powerful without democracy?
Your thinking is all wrong. Democracy has always been for the few, for capitalism to work it needs large pool of labor to exploit. First it was the Blacks, then it was the poor. Since WWII this labor pool has simply shifted to incorporate migrants (which the economic power created through food price manipulation) for handy work while technology took on the bulk of the labor, which means the attention turned to oil-producing Central-American and African countries, who call their oil resources a curse. The growth of America has been fueled by many many countries' suffering, instability.
Communism is necessary for China whose quote unquote late to this little shindig. There's no way to China to compete unless it's centralized. China's risen cus, quite simply, their form of centralized capitalism is even more competitive than business oligarch's cus it combines many industries' capabilities and their strict-non-involvement pledge in native affairs.
You don't understand the big corporations that developed in America are intrinsically connected with American Democracy. They are the inevitable consequences of each other. You can just say "America became this way because of corporations". World events part of a complex system are not linear. Corporations exist because of Democracy, Democracy exists because of corporations. And the end result is a more free society compared to a more Authoritarian one.
HO MY GOD. This paragraph is pretty much the whole reason why I'm still in this conversation. You can attack me all you want because I don't care what someone like you thinks of me. And I might've said some snide things back, but only as a reaction and if you are offended then I'm sorry.
Yes America is this way today because of corporations.
However, de facto democracy has NEVER existed in the United States. NEVER. NEVER. It is because there is a lack of democracy that we have giant corporations. During the Gilded Age, it was the corrupt government that allowed big business corporations to exist. Even today, regulations and government policies that many people don't know about keep corporations afloat. Had the common people ever gotten their way, I really doubt they would vote for policies that keep the corporations afloat, today or in history.
The idea of democracy was nothing more than an emotional appeal to get votes. The Founding Fathers NEVER wanted the United States to be a democracy, and trust me most of the politicians of today and the past never wants the US to be a democracy either. Turning China into a democracy just because will not solve anything.
Which goes back to what I was saying earlier. Because the United States is not a democracy, and because China is not a communist state, we can hypothesize (because it will never happen) that the policies of the United States AND China can be bettered by using the successful policies of each other as an example.
Which goes back to the thread. Mr. Liu was an honorable freedom fighter, but his aims may not be in the best interest of everybody.
Your thinking is all wrong. Democracy has always been for the few, for capitalism to work it needs large pool of labor to exploit. First it was the Blacks, then it was the poor. Since WWII this labor pool has simply shifted to incorporate migrants (which the economic power created through food price manipulation) for more delicate work while technology took on the bulk of the labor, which means the attention turned to oil-producing Central-American and African countries, who call their oil resources a curse. The growth of America has been fueled by many many countries' suffering, instability.
Communism is necessary for China whose quote unquote late to this little shindig. There's no way to China to compete unless it's centralized. China's risen cus, quite simply, their form of centralized capitalism is even more competitive than business oligarch's cus it combines many industries' capabilities and their strict-non-involvement pledge in native affairs.
I agree wholeheartedly. Democracy in the sense of the kind we have in the United States is not for everybody, and that fact has been exemplified through the Cold War. The "democracy" we have here isn't all too different from the "communism" they have in China.
Citing corporations and exploitation of "internal" resources as proof of democracy.
Ah I see. You agree with the claim, just not the definition or the ethos.
Are you saying that political systems are independent of economic models? Is your worldview really that shallow? No, they are mirrors of each other, they shape each other. If you're argument is that "The U.S. is not great because some dudes in beards randomly decided to revive roman republicanism with some modification by french dudes", then your right.
However, Democracy has been an integral part of the Unite States growth, and arguing otherwise would be just as silly as saying "Chinese Communism/authoritarianism is not an integral part of China's growth".
Lets think conversely. How would the U.S have become powerful without democracy?
Your thinking is all wrong. Democracy has always been for the few, for capitalism to work it needs large pool of labor to exploit. First it was the Blacks, then it was the poor. Since WWII this labor pool has simply shifted to incorporate migrants (which the economic power created through food price manipulation) for more delicate labor while technology took on the bulk of the labor, which means the attention turned to oil-producing Central-American and African countries, who call their oil resources a curse. The growth of America has been fueled by many many countries' suffering, instability.
Communism is necessary for China whose quote unquote late to this little shindig. There's no way to China to compete unless it's centralized. China's risen cus, quite simply, their form of centralized capitalism is even more competitive than business oligarch's.
Look I'm not arguing that Democracy is more ethical for Authoritarianism. I'm arguing two things. One, it was highly relevant to Americas success. (Which you seemingly agree on). The other is that its more beneficial, long term and short term, and leads to more human rights for you. Ones that you seem to have taken for granted. I recommend you stop.
Communism is necessary for China whose quote unquote late to this little shindig. There's no way to China to compete unless it's centralized. China's risen cus, quite simply, their form of centralized capitalism is even more competitive than business oligarch's.
China has grown for a variety of reasons. To pin its growth on any single factor is absurd. Your intelligent, surely you don't mean that (unlike that other person -_-). However, on that note, Chinas growth is not sustainable. A lot of its growth is "false growth" generated by a control economy.
When it stops is anybodies guess. The only way a smooth transition will occur is a shift from from a control oriented market economy to a consumer based one. Even then growth will be severely slowed. Which is all good and all, but directly refutes your point on the superiority of Chinas control economy in terms of long term growth.
Basic economic laws like the law of diminishing returns will prevent Chinas growth from continuing in its current rate.
HO MY GOD. This paragraph is pretty much the whole reason why I'm still in this conversation. You can attack me all you want because I don't care what someone like you thinks of me. And I might've said some snide things back, but only as a reaction and if you are offended then I'm sorry.
Yes America is this way today because of corporations.
However, de facto democracy has NEVER existed in the United States. NEVER. NEVER. It is because there is a lack of democracy that we have giant corporations. During the Gilded Age, it was the corrupt government that allowed big business corporations to exist. Even today, regulations and government policies that many people don't know about keep corporations afloat. Had the common people ever gotten their way, I really doubt they would vote for policies that keep the corporations afloat, today or in history.
Look did you read any of my posts? I stated from post 1 that yes, America is not a complete democracy, anyone who isn't completely retarded would know that. I was only using democratic in the sense of "more democratic then China".
So your only disagreement is silly futile arguments about semantics I addressed in post 1? wow. Seriously.
Regardless of absolute value my point is that America is more "Free" compared to China. And there is no reason why you would want it otherwise. America wouldn't even benefit from an Authoritarian government anyway, and even if it did, I wouldn't support one.
I really hope they shove it back in their face and give him the prize.
China's political reform [...] should be gradual, peaceful, orderly and controllable and should be interactive, from above to below and from below to above. This way causes the least cost and leads to the most effective result. I know the basic principles of political change, that orderly and controllable social change is better than one which is chaotic and out of control. The order of a bad government is better than the chaos of anarchy. So I oppose systems of government that are dictatorships or monopolies. This is not 'inciting subversion of state power'. Opposition is not equivalent to subversion.
– Liu Xiaobo, Guilty of 'crime of speaking', February 9, 2010[20]
China threatens to renegotiate trade rights like every single time someone does anything that even slighty tarnishes the view of the Chinese government. This is nothing new, and it is groundless, China needs all the energy it can get, there is no way they would give up rights to extensive oil and gas reserves over this. They are like North Korea (in posturing), they constantly threaten, but rarely if ever follow through.
On September 29 2010 09:35 buhhy wrote: Eh, are you serious about the Taiwan bit, or is that sarcasm, what does Taiwan have to do with Chinese culture?
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.
Half, you obviously don't get it. If the United States is not a democracy, then this whole point is wrong.
One, it was highly relevant to Americas success. (Which you seemingly agree on). The other is that its more beneficial, long term and short term, and leads to more human rights for you. Ones that you seem to have taken for granted. I recommend you 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.
Regardless of absolute value my point is that America is more "Free" compared to China. And there is no reason why you would want it otherwise. America wouldn't even benefit from an Authoritarian government anyway, and even if it did, I wouldn't support one.
Is America really more "free" than China? Yes, America is more free for you, just like how China is more free for many high-class citizens of China. Is America free for the low class? Hell no, just like how China isn't free for the low class. You think you have less freedom in China because that's what they feed you in elementary school. Yes, you get to pick your favorite politician (you might as well flip a coin in most cases), but if you really lived in China for a year you would notice that in reality, all this "freedom" talk really doesn't end up mattering. Life goes on.
Now I'm going to turn this "semantics" bullshit over on you. When I say the United States could benefit from some of China's policies, I'm saying that China is doing something right, and the United States should adopt that something. What you are arguing is that the United States will never be good under an authoritarian government. Nobody is saying it would.
On September 29 2010 09:35 buhhy wrote: Eh, are you serious about the Taiwan bit, or is that sarcasm, what does Taiwan have to do with Chinese culture?
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.
lol judicator got a pt. democracy in taiwan makes me QQ every time i see their legislature degrade into a brawl fest.
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 09:35 buhhy wrote: Eh, are you serious about the Taiwan bit, or is that sarcasm, what does Taiwan have to do with Chinese culture?
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.
Oh haha, I thought you were complimenting the Taiwan government for some reason. I agree.
One, it was highly relevant to Americas success. (Which you seemingly agree on). The other is that its more beneficial, long term and short term, and leads to more human rights for you. Ones that you seem to have taken for granted. I recommend you 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.
Look, sorry, are you incapable of reading?
For the purposes of this argument I will refer to the system of government the U.S. had since the Consititution as democracy. What else do you call it?
I'm not some wackjob patriot all I'm saying is the form of government in the U.S. confers far more civil liberties to you then China, and you probably don't understand the magnitude of things you enjoy that you would have to sacrifice living in a Authoritarianism.
Your not even posting your arguments coherently. If theirs something I'm not addressing its because you can't properly communicate your thoughts.
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.
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.
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.
That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country.
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.
That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country.
what was the threat anyways..... to stop doing business with them? you recognize China is actually on the receiving end of a lot of trade bans or restrictions thanks to the paranoid USA and their influence in the EU region.
On September 29 2010 09:35 buhhy wrote: Eh, are you serious about the Taiwan bit, or is that sarcasm, what does Taiwan have to do with Chinese culture?
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.
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 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.
Whoah! i know we're supposed to be careful about +1 posts here but sometimes you really have to. If u're just skimming through the thread you should read this^^ My own opinion is probably irrelevant since i know so little about china. Of course i wish them all the best now and in future just like every other country.
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.
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 13:42 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.
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.
I agree that recent party leaders are actually pretty decent people, but you'd be hard pressed not the see the corruption issue with the rampant infighting between the ministrys and there top leaders.
Eh, my point regarding Taiwan though, is a bit admittedly reactionary. I just saw the attack as unwarranted, especially considering the CPC is hardly known for there excellent track record against corruption (though party leaders have generally turned out relatively well), but more importantly because Taiwan remains economically prosperous, but has considerably more civil liberty's then China, something you were probably giving zero value when making the judgements against them, though we both know that isn't the case, because we value our civil liberties quite highly, consciously or otherwise.
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.
That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country.
So if someone wants to do business with you, you have to do it? O_o The article didn't say anything about military threat, just economical. And many countries including USA do trade threats all the time. Don't really see what the big deal is.
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 like the Orwellian kind, what's gonna happen is it'll drown out any pertinent information in a sea of commercial 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. We'll become a trivial culture.
Sounds familiar? Yeah. America's headed for trouble. People just don't know it. People hate big government so much, pretty soon there won't be one, just buncha corporations.
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.
Ehm...what. I'm saying the history of the Modern Corporation is inextricably woven into the fabric of Democracy in America. The two do not exist independent of each other. You were the one saying that democracy had nothing to do with Americas growth. Democratization being defined as the increase in the political power of the individual, which is intricately tied to the increased economic power of the individual, and the rise of corporations, then megacorporations.
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.
I agree with your criticism against modern society but it applies just as aptly to Chinese culture then American culture. In some cases more, in other cases less.
As I posted previously a command driven economy is not sustainable for China. China will become a heavily consumer driven economy in time. Just like the States.
And honestly, the increasing lack of meaning or depth in pop culture really has as much to do with people no longer having "real problems" to worry about as it does the media and cultural conglomerates capitalizing on consumer trends.
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 14:13 .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.
Look stop fixating on my definition of democracy. I know what you mean and you know what I mean. I'm not stupid. I'm assuming you're smart, so please do me the same favor.
I agree that the trend your talking about has occurred sometime around the start of the Cold War, and become increasingly cemented as the Cold War drew to a close.
But China's economic and government models are hardly a reversal. More of an emulation.
On September 29 2010 14:17 .risingdragoon wrote: So stop idealizing it.
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.
My core points are
a)You Stand more to gain from American Democracy then Chinese Authoritarianism. Long and Short term. b)Chinese Authoritarianism positive effects on China's economy are not sustainable. This is a fact. China will transition into the heavily consumer oriented market economy found in the U.S., and its political system will likely soon follow. c)Development of U.S. economically=/=Development of China.
On September 29 2010 14:17 .risingdragoon wrote: So stop idealizing it.
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.
People generally define democratic principles in egalitarian terms, and apart from fucking economic might. These two factors have always been at odds
On September 29 2010 14:17 .risingdragoon wrote: So stop idealizing it.
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.
People generally define democratic principles in egalitarian terms, and apart from fucking economic might. These two factors have always been at odds
Stop idealizing. We live under Republican Democracy. By definition. Our society has more civil liberty's then China. End of story. Shut up.
Seriously it isn't that hard. I don't get why your trying to extrapolate more then that from my statements. They exist as is, there statements of facts and rationale not ideals.
Suprised the debate shifted to the values of democracy than general aggression by the PRC in the last few years. Increased cyber attacks, claiming various bits of the south sea, active support for darfur and Iran... Olympics was a big confidence for Ol Red.
I thing China won't change for years because what they teach at school are base only on academic stuff. They don't teach moral, social or any kind of those thing. Student that will be future citizen of China will make choice more oriented on their logic and less on their conscious/imagination. Chinese people in general are better in math but not in literature, art and others. So They won't try to think beyond their limits, they will stay as sheep that follow the Shepperd forever.
I don't know if communism or democratic are better than the other but if China stay communism they will never make a choice of what the best is for them.
We can help China by given them more access to the internet but there are many issues.
1) There are many people in China that can't afford a computer and internet. 2) Rich people in big cites won't care about learning the world, they are to selfish to care about others. 3)I mention poor and rich people but not middle class because they're not really a middle class I don't know why the Communism system is not very working I think it is more a Dictatorship. Communism should be that everyone are equal but china prove the opposite. 4) The government is controlling the web and everything in china so site that talk about democratic are probably ban.
I don't think democratic is the best system of all but you have the freedom to chose what to believe.
Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best.
Thank you for reading until the end and sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes. I tried my best. edit: I'm Chinese so I know what i'm saying
risingdragoon, ignore the trolls? Common troll tactic, attempt to sway topics of discussion they have no knowledge of towards more inflammatory material so they can sate their cries of attention. Proper response: ignore them and continue on topic.
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: I thing China won't change for years because what they teach at school are base only on academic stuff. They don't teach moral, social or any kind of those thing. Student that will be future citizen of China will make choice more oriented on their logic and less on their conscious/imagination. Chinese people in general are better in math but not in literature, art and others. So They won't try to think beyond their limits, they will stay as sheep that follow the Shepperd forever.
I don't know if communism or democratic are better than the other but if China stay communism they will never make a choice of what the best is for them.
We can help China by given them more access to the internet but there are many issues.
1) There are many people in China that can't afford a computer and internet. 2) Rich people in big cites won't care about learning the world, they are to selfish to care about others. 3)I mention poor and rich people but not middle class because they're not really a middle class I don't know why the Communism system is not very working I think it is more a Dictatorship. Communism should be that everyone are equal but china prove the opposite. 4) The government is controlling the web and everything in china so site that talk about democratic are probably ban.
I don't think democratic is the best system of all but you have the freedom to chose what to believe.
Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best.
Thank you for reading until the end and sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes. I tried my best.
Stop being so narrow minded. No school teaches morals or social. Its parents and society that teaches those. Children in China knows family values, they grow up running their parent's business, where as in US, the kids stab their parents for taking away their video games. Chinese people are not worse in literature or art. They just generally don't do well in FOREIGN literature and arts (which is common with every foreign student). You try learning Chinese literature and art, and see how well you do.
The majority of people in China don't have the luxury for expression because money and survival is their priority. They only want to express themselves only after they have acquired those two items.
You know whats more of a dictatorship? Singapore. They disguise themselves as democratic but the government controls everything.
The problem with Chinese society is the complete lack of check and balances and that's where all other problem stems off. Corruption, riot, crappy education, crappy healthcare.
China is not ruled by a dictatorship or what ever crap the trolls like to think it is, it is ruled by elite technocrats, smart smart people who think they know what's best for the country but they can still be wrong and that's what the issue is, the society refuse to accept their failures and the need of nationalistic pride means that any time the west try to suggest or demand, it becomes a you versus them situation.
Honestly, Chinese people don't give a fuck about you, they are perfectly contend thinking they will restore their place as the centre of the world and given their recent developments they are some what right to think this way but it doesn't mean that they are right.
That's where it all come from, the people don't want leaders that give their freedoms or liberties, they see the problems of the society and want some one to step in with a razor knife and perform miracles. That's why you see corrupt, cheating statesmen but what you don't see is that these scum bags actually pull in investments and fix complex shits everyday.
They are corrupt because the leadership gave them too much executive power knowing very well that they abuse the system and they know that too but as long as they are still performing they get to keep their job.
The ones that under perform gets cut, corrupt or not.
That's a institution problem and won't go away until the day when the society develop enough to enact its own change.
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best.
Confucianism would scare the shit out of Western societies if they actually knew what it said.
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.
That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country.
well i guess america does have this right... i mean look at all the shit they said and do back in the georgian-russian war
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best.
Confucianism would scare the shit out of Western societies if they actually knew what it said.
Please enlighten us instead of throwing one liners.
Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...)
It's the use of confucianism mixed with legalism to support authoritarian empire that was wicked. They often perverted Kongzi's principles (to govern others one must first govern oneself).
If you want to scare people just explain old school legalism and you'll get my approval.
The poor Chinese emigrants who are caught in the middle of these debates!
On one hand, they value the liberty and spirit of rational inquiry of the West which has given them such personal blessings, and on the other, they know that when the citizens of the West criticize China for not having these virtues, they are wrong.
The rest of the explanation is their attempting to untangle the paradox, to their readers and to themselves.
Winds of Zephyrus, give answer! They're whimpering to and fro And what should they know of humans beings, who only humanity know? The little armchair critic, that ennui-ridden brag They're lifting their lofty fingers, to type against the Chinese flag!
Regardless of whether or not America or China commit atrocities (they both do), I think it's very apparent that people should not go to jail for writing documents. That's a no-brainer. China throws people in jail for writing documents. That is some 1984 thoughtcrime nonsense.
On September 30 2010 00:14 Grumbaki wrote: Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...)
Confucianism wasn't actually the dominant philosophy during most of the Tang dynasty, which was for most of its early parts dominated by Buddhist thought, and then Taoist thought slowly supplanted it, culminating with the 845 decree to persecute Buddhism. It wasn't really until the Song dynasty that Neo Confucianism took hold as the dominating philosophy. Though it can be traced back to the Tang dynasty, it really wasn't a "central" part of Tang thought.
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best.
Confucianism would scare the shit out of Western societies if they actually knew what it said.
Please enlighten us instead of throwing one liners.
Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...)
It's the use of confucianism mixed with legalism to support authoritarian empire that was wicked. They often perverted Kongzi's principles (to govern others one must first govern oneself).
If you want to scare people just explain old school legalism and you'll get my approval.
Confucius advocates the social self, which translates to you are (almost entirely) defined by your relationships with other "individuals", he claims that individuals have the choice of entering into said relationships except never states what happens to people who are rejected by another or whether there is a true self. So it brings up the do you really have a choice? And not to mention all of the obvious imbalance of power in a relationship in all of his archetypal relationships.
Legalism is another beast, but that's more obscure for mainstream cultures. The reason I brought up Confucianism is because despite all of the other principles, when you start losing the "self" in the individual, then it gets scary since Western societies typically place a greater premium on the "unique" self-identity ("be yourself!") than the East.
On September 30 2010 02:06 Meta wrote: Regardless of whether or not America or China commit atrocities (they both do), I think it's very apparent that people should not go to jail for writing documents. That's a no-brainer. China throws people in jail for writing documents. That is some 1984 thoughtcrime nonsense.
Sorry, Chinese society does not work the same as American society, that's why American foreign policy had to play catch up for the past 20 years or so. We're still waiting on Chinese aggression in the region. If China had a Glen Beck or any of those political pundits (on either side), nothing will get done and they'll have a riot every day. To put it another way, you don't get to martyr yourself and someone else doesn't get to use you as a martyr.
How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government.
I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal.
On September 30 2010 03:33 Meta wrote: How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government.
I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal.
It's hardly "just sharing thoughts and opinions". It's a manifesto encouraging political reform and democratization. IE, publicly opposing the government.
On September 30 2010 03:33 Meta wrote: How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government.
I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal.
Because for the same reason you have to get a permit to legally hold a rally everywhere in America.
Sharing people's thoughts and opinions? How do you think the Xinjiang riots started? Highly organized or some idiots egging people who don't know any better? Herding sheep is harder when you're actually herding sheep, thanks to mass media and the internet, it's pretty easy to move people to action. This isn't some popular movement, this literally just creating incident for the sake of drama. That's not what MLK did, that's not what Ghandi did, that is not what any of the typical peaceful movements have done.
Case in point, Tienanmen Square 1989, the protesters wanted political reform but hated the economic reforms. Fast forward 20+ years, that would have worked out great in the globalized market (/s).
Also, because I feel compelled to point out that installing a democratic government would start at the top and not at the bottom. America's founding fathers certainly were highly educated men (and only white men), and even they realize the dangers of mob mentality (say hi to your Electoral College).
I don't know much about this guy now, but giving the nobel prize to the Dalai Lama is more than enough evidence that the Norwegians don't know anything about the Dalai Lama and what he has done.
On September 30 2010 03:33 Meta wrote: How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government.
I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal.
It's hardly "just sharing thoughts and opinions". It's a manifesto encouraging political reform and democratization. IE, publicly opposing the government.
Seems like that charter constitutes its writers' thoughts and opinions, and the fact that it's public indicates that they wish to share them. And for that, the writers are now imprisoned.
On September 30 2010 03:33 Meta wrote: How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government.
I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal.
It's hardly "just sharing thoughts and opinions". It's a manifesto encouraging political reform and democratization. IE, publicly opposing the government.
Seems like that charter constitutes its writers' thoughts and opinions, and the fact that it's public indicates that they wish to share them. And for that, the writers are now imprisoned.
Yep, still seems ridiculously unethical to me.
Funny, because it's pretty obvious that it's advocating a system of government that obviously won't work in China (Taiwan once again rears it's ugly face here), but because someone thinks it will, the rest of the country is suppose to suffer. Best part about Charter 8 is that he isn't even advocating debate and that we're all suppose to think change is automatically good.
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
That is the worst argument for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize that I've ever heard. Not only did he take office in the midst of these wars, he also led the withdrawal from these wars.
While what you said is true about Iraq, is it the complete opposite for Afghanistan.
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
That is the worst argument for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize that I've ever heard. Not only did he take office in the midst of these wars, he also led the withdrawal from these wars.
While what you said is true about Iraq, is it the complete opposite for Afghanistan.
What made the nobel peace prize lose its credibility is that they gave it to Obama for doing nothing at all. I mean when he was awarded it all he had done is get elected to office. Im sorry but I dont think thats enough.
In Afghanistan he is currently increasing troop numbers and expenditures so that we can eventually leave and hopefully not have the country melt down. At least he as given a time table as to when we are going to leave where as previously it was just.... sometime.
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best.
Confucianism would scare the shit out of Western societies if they actually knew what it said.
Please enlighten us instead of throwing one liners.
Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...)
It's the use of confucianism mixed with legalism to support authoritarian empire that was wicked. They often perverted Kongzi's principles (to govern others one must first govern oneself).
If you want to scare people just explain old school legalism and you'll get my approval.
Confucius advocates the social self, which translates to you are (almost entirely) defined by your relationships with other "individuals", he claims that individuals have the choice of entering into said relationships except never states what happens to people who are rejected by another or whether there is a true self. So it brings up the do you really have a choice? And not to mention all of the obvious imbalance of power in a relationship in all of his archetypal relationships.
Legalism is another beast, but that's more obscure for mainstream cultures. The reason I brought up Confucianism is because despite all of the other principles, when you start losing the "self" in the individual, then it gets scary since Western societies typically place a greater premium on the "unique" self-identity ("be yourself!") than the East.
Welcome to Sartre's existentialism. You are defined by your social interactions. Just with 2500 years advance And don't read it textually like it didn't evolved. At the time, those were the relations. And Tyler Durden. You aren't a unique beautiful snowflake. (that's to be catchy, but that's one of the tenants of nihilism and postmodernism)
On September 30 2010 02:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
On September 30 2010 00:14 Grumbaki wrote: Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...)
Confucianism wasn't actually the dominant philosophy during most of the Tang dynasty, which was for most of its early parts dominated by Buddhist thought, and then Taoist thought slowly supplanted it, culminating with the 845 decree to persecute Buddhism. It wasn't really until the Song dynasty that Neo Confucianism took hold as the dominating philosophy. Though it can be traced back to the Tang dynasty, it really wasn't a "central" part of Tang thought.
True but 儒表法裡, Legalism coated with Confucianism. Tang just had an extra coating of buddhism and then taoism. That ended up in the formation of neo confucianism. Point is that Confucianism wasn't resilient to the evolution brought by buddhism and taoism. That's IMHO a good point for this philosophy... Plus you still need to dinstinguish "dominant philosophy" and foundation of empire's structures. Confucianism during Tang was still the way to rule while Buddhism took care of religious, social and philosophical.
*** I won't quote but to the one that was wondering how that is relevant to the debate of democracy and Liu's potential prize, ignoring those philosophies when discussing this makes you ignoring a lot of the causes of modern chinese culture way to exercise power and authority. And it leads to plain ethnocentrism, which, once again, isn't the way to make points with chinese people.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, what would the US government do if Oslo wanted to give Osama the Nobel peace prize instead?
I'm not saying this Liu guy is evil like Osama. I dont actually know anything about him. But just as Osama is a sensitive topic in the US, so this Liu guy must be in China. I've talked to some Chinese friends about him and they all think he's just a drama mama. They don't see him as a revolutionary. Maybe Americans think he's a matyr, but that would be similar to the saudi's lauding bin laden as a hero don't you think?
Im not for or against the CCP or Liu or anyone. I just dont think this is a big deal. If Americans can bitch and moan so much just because a mosque is being built in manhattan, I don't see why the Chinese are wrong in voicing their concerns.
I'm not sure, but I believe the same person was nominated last year (or some other person with the same agenda) and there was talk about the China trying to intimidate the nobel commitee. I don't really think the nobel commitee worries too much about the politics behind the selection of laureate because noone in the commitee are active politicians. However something to be said is that they are (mostly) retired politicians and their choice may be better predicted by what their main focus/values were during their political careers. And also how Norwegian media chooses to portray the world. Norwegian media has been very kind to both Obama and Gore, so it is not surprising that they were both given the prize.
On September 30 2010 06:17 liepzig wrote: I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, what would the US government do if Oslo wanted to give Osama the Nobel peace prize instead?
I'm not saying this Liu guy is evil like Osama. I dont actually know anything about him. But just as Osama is a sensitive topic in the US, so this Liu guy must be in China. I've talked to some Chinese friends about him and they all think he's just a drama mama. They don't see him as a revolutionary. Maybe Americans think he's a matyr, but that would be similar to the saudi's lauding bin laden as a hero don't you think?
Im not for or against the CCP or Liu or anyone. I just dont think this is a big deal. If Americans can bitch and moan so much just because a mosque is being built in manhattan, I don't see why the Chinese are wrong in voicing their concerns.
Problem with that line of thinking? He doesn't advocate peace in any form or shape.
On September 30 2010 06:17 liepzig wrote: I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, what would the US government do if Oslo wanted to give Osama the Nobel peace prize instead?
I'm not saying this Liu guy is evil like Osama. I dont actually know anything about him. But just as Osama is a sensitive topic in the US, so this Liu guy must be in China. I've talked to some Chinese friends about him and they all think he's just a drama mama. They don't see him as a revolutionary. Maybe Americans think he's a matyr, but that would be similar to the saudi's lauding bin laden as a hero don't you think?
Im not for or against the CCP or Liu or anyone. I just dont think this is a big deal. If Americans can bitch and moan so much just because a mosque is being built in manhattan, I don't see why the Chinese are wrong in voicing their concerns.
Problem with that line of thinking? He doesn't advocate peace in any form or shape.
hell if Liu deserve a prize for writing charter 08 and going to jail for it, then every American soldier that refused to be sent to Iraq deserve a prize too!
Wow, I can't believe I actually see a lot of educated and well thought response in a starcraft 2 forum. It is really funny when you only see comments like "China is evil" or "China is bully everyone" in places like The Economist but you actually sees intelligent responses in a video game forum. I guess people who play starcraft 2 are more aware of what is actually happening in the world.
Because of that, I also want to share some of my opinions. First of all, I am Chinese and received my high school and college education in the United States (still live there). Now for those of you who thought China is evil and everyone is bullied by the central government, I can only say that you are very ignorant. It might be insulting to you, and you probably will not listen to me anyway as it is a very common view held by people in the western society, but the sad truth is a lot (if not most) of the people do not know anything about China and developed their idea purely base on information presented by western media, their of values, and their assumptions of what other people's values are. You need to understands that there is a huge difference between China and the western world. You see the fast economical growth and think that China is rich, but you totally forget about the huge population in China. A lot of people in China are still very poor, especially in the rural areas in the west. Also a lot of the people are still very under educated, as pointed out by the previous posters. If you impose a democratic system, it will become a mess.
Here is one example (I saw it on an Chinese article, but unfortunately I did not remember where), the central government actually conduct an experiment (they actually do a lot of experiments) in one of the small cities and let people directly elect (to those who does not know, every Chinese over 18 can vote, although it mostly has not effect) their own leader, the winner turn out to be a person who paid everyone who voted him 20 yen. Then the central government quickly called the experiment to an end. Another example (this one I read on newspaper), a fight broke out between two groups from two different village in Hanan. The fight eventually turned into a fight between the two villages (with knives too). Yes, a fight between two villages and the two groups are by no mean gangster, they are just villagers. My point is rumors and lies are very very powerful in China because people generally undereducated. A lot of them do not think (I am not saying that they are stupid, they just don't think), and their reason to support someone is not because that person is right, but is just because they like that person (you see this a lot in Taiwan...).
I think this is a good place to bring this up. For some reason, a lot of westerner think that democracy is good in itself (a lot of them also believe it is good as a mean). By good in itself, I mean it is just a good thing to have democracy, or it is a goal that we should work towards. Democracy is just one of the many political systems. In a well educated society, it may be the best system (meaning it is good as a mean) when everyone respect the election result (and most importantly the law that credits the election) as more people who think independently agree on the same thing increase it chances of being correct. I seriously do not understand why people value democracy so much, just like it is a very good thing. I personally think that a goal for a society is to provide everyone good living standard and create their own culture, not to become democratic (although it may help to achieve that goal). Also people seem to be obsess with freedom of speech. I agree that everyone has a right to tell the truth or express their well developed opinion, but why are lies and rumors allowed? A pretty obvious example is the recent medical reform in the US. The politicians are trying to bend the facts around to confuse the general public. And there seems to have no penalty for the media to purposely giving out false information, for example the supposedly Tibetan police beating up the monks. It is pretty obvious that those are not Chinese as you look at their dark skin...
By the way, for those of you who only watch mainstream western media, there was actually a Spanish team who manage to stay in the square the whole night and no one was killed as seen in the video while the student leaders claimed that there are thousands of death. For some reason (you can think about the reason yourself), the video never made it to mainstream western media. The death came from the riot outside of Tiananmen Squre. And for some reason again, the videos of people beating up the soldiers, taking away their guns, burning down military vehicles were never shown on western medias. Also, six years after the incident, a documentary featuring the Spanish team's video made in Hong Kong was not allowed to broadcast. The 5 people who participate in making the documentary actually resigned from the TV station to protest against it. I guess China bully the Spaniards to make a fake video right? Here is the links (in Cantonese).
On September 30 2010 06:17 liepzig wrote: I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, what would the US government do if Oslo wanted to give Osama the Nobel peace prize instead?
I'm not saying this Liu guy is evil like Osama. I dont actually know anything about him. But just as Osama is a sensitive topic in the US, so this Liu guy must be in China. I've talked to some Chinese friends about him and they all think he's just a drama mama. They don't see him as a revolutionary. Maybe Americans think he's a matyr, but that would be similar to the saudi's lauding bin laden as a hero don't you think?
Im not for or against the CCP or Liu or anyone. I just dont think this is a big deal. If Americans can bitch and moan so much just because a mosque is being built in manhattan, I don't see why the Chinese are wrong in voicing their concerns.
Problem with that line of thinking? He doesn't advocate peace in any form or shape.
He was advocating change and no where in the charter or in his personal view did he wanted to start a violent revolution so saying that he's not advocating peace is not entirely correct because if his charter went ahead and were actually implemented, it will solve all the violent riots and other Chinese social problems.
I think it's wrong to just dismiss some one like him, a society that doesn't change for the better is a dying society, he has a point and I don't think anyone can deny that and a lot of Chinese people educated or not just instantly dismiss him while turning a complete blind eye to the problems that he brought to surface.
Maybe the points that he made don't concern you as the Chinese posters on this forum are relatively wealthy and educated so they are far away from the problems, but don't ignore the problems because we all know they are real and growing.
On September 30 2010 04:03 soultwister wrote: Does anyone even care about Nobel Peace Prize after Obama got it?
It is not so much that he got it, it is more about when he got before he did anything, i don't think he had been in office 6 months before he received it.
Notes: I have never really cared about any of the Nobel Prizes in general. Not a big fan of obama either.
Edit: i have a agree with a few of the other posters if china would have never said anything most of the world would have not heard or cared about it.
On September 30 2010 12:18 haduken wrote: He was advocating change and no where in the charter or in his personal view did he wanted to start a violent revolution so saying that he's not advocating peace is not entirely correct because if his charter went ahead and were actually implemented, it will solve all the violent riots and other Chinese social problems.
I think it's wrong to just dismiss some one like him, a society that doesn't change for the better is a dying society, he has a point and I don't think anyone can deny that and a lot of Chinese people educated or not just instantly dismiss him while turning a complete blind eye to the problems that he brought to surface.
Maybe the points that he made don't concern you as the Chinese posters on this forum are relatively wealthy and educated so they are far away from the problems, but don't ignore the problems because we all know they are real and growing.
haduken,
u have to understand the issue from the Chinese side. such declarations and calls for reform are not new in China and many of those plans turned violent. if you read the Chinese version of the Charter, he isnt just criticizing the communist party, he is demonizing the party - a prelude to overthrow. His language was more bent on crashing the communist party rather than helping the Chinese ppl.
China doesnt have a short supply of hot headed ppl like Liu. What China needed are ppl that can DO things constructively, not just shouting the reform slogan. The Charter also fails hard at recognizing the communist party is actually working to implement those reforms. Instead of make valuable recommendations on how those goals can be achieved, the Charter just focus on trashing how the existing system sucks.
Basically, the Charter is a whole lot of TALK, not alot of DO.
He was raising a point and crucifying him for doing that is wrong. This isn't even about freedom of speech, its about the fact that the communist party refuse to hear anyone except themselves.
The implementation of his political agendas is not up to him and I very much doubt anyone will really advocate a Western style democracy but a more transparent and systematic political system is what China desperately needs and this is something that the communist party struggle to implement as too many princelings and powers benefit from the existing arrangement.
The existence of such charter is still needed even if to raise awareness which is something that is horrifyingly lacking in Chinese psyche.
On October 01 2010 09:32 haduken wrote: He was raising a point and crucifying him for doing that is wrong. This isn't even about freedom of speech, its about the fact that the communist party refuse to hear anyone except themselves.
The implementation of his political agendas is not up to him and I very much doubt anyone will really advocate a Western style democracy but a more transparent and systematic political system is what China desperately needs and this is something that the communist party struggle to implement as too many princelings and powers benefit from the existing arrangement.
The existence of such charter is still needed even if to raise awareness which is something that is horrifyingly lacking in Chinese psyche.
everyone in China is keenly aware of the structural problems with the gov.
China doesn't need ppl raising awareness with inflammatory messages. China needs ppl with solution to problems and the skills to implement them. the charter failed to acknowledge this and threatens to destroy the work that is underway.
he was not jailed for criticizing the gov, he was jailed for his efforts to overthrow the gov.
On October 01 2010 09:32 haduken wrote: He was raising a point and crucifying him for doing that is wrong. This isn't even about freedom of speech, its about the fact that the communist party refuse to hear anyone except themselves.
The implementation of his political agendas is not up to him and I very much doubt anyone will really advocate a Western style democracy but a more transparent and systematic political system is what China desperately needs and this is something that the communist party struggle to implement as too many princelings and powers benefit from the existing arrangement.
The existence of such charter is still needed even if to raise awareness which is something that is horrifyingly lacking in Chinese psyche.
It's one thing to start shit just to start shit; it's another thing to actually propose a solution and implement it.
It's cool to see that Westerners that actually live in China have some very true opinions compare to those that may never been to China. As many people stated at previous posts. China is not ready for democracy, if somehow someone manage to bring democracy into China it will just make China fall apart. Democracy is good if its established on a firm foundation otherwise just look at Thailand, India etc... Half ass democracy is the way to slow down your country's economic advance and bring unrest into the country. I think many westerns govs and people will just want the whole world to be democracy and dont even care about the outcome of it. Some countries will be better with democracy but many will not. One party rule is great for economic development. A good example is Korea. The nowadays rich and developed Korea was build up by a single party government lead by the military until 1987, at that time Korea had already become a developed countries with companies like Samsung, LG emerges to the whole world.
About the Nobel peace prize: Award a price to a person who oppose a international recognized government is just wrong no matter what he did. If China was North Korea or Burma, ok, someone that try to break the rule of a military junta may be awarded a Nobel Peace prize. But China is nothing like NK or Burma. Its just like in 1972 Henry Kissinger was award a Nobel while a bloody war is still going on and he was somewhat a architecture of it. Note that Kissinger and the Vietnamese Le Duc Tho were both award the Nobel prize but Le Duc Tho denied it since the war was far from over at that time.
The Nobel Peace Prize has lost its momentum long ago, I hope that the committee dont do something that could be view like they are doing it based on a Western agenda... Really award the prize to Liu Xiao Bo is just wrong, very wrong.
You know, political things aside, I really don't know how Nobel is determining who gets these things.
Obama gets one before he does anything (ok I'm not going into how good Obama is). This guy gets one just for calling for democracy? When they got their prizes there was absolutely nothing they had actually accomplished. Maybe if Obama changed the USA and did a lot of good, then they give the prize to him. When Communism falls in China and democracy comes in and everyone is happy, then give to prize to Liu Xiaobo.
Western countries don't need to be actively trying to input democracy into China. Communism is falling down by itself. There's government corruption, widening gap between rich and poor, tons of social issues in the country, etc.
I've heard a lot of educated people in China talk about desperately needed reforms, or possibly even some revolution-type event happening in the next few decades.
On October 01 2010 12:23 Loanshark wrote: You know, political things aside, I really don't know how Nobel is determining who gets these things.
Obama gets one before he does anything (ok I'm not going into how good Obama is). This guy gets one just for calling for democracy? When they got their prizes there was absolutely nothing they had actually accomplished. Maybe if Obama changed the USA and did a lot of good, then they give the prize to him. When Communism falls in China and democracy comes in and everyone is happy, then give to prize to Liu Xiaobo.
Western countries don't need to be actively trying to input democracy into China. Communism is falling down by itself. There's government corruption, widening gap between rich and poor, tons of social issues in the country, etc.
I've heard a lot of educated people in China talk about desperately needed reforms, or possibly even some revolution-type event happening in the next few decades.
Agreed, no need for democracy injection. When the time comes Communism will be replaced with something people really want!
On October 01 2010 12:23 Loanshark wrote: You know, political things aside, I really don't know how Nobel is determining who gets these things.
Obama gets one before he does anything (ok I'm not going into how good Obama is). This guy gets one just for calling for democracy? When they got their prizes there was absolutely nothing they had actually accomplished. Maybe if Obama changed the USA and did a lot of good, then they give the prize to him. When Communism falls in China and democracy comes in and everyone is happy, then give to prize to Liu Xiaobo.
Western countries don't need to be actively trying to input democracy into China. Communism is falling down by itself. There's government corruption, widening gap between rich and poor, tons of social issues in the country, etc.
I've heard a lot of educated people in China talk about desperately needed reforms, or possibly even some revolution-type event happening in the next few decades.
Agreed, no need for democracy injection. When the time comes Communism will be replaced with something people really want!
People saying that Communism will automatically fall in China and other communist countries are probably joking.
They teach 3 year old children to praise and love their communist leaders. They teach 6 year old children to have complete belief to the communist party and their leaders. They teach 12 year old children to fear police and the ones in power, and to perceive democracy as a stupid idea. They change facts in history/philosophy textbook to suit whatever they want. They told their people to value money above freedom, and yet they are the ones who have money, that means they are the ones who control people's mind.
Seriously it is now impossible to bring them down, unless a very severe economic disaster happens to them, or a war. But yeah, since the world could change so much in a very short time, this can happen, but not automatically.
On October 01 2010 12:23 Loanshark wrote: You know, political things aside, I really don't know how Nobel is determining who gets these things.
Obama gets one before he does anything (ok I'm not going into how good Obama is). This guy gets one just for calling for democracy? When they got their prizes there was absolutely nothing they had actually accomplished. Maybe if Obama changed the USA and did a lot of good, then they give the prize to him. When Communism falls in China and democracy comes in and everyone is happy, then give to prize to Liu Xiaobo.
Western countries don't need to be actively trying to input democracy into China. Communism is falling down by itself. There's government corruption, widening gap between rich and poor, tons of social issues in the country, etc.
I've heard a lot of educated people in China talk about desperately needed reforms, or possibly even some revolution-type event happening in the next few decades.
Agreed, no need for democracy injection. When the time comes Communism will be replaced with something people really want!
People saying that Communism will automatically fall in China and other communist countries are probably joking.
They teach 3 year old children to praise and love their communist leaders. They teach 6 year old children to have complete belief to the communist party and their leaders. They teach 12 year old children to fear police and the ones in power, and to perceive democracy as a stupid idea. They change facts in history/philosophy textbook to suit whatever they want. They told their people to value money above freedom, and yet they are the ones who have money, that means they are the ones who control people's mind.
Seriously it is now impossible to bring them down, unless a very severe economic disaster happens to them, or a war. But yeah, since the world could change so much in a very short time, this can happen, but not automatically.
It'll fall just like dynasties have fallen. It's not like China hasn't done this before; it's history is full of cyclic changes in rule. And slow down on the indoctrination, it's there, but it really isn't any different in concept than you pledging allegiance to your respective country. Nobody's out there carrying their 10 reasons for loving Chairman Mao or any of the other past leaders since the PRC came into existence. There are lots of people who support the government but demand changes (like regulation of the housing market or education reform), somehow that gets perverted into something more by foreign press.
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
He was elected into office during those two wars, which his predecessor started. He also campaigned on the premise of ending those wars, which is why he was awarded the prize in the first place. Furthermore, there are 50,000 U.S. troops presently in Iraq, compared to the 130,000 when he took office. He also acknowledged the controversy surrounding the decision to award it to him, and even stated he would try to live up to what the prize represents.
International prizes, sports, relations, etc will always be politicized, and preemptively awarding Obama the prize was clearly an attempt to influence his present/future policies. It doesn't "lose all its credibility" as you so ridiculously put it.
On October 01 2010 12:23 Loanshark wrote: You know, political things aside, I really don't know how Nobel is determining who gets these things.
Obama gets one before he does anything (ok I'm not going into how good Obama is). This guy gets one just for calling for democracy? When they got their prizes there was absolutely nothing they had actually accomplished. Maybe if Obama changed the USA and did a lot of good, then they give the prize to him. When Communism falls in China and democracy comes in and everyone is happy, then give to prize to Liu Xiaobo.
Western countries don't need to be actively trying to input democracy into China. Communism is falling down by itself. There's government corruption, widening gap between rich and poor, tons of social issues in the country, etc.
I've heard a lot of educated people in China talk about desperately needed reforms, or possibly even some revolution-type event happening in the next few decades.
Agreed, no need for democracy injection. When the time comes Communism will be replaced with something people really want!
People saying that Communism will automatically fall in China and other communist countries are probably joking.
They teach 3 year old children to praise and love their communist leaders. They teach 6 year old children to have complete belief to the communist party and their leaders. They teach 12 year old children to fear police and the ones in power, and to perceive democracy as a stupid idea. They change facts in history/philosophy textbook to suit whatever they want. They told their people to value money above freedom, and yet they are the ones who have money, that means they are the ones who control people's mind.
Seriously it is now impossible to bring them down, unless a very severe economic disaster happens to them, or a war. But yeah, since the world could change so much in a very short time, this can happen, but not automatically.
Lets not talk about the Chinese education system unless you've actually experienced it please.
People saying that Communism will automatically fall in China and other communist countries are probably joking.
They teach 3 year old children to praise and love their communist leaders. They teach 6 year old children to have complete belief to the communist party and their leaders. They teach 12 year old children to fear police and the ones in power, and to perceive democracy as a stupid idea. They change facts in history/philosophy textbook to suit whatever they want. They told their people to value money above freedom, and yet they are the ones who have money, that means they are the ones who control people's mind.
Seriously it is now impossible to bring them down, unless a very severe economic disaster happens to them, or a war. But yeah, since the world could change so much in a very short time, this can happen, but not automatically.
i was born and raised in china and i have never experienced any of these thoughts when i was 3,6 or 12.. i would love to hear your justification on why or how you perceive this to be true
How can you NOT take freedom of press/speech for granted in 21st Century? The audacity to even do it like that and "reason" it out as bad, makes my blood to boil! I can't wait for the fall of the Chinese government.
Why is everyone advocating Democracy? At it's best Democracy is mob rule. I hate Democracy. It's an overused word propagated by Liberals who don't care about individual liberties. Proponents of Democracy are group thinkers and would do anything to satisfy the will of the majority, Even if it takes away the rights of minorities, who don't have the voting power of a ruling majority.
If China wants to advance Individual liberties, China should follow America's model of being a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. If China becomes a full blown democracy the minorities in that country will go into full revolt. The Huge minorities of China will never tolerate being ruled by the Han majority via full blown Democracy.
If America becomes a full blown Democracy instead of a Consitutional Republic, this whole country would be thrown into another civil war. As a minority, I fear majority rule. An old saying goes: "Majority Rules is Minority Ruled."
I prefer living in a Constitutional Republic where my rights are guranteed by a Consitution. And where my rights are inherent because I am an individual, not because I belong to a voting majority. I do not want my rights to be entirely dependant on the swinging emotions of the voting majority. That has always been a recipe for disaster.
On October 02 2010 02:52 deadbutmoving wrote: Why is everyone advocating Democracy? At it's best Democracy is mob rule. I hate Democracy. It's an overused word propagated by Liberals who don't care about individual liberties. Proponents of Democracy are group thinkers and would do anything to satisfy the will of the majority, Even if it takes away the rights of minorities, who don't have the voting power of a ruling majority.
If China wants to advance Individual liberties, China should follow America's model of being a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. If China becomes a full blown democracy the minorities in that country will go into full revolt. The Huge minorities of China will never tolerate being ruled by the Han majority via full blown Democracy.
If America becomes a full blown Democracy instead of a Consitutional Republic, this whole country would be thrown into another civil war. As a minority, I fear majority rule. An old saying goes: "Majority Rules is Minority Ruled."
I prefer living in a Constitutional Republic where my rights are guranteed by a Consitution. And where my rights are inherent because I am an individual, not because I belong to a voting majority. I do not want my rights to be entirely dependant on the swinging emotions of the voting majority. That has always been a recipe for disaster.
Democracy is and always has been a load of crap.
In Democracy in the current form you AT LEAST have the illusion of freedom. Yes in Democracy shit load of silencing media/people happens, but it's done in hidden which leads that THAT behavior is NOT acceptable.Communism blatantly denies rights towards things that should be taken for granted. History will judge China as a oppressing backwards influence in our timeline.
P.S. I strongly dislike Democracy as well. Every mass of people that unites under WHATEVER banner is generally stupid, ignorant, inert, etc. I am strongly favoring the empowerment of individuals and shaping humanity as a pack of wolves, rather than herd of sheep. The thing is China can't go from this political establishment (big time oppressive), to a system more liberating than Westerners Democracy. And that's why we are "advocating" democracy.
In Democracy in the current form you AT LEAST have the illusion of freedom. Yes in Democracy shit load of silencing media/people happens, but it's done in hidden which leads that THAT behavior is NOT acceptable.Communism blatantly denies rights towards things that should be taken for granted. History will judge China as a oppressing backwards influence in our timeline.
P.S. I strongly dislike Democracy as well. Every mass of people that unites under WHATEVER banner is generally stupid, ignorant, inert, etc. I am strongly favoring the empowerment of individuals and shaping humanity as a pack of wolves, rather than herd of sheep. The thing is China can't go from this political establishment (big time oppressive), to a system more liberating than Westerners Democracy. And that's why we are "advocating" democracy.
Speak for yourself, America is not a Democracy, even though some people claim us to be. We are a Consitutional Republic. A growing number of us do not support Democracy and we will speak out against all who do.
Democracy is a word that has been mutated from it's original form by the left-wing media soo much, that now people even use the word Democracy synonymously with the word Liberty. By using the word Democracy synonymously with words like freedom or liberty, you make the false assumption that the rule of the majority will lead to freedom/liberty. This is the biggest lie and logical fallacy of the Western hemisphere. Democracy being pro freedom was always a lie, and those who propagate it are liars wheter they know it or not.
If you have studied history you will understand that "majority rules" has often lead to Facism, Monarchy, Nazism, Socialism, Communism, and even Genocide. But it's always genocide against Minorities NOT the Voting Majority. This is the ugly spirit of Democracy.
The only thing that has ever proven to protect human rights is a guarantee of liberty through an enforced Constitution. That is the only thing that has given the people in the West our freedoms and that is the only thing that will give the people of China their freedom. This mantra of "Democracy Now!" is a lie, logical fallacy, and detracts from the true progress for human individual liberty.
In Democracy in the current form you AT LEAST have the illusion of freedom. Yes in Democracy shit load of silencing media/people happens, but it's done in hidden which leads that THAT behavior is NOT acceptable.Communism blatantly denies rights towards things that should be taken for granted. History will judge China as a oppressing backwards influence in our timeline.
P.S. I strongly dislike Democracy as well. Every mass of people that unites under WHATEVER banner is generally stupid, ignorant, inert, etc. I am strongly favoring the empowerment of individuals and shaping humanity as a pack of wolves, rather than herd of sheep. The thing is China can't go from this political establishment (big time oppressive), to a system more liberating than Westerners Democracy. And that's why we are "advocating" democracy.
Speak for yourself, America is not a Democracy, even though some people claim us to be. We are a Consitutional Republic. A growing number of us do not support Democracy and we will speak out against all who do.
Democracy is a word that has been mutated from it's original form by the left-wing media soo much, that now people even use the word Democracy synonymously with the word Liberty. By using the word Democracy synonymously with words like freedom or liberty, you make the false assumption that the rule of the majority will lead to freedom/liberty. This is the biggest lie and logical fallacy of the Western hemisphere. Democracy being pro freedom was always a lie, and those who propagate it are liars wheter they know it or not.
If you have studied history you will understand that "majority rules" has often lead to Facism, Monarchy, Nazism, Socialism, Communism, and even Genocide. But it's always genocide against Minorities NOT the Voting Majority. This is the ugly spirit of Democracy.
The only thing that has ever proven to protect human rights is a guarantee of liberty through an enforced Constitution. That is the only thing that has given the people in the West our freedoms and that is the only thing that will give the people of China their freedom. This mantra of "Democracy Now!" is a lie, logical fallacy, and detracts from the true progress for human individual liberty.
´Oh no! Not socialism! The fact that you bunch up socialism with facism and nazis shows just how little you know about anything really.
On October 02 2010 02:41 Usurper wrote: How can you NOT take freedom of press/speech for granted in 21st Century? The audacity to even do it like that and "reason" it out as bad, makes my blood to boil! I can't wait for the fall of the Chinese government.
I'm sorry to answer that way but 99% chinese people reading your last sentence would answer the same way:
Seeing you're macedonian, don't you think a bit less freedom of speech press and better status on: crime rate, corruption, unemployment rate, poverty rate would be an immediate plus for the macedonian population?
On October 02 2010 02:41 Usurper wrote: How can you NOT take freedom of press/speech for granted in 21st Century? The audacity to even do it like that and "reason" it out as bad, makes my blood to boil! I can't wait for the fall of the Chinese government.
I'm sorry to answer that way but 99% chinese people reading your last sentence would answer the same way:
Seeing you're macedonian, don't you think a bit less freedom of speech press and better status on: crime rate, corruption, unemployment rate, poverty rate would be an immediate plus for the macedonian population?
How in hell do you made those things that you numbered, interconnected with freedom of speech? And more so, saying it like freedom of speech is reverse proportional to the rate of the other things. Did you even think about it before pressing "post"?
and did you read the thread before posting high horse principles?
Freedom of speech in a non educated irrational racist and somehow sexist country ends up in real bad shit. Point and examples were made several times in the thread.
We never said we are against it but now isn't (yet) a good moment for china. Point was made several times in the thread.
They work first on the stuff I listed. That was immediate need. Point was made several times in the thread.
Pragamatic people get things done. Evolutions are more efficient than revolutions. Point was made several times in the thread.
Seeing your signature and your rethorics, flame on like I care. Have fun.
On October 02 2010 09:05 Grumbaki wrote: We never said we are against it but now isn't (yet) a good moment for china. Point was made several times in the thread.
What the hell is China if not the people who live in it? Thats who i relate to. Do i care if an political entity as China survives the evolution/revolution as whole? Of course, not. "Pragmatic" enslavers like yourself are the cause of this sheep-like humanity. You constantly try to enforce submission by inciting fear and doubt in the Individual. Holy crap, and even the CONSIDERATION of Freedom of Speech as possible "bad tool"! haha!
I don't need to flame you, this last sentence talks about how enlightened you really are.
On October 02 2010 09:05 Grumbaki wrote: We never said we are against it but now isn't (yet) a good moment for china. Point was made several times in the thread.
What the hell is China if not the people who live in it? Thats who i relate to. Do i care if an political entity as China survives the evolution/revolution as whole? Of course, not. "Pragmatic" enslavers like yourself are the cause of this sheep-like humanity. You constantly try to enforce submission by inciting fear and doubt in the Individual. Holy crap, and even the CONSIDERATION of Freedom of Speech as possible "bad tool"! haha!
I don't need to flame you, this last sentence talks about how enlightened you really are.
freedom of speech? its just a political paradox used by parts of western media to brainwash fools. good to see not every1 is as ignorant.
On September 29 2010 07:33 Grumbaki wrote: 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).
This is page 1 of the thread. I'm not the only one to have stated that and several other examples were given by other people.
The people you are "relating to" are sometimes dying because of irrational pseudo public speech.
Then you proceed to call me names without knowing me and distorting my points. Good job: this ain't flaming, it's borderline trolling.
On September 29 2010 07:33 Grumbaki wrote: 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).
This is page 1 of the thread. I'm not the only one to have stated that and several other examples were given by other people.
The people you are "relating to" are sometimes dying because of irrational pseudo public speech.
Then you proceed to call me names without knowing me and distorting my points. Good job: this ain't flaming, it's borderline trolling.
Some idiots killed a man because of a rumor - LET'S BAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Tomorrow some idiots will try to eat lead, gold, cleaning powder, and consequentially die. So what then, ban all of these right? You are funny... and not very smart.
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
That is the worst argument for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize that I've ever heard. Not only did he take office in the midst of these wars, he also led the withdrawal from these wars.
On-topic: yeah, China... ... tsk tsk. Warning the Nobel committee to not award the Nobel Peace Prize to a political prisoner is only going to make them look worse to the rest of the world, what were they thinking?
Renaming troops and putting goverment contractors in doesnt replace lost life in Afg or Iran(soon)/q.
Oh, so clearly obama should have come into office and instantly pulled the entire military out of afganistan and iraq without a word?
On another note, I really like that we're seeing some actaul chinese perspective on the democratic movements (and opposition) that are going on in china. It's so easy to point fingers to China and say "you're doing it wrong" without actually understanding what's going on. Revolution doesn't happen overnight, and it can be a painful and destructive thing to go through. If it isn't done with any kind of stability, then a new democratic government will crack and be overthrown, causing even more strife.
I wouldn't be surprised if, 50 years from now, china is the world's primary superpower.
On September 29 2010 07:33 Grumbaki wrote: 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).
This is page 1 of the thread. I'm not the only one to have stated that and several other examples were given by other people.
The people you are "relating to" are sometimes dying because of irrational pseudo public speech.
Then you proceed to call me names without knowing me and distorting my points. Good job: this ain't flaming, it's borderline trolling.
Some idiots killed a man because of a rumor - LET'S BAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Tomorrow some idiots will try to eat lead, gold, cleaning powder, and consequentially die. So what then, ban all of these right? You are funny... and not very smart.
It seems that you've misunderstood China to a large degree. Many things in many countries start from a rumor especially there are Religion or Ethnic involved. I have deep respect for what Chinese gov has archived. They are now building one of the world future super power. In many places in China, it has already better than EU. Most people in China dont give a shit about freedom of speech. Do you think that you can go out on a strike, talk free about shits on the street is freedom of speech? No it isnt. Most Chinese people live a very comfortable life do whatever they want. Their income increase day by day, and that is what most people care about. Many media in the west still bash countries like China or Vietnam for human rights, freedom..etc.. but people in those countries dont care, that the point. What make us human happy? Largely based on how much money you earn. Imagine that you earn like 1 dollar a day and you live in a so called "freedom" country compare to you earn like 100 dollars a day and live a "no freedom" country... I dont know about you, but I'd take that $100 everytime.
The view that educated people in China are aware of the situation in China is wrong. The students in college began their brainwash procedure in elementary schools. The textbooks,TVs,newspapers are extremely effective since freedom of speech doesn't exist here. Your blogs with sensitive words are immediately deleted when found with help of GFW and other internet censor departments. The people that are more aware of the situation are still a minority. If you are not scorned when giving your "childish", "cynical","negative" comments on the government, you'll be called a traitor for not loving your own government.
China may not be as bad as western medias describe, but it certainly is worse than those who live here know about.
I'm an Asian studying in the United States now. And while I can understand where people like Ursurper are coming from, I'm afraid i don't accept their point of view.
What does "freedom of speech" in America mean? The right to protest? The right to bitch about the government? If that in itself makes you happy that's awesome, but unfortunately in America that doesnt amount to shit, it doesnt lead to any change. I come from Singapore, one of the more "authoritarian" countries in the eyes of the West. I can safely tell you I enjoy much more freedoms back home. Like the freedom to walk on the streets without fear of getting mugged. Like the freedom to go to a doctor and not have to pay indecent amounts of money in insurance and overheads. Like the freedom to take the bus or the train at any time of the day because workers don't go on strike for shits and giggles.
Protecting individual liberties is an ideal we should strive toward. But it cannot come at the expense of others. Imagine you have 2 people in your house, and one bathroom. You can have all the "freedom" you want. You can take long baths, you can bring a book when you take a dump, it doesnt matter. But when 10 people share one bathroom, rules have to be set. One person taking a long bath means 9 other people suffer. Taking away "freedoms" actually protects the individual.
You may not agree with me, and I can accept that. But you should also be able to accept that others may not agree with you, and that doesn't mean they are brainwashed. Many Chinese have lived, worked, and studied in the West. Many have also chosen to gone back. Think about what that means.
And you should really go visit China sometime. I promise you I see way more cops in America than in China. Freedom indeed.
On October 02 2010 12:02 bonedriven wrote: The view that educated people in China are aware of the situation in China is wrong. The students in college began their brainwash procedure in elementary schools. The textbooks,TVs,newspapers are extremely effective since freedom of speech doesn't exist here. Your blogs with sensitive words are immediately deleted when found with help of GFW and other internet censor departments. The people that are more aware of the situation are still a minority. If you are not scorned when giving your "childish", "cynical","negative" comments on the government, you'll be called a traitor for not loving your own government.
China may not be as bad as western medias describe, but it certainly is worse than those who live here know about.
Uh, not really. There are problems for sure, but most of those comes from the capitalism and massive economic growth in the past 20 years.
Also another thing, Chinese people in general and historically aren't exactly open critics of the ruling state until said ruling state is about to become history. You think that passive aggressive nature came about suddenly.
And that last statement, welcome to America, see how far you go if you start criticizing the basic institutions of the USA. There's a difference between these are problems that the government should handle and the government is the problem, that line gets blurred so much here.
On October 02 2010 12:35 liepzig wrote: I'm an Asian studying in the United States now. And while I can understand where people like Ursurper are coming from, I'm afraid i don't accept their point of view.
What does "freedom of speech" in America mean? The right to protest? The right to bitch about the government? If that in itself makes you happy that's awesome, but unfortunately in America that doesnt amount to shit, it doesnt lead to any change. I come from Singapore, one of the more "authoritarian" countries in the eyes of the West. I can safely tell you I enjoy much more freedoms back home. Like the freedom to walk on the streets without fear of getting mugged. Like the freedom to go to a doctor and not have to pay indecent amounts of money in insurance and overheads. Like the freedom to take the bus or the train at any time of the day because workers don't go on strike for shits and giggles.
Protecting individual liberties is an ideal we should strive toward. But it cannot come at the expense of others. Imagine you have 2 people in your house, and one bathroom. You can have all the "freedom" you want. You can take long baths, you can bring a book when you take a dump, it doesnt matter. But when 10 people share one bathroom, rules have to be set. One person taking a long bath means 9 other people suffer. Taking away "freedoms" actually protects the individual.
You may not agree with me, and I can accept that. But you should also be able to accept that others may not agree with you, and that doesn't mean they are brainwashed. Many Chinese have lived, worked, and studied in the West. Many have also chosen to gone back. Think about what that means.
And you should really go visit China sometime. I promise you I see way more cops in America than in China. Freedom indeed.
None here has problem with accepting that different people have different views. We are on a forum, so thats for granted. But hell, none is putting a gun next to your head in order to extort your opinion - meaning, it is not mandatory to share your views.... But if you DO share them - back them up with some arguments that have logical vibe in them. I find it insulting that you wanna use metaphors of a household and bathroom. The guy previously used an example with a bunch of savage idiots murdering man based on a SMS.
Now you just have to understand how this: "Taking away "freedoms" actually protects the individual." is so wrong and preface to EVERY totalitarian regime that has ever hurt humanity big time. I am appalled that i gotta explain why this is wrong to any young mind. I mean i would totally get the opposition if i was debating with 70 year old African Warmonger of a Dictator. I would be stirring his sick shit right?
P.S. I can't visit China. I wear chains and sometimes there is a "westerners" flag on some of my t-shirts. Too risky.
Haha, you can't visit China because you wear chains and clothes with flags on it? I see Chinese people and foreigners alike wearing flags and shirts from other nations all the time. Nobody's going to bat an eye at your chains when there are people like this going around.
Also, how do you define freedom of speech? I'm in China at the moment, and to be honest I don't really feel restricted in speech. I'm of course not allowed to go out on the street and protest against the government, but it's not as though I'd ever feel the urge to do that in the US either. Things aren't as bad here as people like you (who incidentally have never been to China) make it out to be.
On October 02 2010 12:35 liepzig wrote: I'm an Asian studying in the United States now. And while I can understand where people like Ursurper are coming from, I'm afraid i don't accept their point of view.
What does "freedom of speech" in America mean? The right to protest? The right to bitch about the government? If that in itself makes you happy that's awesome, but unfortunately in America that doesnt amount to shit, it doesnt lead to any change. I come from Singapore, one of the more "authoritarian" countries in the eyes of the West. I can safely tell you I enjoy much more freedoms back home. Like the freedom to walk on the streets without fear of getting mugged. Like the freedom to go to a doctor and not have to pay indecent amounts of money in insurance and overheads. Like the freedom to take the bus or the train at any time of the day because workers don't go on strike for shits and giggles.
Protecting individual liberties is an ideal we should strive toward. But it cannot come at the expense of others. Imagine you have 2 people in your house, and one bathroom. You can have all the "freedom" you want. You can take long baths, you can bring a book when you take a dump, it doesnt matter. But when 10 people share one bathroom, rules have to be set. One person taking a long bath means 9 other people suffer. Taking away "freedoms" actually protects the individual.
You may not agree with me, and I can accept that. But you should also be able to accept that others may not agree with you, and that doesn't mean they are brainwashed. Many Chinese have lived, worked, and studied in the West. Many have also chosen to gone back. Think about what that means.
And you should really go visit China sometime. I promise you I see way more cops in America than in China. Freedom indeed.
This whole post is so disjointed.. and doesn't really make a point.
I don't know where you are in the US but I definitely don't feel scared when I walk around my neighborhood (and I live in an ALL black neighborhood in metro Atlanta as a skinny asian kid), I pay a small portion of my paycheck so I get pretty awesome coverage with a low yearly maximum out of pocket, and the workers here basically don't strike (the US is not France). You really shouldn't use hyperbole to make things out to be worse than they really are so you can make a point. I would suggest that you try to actually live in America rather than just study here before you judge as you are suggesting to people who haven't been to China. Also, how did anything you write have any relevance to freedom of speech? Freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with walking around without getting mugged or having efficient public transportation. Straight from wikipedia:
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both.
People get mugged in places with no freedom of speech and places with freedom of speech. Japan has freedom of speech and you would be safe walking the streets of Tokyo for sure. Maybe not so much in Russia. In China if you aren't rich in the city you probably can't afford costly medical treatments and just recently there was some news about factory workers striking in China. So not only are your examples not relevant to freedom of speech, they're not even good examples of how things are better in China vs US. That may be true for Singapore vs the US but Singapore is a tiny country which you really can't compare to the US. And what the hell does number of cops have to do with freedom? I haven't talked to a cop in years and even though I see them a lot they don't do anything to me. In fact, a lot of cops could increase "freedom" according to your definition if they are out there removing muggers from the street.
In the end I agree with your sentiment, that there might be different ways of governing that are effective and trying to impose one style of government on every country will not work, but I feel that you should argue your point better. Poorly constructed arguments just make your "side" look bad.
As an Aussie Chinese who have lived in both China & Australia over the past 20 years i have to agree with the guy from Singapore. the reason myself & many others that i know choose to live or holiday in china was actually because there was guess what "more PERSONAL LIBERTY & FREEDOM", yes more individual & personal freedom, freedom which actually matters.
All the supermarkets open at 6am and close at midnight, i can go out at night without worrying about getting mugged or getting shot. Theres hardly ever cops on the streets because people are generally just well-behaved model citizens. Now im not saying china's perfect, internal corruption within the communist government is definitely worse than the states and poverty still affects a large part of china. but, considering the population of china the current regime & jurisdictions may well be the best suited. Furthermore, considering the state of china say 30years, its definitely drastically improved more so than any other developing nation.
At the end of the day, the only ones bitching about lack of human rights & freedom of speech are the ones brainwashed by western media, i have friends & family in China and they are all content with their life's. as a matter of fact, my grandparents who are war-vets gets a premium for their healthcare & social wel-fare so how can they not love the government?
I'm a little saddened by the awful ignorances still posted by some in this thread. I'd advise just ignoring the obvious trolls or people who have no clue on what they're talking about as without their attempted mucking up of thread, it's actually a great source of information and debate (a true rarity on the general forums and in a China based thread nonetheless). You have to realize, when it comes to the uneducated, there are those who simply do not wish to learn, debate or discuss anything. Their only view point is that they're right and there's nothing else for them to learn about it. Their very ignorance is their weapon and there's nothing to be gained from talking to them.
Great advice. I just took a step back and realized haters gonna hate. No point arguing with trolls.
@ Zeal
I agree that my post lacked any "point". So let me try again.
First point, safety. Every month, there is at least one robbery/shooting near my school (in Durham, NC). I have never been mugged, but generally, when you walk around town at night, you have to be extremely wary of your surroundings, because there is a distinct possibility that someone could come up to you, point a gun in your face, and take your money. Back in Singapore, I have never had to deal with fear like that. I was simply trying to bring up the point that being able to walk around without fear back home was a huge "freedom" to me, a "freedom" that I don't experience in America.
Second point. I feel it's a misconception that America is more "free" than China. Yes, you guys can vote. But what do you vote for? Two ineffectual parties that will eventually decide how much taxes you pay anyway. Do you really think you have any effect at all on the government? Not unless you decide to be a politician, or if you come from a rich family. I don't see how that is different from China. You have the "freedom" to bear arms and burn the Koran, but not the freedom to smoke weed, drink alcohol (below 21), or be hispanic in Arizona? At the end of the day, the average American citizen has to obey the American government, pay taxes, and obey American laws. Guess what, it's the same deal in China, and anywhere else in the world. To me, (and this is definitely my personal, subjective opinion), American freedom is very much a facade.
Look at what freedom of speech has done to your new networks. Fox news and MSNBC. They are like modern day versions of Soviet Propaganda. Democracy good, Communism (and Right-wingers/liberal pot heads, depending on which network) bad. Capitalism good, unless Americans lose jobs, in which case it is everyone else's fault and we must stop free trade. It can't be our problem because we are America, the greatest country in the world. Real news networks like CNN and BBC have falling ratings, because no one wants to hear the real news anymore, they just want to hear what makes them feel good. But hey, that's your human right.
Third point. Democracy vs "Communism" is NOT a battle of good vs. evil. They are just two different roads to the same goal, which is more effective governance for the good of the people. I'm sorry you found my toilet analogy disenchanting; a friend told it to me and I thought it was pretty good, but I guess I didnt do a good job explaining it. Let's put it this way. When Mark Zuckerberg first started facebook, I'm pretty sure it was run like a democracy. Many small businesses are run like democracies. But do you think Microsoft and Apple are run "democratically"? I'm pretty sure the workers at Apple didn't vote Steve Jobs in as the big boss. Like China's military, the United States military isn't run like a democracy. Is it because democracy is bad? No! It just means that certain conditions call for different forms of governance and control. China isn't evil just because it doesn't follow America's way of doing things. It just means China and the US are 2 very different countries.
Last point. I hope you understand that I'm not taking sides. I chose to study in the US because I really do think the US is a great country. It's just that I feel some Americans (and apparently Macedonians) have very wrong perceptions of Asia (China especially), and that irritates me because they insist they know everything when they've never even been anywhere near Asia. Asians aren't stupid or brainwashed. In this age, a lot of us are free to live and work anywhere we want in the world. And a lot of us choose to stay in Asia/China because we prefer life over there. At least I've seen both "sides" with my own eyes. Have you?
People saying that Communism will automatically fall in China and other communist countries are probably joking.
They teach 3 year old children to praise and love their communist leaders. They teach 6 year old children to have complete belief to the communist party and their leaders. They teach 12 year old children to fear police and the ones in power, and to perceive democracy as a stupid idea. They change facts in history/philosophy textbook to suit whatever they want. They told their people to value money above freedom, and yet they are the ones who have money, that means they are the ones who control people's mind.
Seriously it is now impossible to bring them down, unless a very severe economic disaster happens to them, or a war. But yeah, since the world could change so much in a very short time, this can happen, but not automatically.
i was born and raised in china and i have never experienced any of these thoughts when i was 3,6 or 12.. i would love to hear your justification on why or how you perceive this to be true
From Vietnamese education system. They follow the exact same routine in china so it cannot be too different.
And honestly, you were not taught to sing songs praising chairman Mao and the party when your 3 or 6 ? In school you were not taught to believe the party and their leaders etc ... "the party has its faults but let's believe them" ? In university you were not forced to learn Party History or Marx philosophy to have your diploma ?
If you are pro-communism there is nothing to say because you view those things as "natural things" to learn, but for a general computer technie like me it sucks to learn them.
Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I feel like the sentiments in this thread can be boiled down to a fundamental disagreement between the importance of maximal civil liberties versus maximal assurance/comfort/safety. Now we can attempt to debate practicalities, but this conversation is ultimately theoretical unless we are going to pull out the statistics of how each populace is doing, which I have no idea about and don't care to do.
If you believe that people are not prone towards taking care of one another in the natural state and that without rule or law, we would inevitably devolve in a series of tribal turf wars, then stricter law in exchange for less fear of bodily harm may seem most reasonable.
If you, however, believe people are capable of taking care of one another without the incentive of avoiding punishment and 'justice', that they appropriately will balance their own desires with those of the people around them, choosing more freedom seems fair.
Personally, I believe ownership is a flawed concept and if that were eliminated, no one could be mugged or would have "their" house broken into, blah blah blah. Also, being so poor that most people who might rob me probably have more money and stuff than I, I could really care less about most threats of crime. Having been mugged multiple times, stabbed once, and come through the other side... Meh, shit's overrated.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
You basically, subliminally, insult him. Saying that someone is brain-washed is just like saying, that he is not able think for himself. Not at all, while saying that "I'm right, and he's wrong, because he is not able to think for himself. Not a fine way to talk with each other. Even when he doesn't agree with you, you should at least be able to respect other people opinions.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
You seriously think that 21st century China is like what you picture?
A lot has changed since the Cultural Revolution. True, some schools probably have a picture of Chairman Mao hanging in the classrooms. Maybe some songs are still sung that have some Communist side to them. But nothing even close to the scale of brainwashing is occurring as far as I know. I don't think there is a mandatory political course.
The Communist government here survives by hiding its nasty sides. I'll bet a lot of common people or the poor/uneducated don't know a whole lot about the government corruption or don't know exactly how to deal with it. They hide the truth, but don't use "those tricks" to make people love them.
On October 02 2010 16:15 Kobepeng wrote: As an Aussie Chinese who have lived in both China & Australia over the past 20 years i have to agree with the guy from Singapore. the reason myself & many others that i know choose to live or holiday in china was actually because there was guess what "more PERSONAL LIBERTY & FREEDOM", yes more individual & personal freedom, freedom which actually matters.
All the supermarkets open at 6am and close at midnight, i can go out at night without worrying about getting mugged or getting shot. Theres hardly ever cops on the streets because people are generally just well-behaved model citizens. Now im not saying china's perfect, internal corruption within the communist government is definitely worse than the states and poverty still affects a large part of china. but, considering the population of china the current regime & jurisdictions may well be the best suited. Furthermore, considering the state of china say 30years, its definitely drastically improved more so than any other developing nation.
At the end of the day, the only ones bitching about lack of human rights & freedom of speech are the ones brainwashed by western media, i have friends & family in China and they are all content with their life's. as a matter of fact, my grandparents who are war-vets gets a premium for their healthcare & social wel-fare so how can they not love the government?
I feel the need to respond to this post as this represents your typical "I'm fine therefore the country is doing fine" view from all the Chinese defenders in this thread.
Kobepeng, I'm assuming that you never visited Dongbei in the late nineties or present day Shanxi. Let me just give you a brief overview of what happened, Dongbei was a industrial hub before the national privatization and millions of urban factory workers were laid off. Guess what happened? Crimes, corruption, gangs you name them.
No robbery on the street? Are you kidding me? The women that lived next door to my grandparents got her finger chopped off on the STREET in broad day light and you know why? so because some unemployed guy can steal her wedding ring and you are sitting there telling me everything is fine because your grand parents are war veterans :/, how about I tell you stories of war veterans hat had their house paved away so some rich princeling can build the next mall.
My girlfriend's family lives in Shanxi, a province famous for their vinegar but more famous for their coal production. What's the most often thing you hear from there, that's right, peasants and under aged kids being forced to work as slaves in the coal mines.
You see, everything is not fine, for every one of your stories about safety and personal "freedom" I can name 100s more stories of the opposite. So please stop using anecdotal evidences in your argument.
The state gives and the state can take it away and most Chinese posters in this thread refuse to acknowledge this as they themselves have never being hard done by the government.
The flaws and disease of the country is systematic and without action being taken, it will only reduce itself to another dynastic failure just like the regimes before it. I personally find that not acceptable in this day and age.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
You seriously think that 21st century China is like what you picture?
A lot has changed since the Cultural Revolution. True, some schools probably have a picture of Chairman Mao hanging in the classrooms. Maybe some songs are still sung that have some Communist side to them. But nothing even close to the scale of brainwashing is occurring as far as I know. I don't think there is a mandatory political course.
The Communist government here survives by hiding its nasty sides. I'll bet a lot of common people or the poor/uneducated don't know a whole lot about the government corruption or don't know exactly how to deal with it. They hide the truth, but don't use "those tricks" to make people love them.
No, the trick of the party is to offer the elites and educated of the country jobs with the best security and benefits in the country => a member of the party and a role in the government.
Why do you need anything else when you've bribed the only group of people who can lift a finger against your wrong doings.
You basically, subliminally, insult him. Saying that someone is brain-washed is just like saying, that he is not able think for himself. Not at all, while saying that "I'm right, and he's wrong, because he is not able to think for himself. Not a fine way to talk with each other. Even when he doesn't agree with you, you should at least be able to respect other people opinions.
Never said or imply that he is brainwashed. Even if a person must endure those "tricks" in school, that never means that he is brainwashed, especially when he has an internet connection and know some English (example ? me). I was just asking if they still use "tricks" to force those ideas into children heads, and yes, asking, not stating. And he gave no goddamn opinion, he just stated that they don't do it in their education system as a fact, so I want confirmation that they don't do such action A, action B, action C, how did I not respect his opinion when both I and him gave no opinion ?
You basically, subliminally, insult him. Saying that someone is brain-washed is just like saying, that he is not able think for himself. Not at all, while saying that "I'm right, and he's wrong, because he is not able to think for himself. Not a fine way to talk with each other. Even when he doesn't agree with you, you should at least be able to respect other people opinions.
Never said or imply that he is brainwashed. Even if a person must endure those "tricks" in school, that never means that he is brainwashed, especially when he has an internet connection and know some English (example ? me). I was just asking if they still use "tricks" to force those ideas into children heads, and yes, asking, not stating. And he gave no goddamn opinion, he just stated that they don't do it in their education system as a fact, so I want confirmation that they don't do such action A, action B, action C, how did I not respect his opinion when both I and him gave no opinion ?
The 'tricks' in Chinese schools are no more extreme then the pledge of allegiance or singing the national anthem.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
Well, since everyone else seems to be responding to you, I'll bite.
No I wasn't taught most of what you said (aside from party history and Marx because that's history ... ) but you seem to demonstrating some brainwashing in your education system yourself though.
We were taught the national anthem but I guess that's what you mean by "tricks".
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
Well, since everyone else seems to be responding to you, I'll bite.
No I wasn't taught most of what you said (aside from party history and Marx because that's history ... ) but you seem to demonstrating some brainwashing in your education system yourself though.
We were taught the national anthem but I guess that's what you mean by "tricks".
Not to mention that the French national anthem is quiet a violent one
From my personal experience, I do remember I wore wear a red scarf and there was some party stories that were told about party member/idols such as Lei Feng, which enforced the ideology of selfness, hard-work and general good deeds.
Gees they brainwashed me good! I regret having given to any charity and to help out strangers.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
Well, since everyone else seems to be responding to you, I'll bite.
No I wasn't taught most of what you said (aside from party history and Marx because that's history ... ) but you seem to demonstrating some brainwashing in your education system yourself though.
We were taught the national anthem but I guess that's what you mean by "tricks".
Not to mention that the French national anthem is quiet a violent one
From my personal experience, I do remember I wore wear a red scarf and there was some party stories that were told about party member/idols such as Lei Feng, which enforced the ideology of selfness, hard-work and general good deeds.
Gees they brainwashed me good! I regret having given to any charity and to help out strangers.
Well I didn't intend to stray the topic off by stating some of the oddities of French nationalism. (As I said, common troll tactic is just to simply shift point of argument so why give it to them) I should say, there is a liberal dose of history in childhood stories simply because Chinese history is so extensive. However, the prevailing theme had always been a theme about being a good person a la Confucian principles, despite whether it be Zhuge Liang's exploits against Cao Cao (even though I hated him and Liu Bei when I actually read the RoTK) or more modern stories. One can argue they're "tricks" but that's like saying Aesop's fables were taught at a young age to brainwash you into learning about moralistic behavior in society ...
Come live in China for a decade and then speak for your own behalf.
The Chinese population are not a bunch of brainwashed zombies, we're people just like you, we enjoy gaming and leisure just like you, and in the weekends we got out and have a beer just like you. The difference is that we know the current Chinese government isn't run by a bunch of idiots and for obvious reasons such as the fact that it is their own country, are not out to destroy the world's economy and wreck havoc in the political spectrum. Some of us actually enjoy the pleasures of life itself such as a sunny day or a late night with friends.
So far, China is developing in an acceptable rate socially, and with many more obstacles to overcome, you have to give time and a bit of trust. And if you come and live here and you've walked in our shoes for a while, you'll realize that politics isn't something that we discuss and thrive on whenever we have free time, and maybe its good for some people who take very strong stances in the US (or other parts of the world) to take a bit of time off it as well. Because one thing is for certain, posting rants about a country's government on Team Liquid isn't going to make China take back what they said. So guys, please keep the flame war down as this thread isn't going anywhere at this rate.
You basically, subliminally, insult him. Saying that someone is brain-washed is just like saying, that he is not able think for himself. Not at all, while saying that "I'm right, and he's wrong, because he is not able to think for himself. Not a fine way to talk with each other. Even when he doesn't agree with you, you should at least be able to respect other people opinions.
Never said or imply that he is brainwashed. Even if a person must endure those "tricks" in school, that never means that he is brainwashed, especially when he has an internet connection and know some English (example ? me). I was just asking if they still use "tricks" to force those ideas into children heads, and yes, asking, not stating. And he gave no goddamn opinion, he just stated that they don't do it in their education system as a fact, so I want confirmation that they don't do such action A, action B, action C, how did I not respect his opinion when both I and him gave no opinion ?
The 'tricks' in Chinese schools are no more extreme then the pledge of allegiance or singing the national anthem.
Does China even still have some sort of pledge of allegiance? I remember hearing about some long live Mao and study hard recital, but didn't that die with Mao?
Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought the Pledge of Allegiance was rather crass.
People don't know China. One part is capitalistic, the other part, the greater part, socialist. Usually people are afraid of having all their hard earned money taken away and given for social issues they think are not even that effective or important. Here it is the other way around. China works 90% of its work force, in hard labor, or sells it out, and the other 10%, the capitalist side benefits. So if you go to China, you probably are seeing the nicer 10%. You probably won't see their crimes against Tibet. You probably won't see the socialist difficult conditions of the average worker. You also probably won't see or feel the strict censorship and control of peoples thoughts and ideas about the country.
Also if you know someone from China, they are also probably from that 10%. Doesn't make them a bad person in any way at all, but it is just another thing to take into account when you judge China.
On October 02 2010 18:32 whatusername wrote: Ummmm... unless you've actually been to a public chinese school I don't think you should be running your mouth about this. Chinese school is nothing like this and many of the chinese kids I've met seem perfectly normal not brainwashed at all
I'm sorry to drag it a bit but just curious now, you REALLY weren't taught to believe the party and the current political system in any form during school ? You did not need to learn something about party history or marx (or maoist) philosophy in university or high school to have your diploma ? And songs praising the party (or leader or the military) weren't taught when you were in maternal school and elementary school ?
This is pure curiosity I have nothing against your people. For a long time I thought that those things are mandatory for you guys since the Vietnamese learned those tricks from the Chinese so it's a little weird that your government didn't do it ? Or it is changed now ? Check the time period 1990-2005 you weren't using them ? If so how did they make people believe in them when it is obvious that they (communist party members and their associates) are the ones who benefit the most from the system and others either benefit least or don't benefit at all or suffer from it ? If you took the big share of the cake the others should hate you right, how the hell can they make people love them if they didn't use those tricks.
You seriously think that 21st century China is like what you picture?
A lot has changed since the Cultural Revolution. True, some schools probably have a picture of Chairman Mao hanging in the classrooms. Maybe some songs are still sung that have some Communist side to them. But nothing even close to the scale of brainwashing is occurring as far as I know. I don't think there is a mandatory political course.
The Communist government here survives by hiding its nasty sides. I'll bet a lot of common people or the poor/uneducated don't know a whole lot about the government corruption or don't know exactly how to deal with it. They hide the truth, but don't use "those tricks" to make people love them.
No, the trick of the party is to offer the elites and educated of the country jobs with the best security and benefits in the country => a member of the party and a role in the government.
Why do you need anything else when you've bribed the only group of people who can lift a finger against your wrong doings.
That is true. The party have been incorporating the elite entrepreneur into their party, even it was impossible to think about twenty years ago. They are bounded together. For those who live in a wealthy and powerful family they almost certainly have something related to this system. They defend the system in order to keep them clean. While some of the government official want to make changes, it is too hard. Not only the entire bureaucracy system but the society as a whole.
I applaud to those who fight for their freedom although I don't find an easy solution for the current social and economical problem in China.
Your allegiance is implied when you are of Chinese descent (and in most cases, this means that you are a Han). Its not like there is a huge amounts of immigrants converting to Chinese citizenship so...
On October 02 2010 22:06 Qwertify wrote: People don't know China. One part is capitalistic, the other part, the greater part, socialist. Usually people are afraid of having all their hard earned money taken away and given for social issues they think are not even that effective or important. Here it is the other way around. China works 90% of its work force, in hard labor, or sells it out, and the other 10%, the capitalist side benefits. So if you go to China, you probably are seeing the nicer 10%. You probably won't see their crimes against Tibet. You probably won't see the socialist difficult conditions of the average worker. You also probably won't see or feel the strict censorship and control of peoples thoughts and ideas about the country.
Also if you know someone from China, they are also probably from that 10%. Doesn't make them a bad person in any way at all, but it is just another thing to take into account when you judge China.
Do you have anything to back this up? You say that people don't know China, so why should I believe that you understand the country?
On October 02 2010 22:06 Qwertify wrote: People don't know China. One part is capitalistic, the other part, the greater part, socialist. Usually people are afraid of having all their hard earned money taken away and given for social issues they think are not even that effective or important. Here it is the other way around. China works 90% of its work force, in hard labor, or sells it out, and the other 10%, the capitalist side benefits. So if you go to China, you probably are seeing the nicer 10%. You probably won't see their crimes against Tibet. You probably won't see the socialist difficult conditions of the average worker. You also probably won't see or feel the strict censorship and control of peoples thoughts and ideas about the country.
Also if you know someone from China, they are also probably from that 10%. Doesn't make them a bad person in any way at all, but it is just another thing to take into account when you judge China.
True. When I was studying oversea. I see more patriotic act from my friends oversea than from China. The first thing is most of them are from a different social class. They are the elites and are enjoying the social privilege which benefits them the most. The other thing is the Chinese government treat their oversea citizens better, obviously...And people living oversea feel more patriotic emotional need than the feelings of actual misery life of average citizens. Now most Chinese have become cynics, and a large part of the average people become whiners and haters. The government overall is bad, also they could hardly draw positive force from their fellow citizens. All these make positive change both from government or society a very difficult thing to come.
The other thing is the Chinese government treat their oversea citizens better, obviously...
I have no idea where you get this idea from, but when i need to deal with the Chinese government generally I go to the embassy. Its shit treatment all around just like anywhere else, and coming back into the country through customs...I actually see foreigners getting better service.
As for the normal populace "suffering" my dad's side of the family comes from a peasant background (Gansu province man, its poor out there) but they actually seem more content and happy then most people I know here. Dunno why everyones got the mentality more material goods equals more happiness as most people there are just content with the social stability (Not me though, I've been westernized, got that social ladder to climb -_-)
Oh yeah, in regards to why most of us overseas are more patriotic its because of the racism nearly all of us experience in the new country and when your constantly getting abused you tend to become more defensive, not some BS like the government treats us better.
The other thing is the Chinese government treat their oversea citizens better, obviously...
I have no idea where you get this idea from, but when i need to deal with the Chinese government generally I go to the embassy. Its shit treatment all around just like anywhere else, and coming back into the country through customs...I actually see foreigners getting better service.
As for the normal populace "suffering" my dad's side of the family comes from a peasant background (Gansu province man, its poor out there) but they actually seem more content and happy then most people I know here. Dunno why everyones got the mentality more material goods equals more happiness as most people there are just content with the social stability (Not me though, I've been westernized, got that social ladder to climb -_-)
Oh yeah, in regards to why most of us overseas are more patriotic its because of the racism nearly all of us experience in the new country and when your constantly getting abused you tend to become more defensive, not some BS like the government treats us better.
Sorry. I don't know about Australia. But most so-called "discrimination"s are self-fulfilling prophecies. And I have seen a lot more angry oversea Chinese than you. It's common, and I will not try to argue with you.
Sorry. I don't know about Australia. But most so-called "discrimination"s are self-fulfilling prophecies. And I have seen a lot more angry oversea Chinese than you. It's common, and I will not try to argue with you.
Yes, you won't really feel the effects of discrimination unless you let it get to you, we all know that and accept that. But to say it doesn't leave some resentment (even a tiny bit) is kind of unreasonable.
Did I sound angry? Was trying my best to give the impression of frustration =S
Don't see whats so unique about Chinese nationalism anyways its nearly the same with every country as you learn this in high school fast enough. A group of people of the same nationality joking and bashing their own culture is normal but take one of different race to join in and watch the fireworks fly.
I'll be brief as i already wrote way too much in this thread: - good for him personally, this way he might be safe from worse sanctions. - china and the west really don't understand each other. Giving the nobel to this man won't make democracy progress in China. It will even strenghen the public opinion feelings about western interference in domestic issues. China will never learn that threatening the west only works with petty politicians.
To summarise the reaction, it is being condemned by the Chinese government and praised by the West. This is quite the predictable response, of course. China has described it as 'blasphemy' against the concept of the Nobel Prize, while Western commentators go so far as to keep calling for Liu's release.
I think some of the above posters are looking through the glass quite correctly when they say this will probably not do any good to relations between West and East, especially China and Norway as China has specifically referenced. The British foreign secretary has used the oppurtunity to continue calling for Liu's release, predictably as has the Dalai Lama, and if the Chinese government spins it the right way then it could very well be seen as the West continuing to meddle in Chinese affairs.
Still, it seems quite beyond doubt to me that the man should not be suffering as he is for his supposed 'crime', and anything that could potentially make his life easier I look upon favourably.
Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Disagree wholeheartedly. Countries can do what they what within certain boundaries, but they need to respect basic civil rights in the process. If other nations want to speak up about this, good for them.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
Is it true that all laurents of Chinese nationality are either in jail or in exile? It's kind of sad of how China does not produce any of them. I think the education system is at fault here.
Anyways, I think this discussion will die out soon enough.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east. I don't think the preservation of culture is worth the sacrifice of these basic rights, such as freedom of speech.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Even their economy boomed because they all pulled together with the scraps they were given. Now Japan is one of the top economies in the world. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
Granted his choice of words was very poor, but his point is somewhat solid. (his point being the non-existent human rights in china, not "westernizing"
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Even their economy boomed because they all pulled together with the scraps they were given. Now Japan is one of the top economies in the world. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
lol. I REALLY don't think you know your history at all if you're really insistent on this.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Even their economy boomed because they all pulled together with the scraps they were given. Now Japan is one of the top economies in the world. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
lol. I REALLY don't think you know your history at all if you're really insistent on this.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Even their economy boomed because they all pulled together with the scraps they were given. Now Japan is one of the top economies in the world. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
lol. I REALLY don't think you know your history at all if you're really insistent on this.
And yes, I've taken several Japanese history classes and human geography helped a bit too.
You really think that it was purely because of US's good will & "democracy" that caused Japan to prosper? You're honestly going to tell me that with a straight face after you've taken some (I assume) accredited Japanese history classes?
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
Granted his choice of words was very poor, but his point is somewhat solid. (his point being the non-existent human rights in china, not "westernizing"
I agree that with that post, I was sloppy and lazy. Typical of an American I suppose.
However, I still think my westernization point stands valid. It's arguable that the east has been very influenced by western ideals, including democracy. Japan and Singapore are one of the main examples I can give, even though they retain their traditional Confucian values.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Even their economy boomed because they all pulled together with the scraps they were given. Now Japan is one of the top economies in the world. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
lol. I REALLY don't think you know your history at all if you're really insistent on this.
And yes, I've taken several Japanese history classes and human geography helped a bit too.
You really think that it was purely because of US's good will & "democracy" that caused Japan to prosper? You're honestly going to tell me that with a straight face after you've taken some (I assume) accredited Japanese history classes?
I'm not saying it's the sole reason. It wouldn't have happened, however, if the U.S. didn't step in and implement democracy and support. That can be argued, and that's how my view point is. I'm not saying the U.S. solely made Japan's miracle happen. That was only done by the Japanese people, who after WWII, took the scraps they were given and tightened together to create an absolutely phenomenal 'renaissance' of sorts. The prosperity they made in such a short time was incredible.
Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
^ Money + work developed the nation. Democracy did not. Japan was quite industrialized and a foreign power before WWII.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote:
^ Money + work developed the nation. Democracy did not. Japan was quite industrialized and a foreign power before WWII.
I agree only the first two points. It was hard work from them as a group that brought prosperity. I still believe democracy has something to do with it. The new-found freedom and rights they were given must have contributed in some way.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you all say. All that matters is what difference can you make when it comes to your stance on China. If you can't do anything then all of your words will be scattered of into the winds.
The internet is great at making people irritated, but then again those that get irritated or talk in condescending tones are probably irritating in real life too.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
You're right dude, because saying a country's existence is meaningless and unworthy by some arbitrary standard goes over real well.
Changing with the times, what times? Democracy doesn't guarantee human rights, hello slavery, hello separate but equal, hello it took 200 years for America to elect a non-white president, hello Taiwan's fucking debacles and joke of a government and it's processes.
How were the Japanese before WW2? Strong enough to be a legitimate global power? Strong enough to be first Asian country to win a war against an European power? Yeah? The US didn't simply step in, the US fucking buried the Asian countries after WW2, think Bush's either with us or against us mentality. Go read up on the Philippines after WW2 and the events surrounding the Geneva Convention for Indochina (French-Vietnam War). You can have your independence, just as long as it's America's version of independence.
It's popular and correct to refer to the States as pretentious who thinks they know whats best for everyone when they have proved over and over again that they don't have a clue. Hello the primarily US dominated IMF and World Bank, hows your track record on helping developing countries?
So slow down, what works for one doesn't always work for another.
On topic, the fact that Lu Xiaobu is still in China is noteworthy and deserves praise, not Nobel worthy though.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
How does this prove your point regarding Singapore as a good example of democracy? Personally, I do agree that some of their stringent laws being good punishments.
Anyway DeadlyHazard, it's fine that you support democracy and think that it has some influence in the development of a nation. However, that is opinion, not fact. You are welcome to hold it. Let's just agree to disagree =).
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
You're right dude, because saying a country's existence is meaningless and unworthy by some arbitrary standard goes over real well.
Changing with the times, what times? Democracy doesn't guarantee human rights, hello slavery, hello separate but equal, hello it took 200 years for America to elect a non-white president, hello Taiwan's fucking debacles and joke of a government and it's processes.
How were the Japanese before WW2? Strong enough to be a legitimate global power? Strong enough to be first Asian country to win a war against an European power? Yeah? The US didn't simply step in, the US fucking buried the Asian countries after WW2, think Bush's either with us or against us mentality. Go read up on the Philippines after WW2 and the events surrounding the Geneva Convention for Indochina (French-Vietnam War). You can have your independence, just as long as it's America's version of independence.
It's popular and correct to refer to the States as pretentious who thinks they know whats best for everyone when they have proved over and over again that they don't have a clue. Hello the primarily US dominated IMF and World Bank, hows your track record on helping developing countries?
So slow down, what works for one doesn't always work for another.
On topic, the fact that Lu Xiaobu is still in China is noteworthy and deserves praise, not Nobel worthy though.
Yeah, the U.S. might have 'bullied' other Asian countries. This including Japan, but hey, at least they gave them a headstart and support afterwards....and not to mention, Japan striked first on U.S. soil. And yes, I agree that politics in America can be a mess. I still don't think you can call Americans arrogant and all the other cliche demeanors being used by other countries to insult us. Our leaders aren't necessarily representative of our people, as I know many people within the States hate the Bush family. I'd actually say most people do....at least I'd hope.
On October 09 2010 02:29 Deadlyhazard wrote: I agree only the first two points. It was hard work from them as a group that brought prosperity. I still believe democracy has something to do with it. The new-found freedom and rights they were given must have contributed in some way.
Sure, then that must mean China's prosperity must have been given to them by some alien source.
Kissblade is right on with the globalization aspect and some people love to walk in that gray space claiming some examples as westernization.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
How does this prove your point regarding Singapore as a good example of democracy? Personally, I do agree that some of their stringent laws being good punishments.
Anyway DeadlyHazard, it's fine that you support democracy and think that it has some influence in the development of a nation. However, that is opinion, not fact. You are welcome to hold it. Let's just agree to disagree =).
Yeah I didn't really provide any examples of why Singapore is better off with democracy. But I'm not sure what a better system would be for it, TBH.
I think your opinions are valid and I'm not necessarily arguing my opinion on the matter. I'm really just trying to fuel some debate here to see if we can come to some sort of conclusions and see any general truths. I'm trying to get both sides here. Is westernization a good thing in the east? Or is globalization a good thing for that matter?
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
Japan did strike first on US soil. But US did also cause it by oil embargo-ing Japan (Japan was solely reliant on US oil for it's war efforts). Personally I support the US's move on that endeavor but essentially even though the US was "neutral", it was quite involved in the war by then. The US certainly did put work into developing Japan after WWII, I wouldn't deny that. However, it was also done for the strict purpose of securing a democratic block against Communism. The thing is, people really don't think about just WHY the US hates Communism or other non democratic governments so much. Because those in power wants to keep the power. Blargh that's why I hate politicians in general, it's never about the best for the people, it's about the best for them. Even if Socialism, Communism, Democracy can borrow elements to benefit their nation, they wouldn't do it.
On October 09 2010 02:40 KissBlade wrote: Japan did strike first on US soil. But US did also cause it by oil embargo-ing Japan (Japan was solely reliant on US oil for it's war efforts). Personally I support the US's move on that endeavor but essentially even though the US was "neutral", it was quite involved in the war by then. The US certainly did put work into developing Japan after WWII, I wouldn't deny that. However, it was also done for the strict purpose of securing a democratic block against Communism. The thing is, people really don't think about just WHY the US hates Communism or other non democratic governments so much. Because those in power wants to keep the power. Blargh that's why I hate politicians in general, it's never about the best for the people, it's about the best for them. Even if Socialism, Communism, Democracy can borrow elements to benefit their nation, they wouldn't do it.
I have to totally agree with you on this. I HATE politics. That's why it gets me all angry when I read posts, even if I agree with them. An ideal world to me would be one without politics TBH, lol. Any system has so many flaws and there's always corruption....humans turn everything into a double-sided blade.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
You're right dude, because saying a country's existence is meaningless and unworthy by some arbitrary standard goes over real well.
Changing with the times, what times? Democracy doesn't guarantee human rights, hello slavery, hello separate but equal, hello it took 200 years for America to elect a non-white president, hello Taiwan's fucking debacles and joke of a government and it's processes.
How were the Japanese before WW2? Strong enough to be a legitimate global power? Strong enough to be first Asian country to win a war against an European power? Yeah? The US didn't simply step in, the US fucking buried the Asian countries after WW2, think Bush's either with us or against us mentality. Go read up on the Philippines after WW2 and the events surrounding the Geneva Convention for Indochina (French-Vietnam War). You can have your independence, just as long as it's America's version of independence.
It's popular and correct to refer to the States as pretentious who thinks they know whats best for everyone when they have proved over and over again that they don't have a clue. Hello the primarily US dominated IMF and World Bank, hows your track record on helping developing countries?
So slow down, what works for one doesn't always work for another.
On topic, the fact that Lu Xiaobu is still in China is noteworthy and deserves praise, not Nobel worthy though.
Yeah, the U.S. might have 'bullied' other Asian countries. This including Japan, but hey, at least they gave them a headstart and support afterwards....and not to mention, Japan striked first on U.S. soil. And yes, I agree that politics in America can be a mess. I still don't think you can call Americans arrogant and all the other cliche demeanors being used by other countries to insult us. Our leaders aren't necessarily representative of our people, as I know many people within the States hate the Bush family. I'd actually say most people do....at least I'd hope.
If your definition of bullying is to split nations into 2, incarcerate opposing factions, uprooting entire communities, start 2 wars that had detrimental effects throughout the entire region...that's a great headstart. That's also extremely arrogant a la White Man's Burden. It is arrogant to think that you know what is best for someone. It is extremely pretentious to try to enforce that view on another country through whatever means.
On October 09 2010 02:40 KissBlade wrote: Japan did strike first on US soil. But US did also cause it by oil embargo-ing Japan (Japan was solely reliant on US oil for it's war efforts). Personally I support the US's move on that endeavor but essentially even though the US was "neutral", it was quite involved in the war by then. The US certainly did put work into developing Japan after WWII, I wouldn't deny that. However, it was also done for the strict purpose of securing a democratic block against Communism. The thing is, people really don't think about just WHY the US hates Communism or other non democratic governments so much. Because those in power wants to keep the power. Blargh that's why I hate politicians in general, it's never about the best for the people, it's about the best for them. Even if Socialism, Communism, Democracy can borrow elements to benefit their nation, they wouldn't do it.
I have to totally agree with you on this. I HATE politics. That's why it gets me all angry when I read posts, even if I agree with them. An ideal world to me would be one without politics TBH, lol. Any system has so many flaws and there's always corruption....humans turn everything into a double-sided blade.
What? So you want to take out the inherent human-human interactions? That's really naive...
On September 29 2010 07:03 hifriend wrote: The nobel peace prize lost all its credibility when it was awarded to a man who's currently president of a nation fighting two wars (of aggression).
And gave it to him before he actually did anything.
I've already lost a lot of respect for the nobel peace prize, giving it to this guy, despite China's threats, would give it some respect though.
Anyone who kept Sarah Palin as far away from the presidency as she is now should deserve at least one, possibly two Nobel Peace Prizes.
On October 09 2010 00:20 dignity wrote: Heroic does not mean it is legal. I just feel the west is going a bit too far by asking for his release. Internationally, every country should respect state sovereignty.
Just because what he did was illegal doesn't mean that the law is correct. Unjust laws aren't laws at all. They're just tools for preserving the current power structure. Freedom of speech should be a basic fundamental, universal right to all humans. It's not unlike segregation laws in the US fifty years ago.
For the last time. US isn't China, China isn't US. Stop bringing in US/Western examples, they didn't apply 20 years ago, they still don't apply today.
I think China needs to be westernized like Japan. It's simply not changing with the times. They need more fundamental human rights to become a prospering country IMO. They're still developing, but I think that with improved laws, they could develop faster. There's no a way a country without such basic human rights can become a well developed one.
That brings us to a further point, is the idea of human rights a western mindset? If so, I'd like to see a little westernization in the east.
Only in America where individuals with albeit good intentions can be so insulting and extremely pretentious. Japan didn't "westernize" by choice either, maybe you should learn some history before commenting.
I already know how the 'Asian miracle' happened. In Japan, it was because 'big brother' U.S. stepped in after WWII to support and westernize Japan with democracy. And I think it was better like that. Do you know how the Japanese were before WWII? Yeah...and I really don't care if I offend you. Every culture has criticism, and it's popular to hate the States right now by referring to common 'insulting' demeanor such as Americans being fat, lazy, too critical, etc...
You're right dude, because saying a country's existence is meaningless and unworthy by some arbitrary standard goes over real well.
Changing with the times, what times? Democracy doesn't guarantee human rights, hello slavery, hello separate but equal, hello it took 200 years for America to elect a non-white president, hello Taiwan's fucking debacles and joke of a government and it's processes.
How were the Japanese before WW2? Strong enough to be a legitimate global power? Strong enough to be first Asian country to win a war against an European power? Yeah? The US didn't simply step in, the US fucking buried the Asian countries after WW2, think Bush's either with us or against us mentality. Go read up on the Philippines after WW2 and the events surrounding the Geneva Convention for Indochina (French-Vietnam War). You can have your independence, just as long as it's America's version of independence.
It's popular and correct to refer to the States as pretentious who thinks they know whats best for everyone when they have proved over and over again that they don't have a clue. Hello the primarily US dominated IMF and World Bank, hows your track record on helping developing countries?
So slow down, what works for one doesn't always work for another.
On topic, the fact that Lu Xiaobu is still in China is noteworthy and deserves praise, not Nobel worthy though.
Yeah, the U.S. might have 'bullied' other Asian countries. This including Japan, but hey, at least they gave them a headstart and support afterwards....and not to mention, Japan striked first on U.S. soil. And yes, I agree that politics in America can be a mess. I still don't think you can call Americans arrogant and all the other cliche demeanors being used by other countries to insult us. Our leaders aren't necessarily representative of our people, as I know many people within the States hate the Bush family. I'd actually say most people do....at least I'd hope.
If your definition of bullying is to split nations into 2, incarcerate opposing factions, uprooting entire communities, start 2 wars that had detrimental effects throughout the entire region...that's a great headstart. That's also extremely arrogant a la White Man's Burden. It is arrogant to think that you know what is best for someone. It is extremely pretentious to try to enforce that view on another country through whatever means.
On October 09 2010 02:40 KissBlade wrote: Japan did strike first on US soil. But US did also cause it by oil embargo-ing Japan (Japan was solely reliant on US oil for it's war efforts). Personally I support the US's move on that endeavor but essentially even though the US was "neutral", it was quite involved in the war by then. The US certainly did put work into developing Japan after WWII, I wouldn't deny that. However, it was also done for the strict purpose of securing a democratic block against Communism. The thing is, people really don't think about just WHY the US hates Communism or other non democratic governments so much. Because those in power wants to keep the power. Blargh that's why I hate politicians in general, it's never about the best for the people, it's about the best for them. Even if Socialism, Communism, Democracy can borrow elements to benefit their nation, they wouldn't do it.
I have to totally agree with you on this. I HATE politics. That's why it gets me all angry when I read posts, even if I agree with them. An ideal world to me would be one without politics TBH, lol. Any system has so many flaws and there's always corruption....humans turn everything into a double-sided blade.
What? So you want to take out the inherent human-human interactions? That's really naive...
Never said I wanted to, tbh. I said in an ideal world, that would be nice. To not have to worry about civil structure, just have everything all perfect and wondrous. Yeah, that's not the real world and it's impossible to not have structure.
I never said anything about enforcing a view by whatever means, either. I'm just curious of the idea of democracy in China. That won't solve its problems alone, so I'm not sure what will. I still think China needs to at least improve its human rights laws.
Right, honestly, that's why I'm pretty ambivalent about China's "anger" towards the Nobel Peace Prize. It's all for show anyway and honestly I just don't get it at all. The Chinese government could afford to be a little more secure than caring about what every country says because personally I think the current regime did an amazing job for lifting the country out of Mao's disastrous later years. Do I think China could afford to relax their hold over certain policies? Certainly. But, I will definitely argue against anyone who thinks the Chinese government is doing a shitty job. Cause, I would LOVE for someone like Hu JinTao as my president. Party politics in the US are honestly taking more and more precedent over actually taking care of the country and it always seems to be a view that's sidelined because people are concerned about America's next Idol. FFFFFFFFUUUUUUU MEDIA.
PS. @ Judicator, I think your tone is unnecessarily harsh when DeadlyHazard is actually being very cordial in response. Honestly, things like "white man's arrogance" doesn't get anywhere, especially when he hasn't displayed any of it himself in the past few posts.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
How's the economy in Singapore?
Anyway, is there any reason the system is collapsing there? What are the problems?
That's fine, I am saying China can solve it's problems on it's own without "guidance" from other countries. I am not saying China should lone-wolf everything as it can learn from many historical lessons from other countries, but it plays under a different set of rules if you will from the West.
I am not being harsh, White Man's Burden is a concept that was pretty prevalent during imperialism, some of things he's advocating and the reasoning behind it shares some of WMB's. Like I said, good intentioned, but definitely unintentionally misplaced and arrogant.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
How's the economy in Singapore?
Anyway, is there any reason the system is collapsing there? What are the problems?
On October 09 2010 02:53 Judicator wrote: That's fine, I am saying China can solve it's problems on it's own without "guidance" from other countries. I am not saying China should lone-wolf everything as it can learn from many historical lessons from other countries, but it plays under a different set of rules if you will from the West.
I agree with this. I just want to see better human rights in China.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
How's the economy in Singapore?
Anyway, is there any reason the system is collapsing there? What are the problems?
If China were a democracy, I'd consider it likely that they go to war within the next 5 years. The Chinese people as a whole have been taught to dislike Japan and distrust America, and many would see military action justified to re-unite with Taiwan and defend North Korea, and possibly even to enforce claims against Japan and Vietnam. If anything, the authoritarian government is the surest safeguard of rational and peaceful foreign policy going forward, as if it were up to the people China might well have started a war already. China as a democracy is a much scarier thought than China continuing on as it has for the last 30 years, and I say that as a Canadian who has lived in China for the last six years. I know the language, I know the people, I know the culture, I know the history.
Besides, just look at how well democracy has worked to promote peace in that other nationalistic superpower. America has a track record of how many wars of aggression since the Korean war? I'm in favor of whatever will promote peace and prosperity for humankind as a whole, and I don't think pushing for Chinese democracy right now is one of those things. Democracy has to emerge organically from the will of the people and it has ever been an ill-fit for Asian cultures.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
How's the economy in Singapore?
Anyway, is there any reason the system is collapsing there? What are the problems?
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
How's the economy in Singapore?
Anyway, is there any reason the system is collapsing there? What are the problems?
Singapore sounds more like a dictatorship or corrupt monarchy than anything else....wow.
I figured the politics were very corrupt there, I had seen Singapore in several lists of 'the most corrupt countries in the world.' But I didn't know why. Thanks for the information...really any information about Singapore will be infinitely useful for me, as it's a serious option for schooling right now.
On October 09 2010 02:27 KissBlade wrote: Globalization alone suggests that Eastern and Western ideals blurs more than ou think. However, if you want to talk about actual benefits, I would argue that Eastern nations benefits far more from Western ideals such as capitalism and gaming foreign trade systems to fuck over other nations. And Singapore being a good example of democracy is lolworthy.
I like Singapore. I've visited it several times. Sure, there are some funky laws there. For example, they do not allow gay folk to enter into the country or stay (that is, if they know the folk in question are gay).
But there are other laws there I really enjoy. Such as cigarette tossing/littering in general being fined upwards toward 500$ - 1000$ SGD.
There are far bigger problems in Singapore than just some funky laws.
You're probably right. I've never lived there. I plan on going to school there in a year, possibly. That probably still won't be enough time to see its problems. I can only say from visiting, I haven't done much research on Singaporean politics or any of the sorts. That's why I should shy away from arguing any point there.
You'll be fine cos you'll be a foreigner there but for local-born Singaporeans, the system is slowly collapsing.
How's the economy in Singapore?
Anyway, is there any reason the system is collapsing there? What are the problems?
Singapore sounds more like a dictatorship or corrupt monarchy than anything else....wow.
I figured the politics were very corrupt there, I had seen Singapore in several lists of 'the most corrupt countries in the world.' But I didn't know why. Thanks for the information...really any information about Singapore will be infinitely useful for me, as it's a serious option for schooling right now.
As I said, Singapore only sucks if you're local-born and lower or middle class. If you're a foreigner, it's a good place to travel to/go to school at. They treat foreigners, PRs and new citizens, esp. caucasians, mainland Chinese and Indian nationals really well there. Which is one major reason why the system is collapsing really.
Maybe if the Republicans threatened the Nobel Committee then Barack Obama wouldn't have won. Seriously, this is the same Nobel Committee that gave Yassir Arafat a Peace Prize, why did China waste time with that threat unless they just want to make their citizens fearful of speaking out? Oh, right.
On October 09 2010 02:58 Hautamaki wrote: If China were a democracy, I'd consider it likely that they go to war within the next 5 years. The Chinese people as a whole have been taught to dislike Japan and distrust America, and many would see military action justified to re-unite with Taiwan and defend North Korea, and possibly even to enforce claims against Japan and Vietnam. If anything, the authoritarian government is the surest safeguard of rational and peaceful foreign policy going forward, as if it were up to the people China might well have started a war already. China as a democracy is a much scarier thought than China continuing on as it has for the last 30 years, and I say that as a Canadian who has lived in China for the last six years. I know the language, I know the people, I know the culture, I know the history.
Besides, just look at how well democracy has worked to promote peace in that other nationalistic superpower. America has a track record of how many wars of aggression since the Korean war? I'm in favor of whatever will promote peace and prosperity for humankind as a whole, and I don't think pushing for Chinese democracy right now is one of those things. Democracy has to emerge organically from the will of the people and it has ever been an ill-fit for Asian cultures.
Well said. I though this thread was done weeks ago. Why give Nobel Prize to Liu Xiao Bo now? What did he achieve? As someone has already written in this thread. When China actually become a democrat then give the prize to him O_O.
On October 09 2010 03:10 haduken wrote: Just read a Chinese news site. With title: No Nobel Prize for China again. I wonder how they going to spin that, Norway cancelled Nobel Peace Prize?
They spun it with the whole "No Nobel prize for scientific pursuits were awarded to china, etc etc".
The dude is 55 years old and going to spend 11+ years in prison and this is the same guy that spends majority of his adult life either being detained or harassed and still working towards the same goal.
And unlike his colleagues who all got their foreign citizenships, he stayed and kept the flame alive.
It's a tragedy really because in times of trouble, people like him will be the ones that you count on to be patriots.
He deserves recognition if only for his persistence.
It would be so epic if 10 years later, he gets released and become the next Chinese Mandela or something.
On October 09 2010 03:10 haduken wrote: Just read a Chinese news site. With title: No Nobel Prize for China again. I wonder how they going to spin that, Norway cancelled Nobel Peace Prize?
They spun it with the whole "No Nobel prize for scientific pursuits were awarded to china, etc etc".
It's not really a spin. The scientific Nobels are highly coveted in China, for the other ones, it's mixed at best, some people didn't like the Chinese literature winner in 2000 (iirc). It's an unhealthy and unnatural obsession with the science ones though.
^ Yeah but I meant spin in the sense that all media spins headlines in some way shape or form. To be honest, they'd likely write the same headline even if some no namer Chinese won the Noble Peace Prize.
I wouldn't say it's an unnatural or unhealthy fixation on the sciences. China has long held that the more natural science topics are more valuable pursuits than softer arts.
On October 09 2010 03:10 haduken wrote: Just read a Chinese news site. With title: No Nobel Prize for China again. I wonder how they going to spin that, Norway cancelled Nobel Peace Prize?
They spun it with the whole "No Nobel prize for scientific pursuits were awarded to china, etc etc".
It's not really a spin. The scientific Nobels are highly coveted in China, for the other ones, it's mixed at best, some people didn't like the Chinese literature winner in 2000 (iirc). It's an unhealthy and unnatural obsession with the science ones though.
Aren't math and science related jobs more prized in China than other jobs? I remember a couple of foreign Chinese folk that attended my high school a couple years back, and they were always pressured to do very well in the maths and sciences. It seems to be a recurrent theme I've noticed.
Well that's different. The reason foreign Chinese folks are more pressured to do well in maths and sciences in the US is because they can't compete in the other fields as equally. Literature and history are still considered very important as an educated scholar in China. Most of my youth was spent writing and studying Chinese proverbs to learn Chinese characters. History is especially important since China believes strongly in learning lessons from the past. For example, one of the reasons, Hu Jin tao was chosen was because he was very well versed in Chinese history pre-Mao era.
On October 09 2010 03:37 haduken wrote: Hu looks so stiff all the time. I was watching him during the 2008 Olympic ceremony, nothing, expressionless, not even a blink of eye. -_-
Jiang was an ugly toad but at least you can laugh at him.
He's not actually that stiff when not dealing with foreign affairs. He frequently plays ping pong with regular folks and regularly gets involved in everyday folks. Yes, most of them are probably publicity shots but at least he's seen doing them a lot more than our vaunted "people's president" Obama who's taken more vacation time than Bush spent on his own ranch. GFG.
Chinese people have always seemed pretty damn smart in my eyes (at least those in North america)....i just dont get why they take absolutely every step necessary to ensure and enforce that human rights keep getting fucked over in their country. Like......why ?! who wakes up in the morning saying; yeah, great day today... i think im gonna go fuck some of my fellow citizens' human rights. My future grandchildren will live a much better life if we make sure to imprison the most vocal human rights activists. So, if im a spokeswoman for the Chinese government, i need to make sure to highlight the fact that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to that dude would send the wrong message to the world because its obviously against the Nobel committee's principles to award peace prizes to dudes who fight for peace.
"It would run contrary to the aims of its founder to promote peace between peoples, and to promote international friendship and disarmament, she added." okay...thats some major-league bullshit darling.
why do you wake up in the morning girl? What's your personal contribution to this world? Why the fuck do you feel the need to create traffic on chinese roads? When you sit down at work on your chair, may i ask you how your neurons are interacting together to produce your day's worth of human productivity?
by fucking your own people's human rights, you're fucking yourself and your children in the long-run.
On October 09 2010 13:44 intrudor wrote: Chinese people have always seemed pretty damn smart in my eyes (at least those in North america)....i just dont get why they take absolutely every step necessary to ensure and enforce that human rights keep getting fucked over in their country. Like......why ?! who wakes up in the morning saying; yeah, great day today... i think im gonna go fuck some of my fellow citizens' human rights. My future grandchildren will live a much better life if we make sure to imprison the most vocal human rights activists. So, if im a spokeswoman for the Chinese government, i need to make sure to highlight the fact that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to that dude would send the wrong message to the world because its obviously against the Nobel committee's principles to award peace prizes to dudes who fight for peace.
"It would run contrary to the aims of its founder to promote peace between peoples, and to promote international friendship and disarmament, she added." okay...thats some major-league bullshit darling.
why do you wake up in the morning girl? What's your personal contribution to this world? Why the fuck do you feel the need to create traffic on chinese roads? When you sit down at work on your chair, may i ask you how your neurons are interacting together to produce your day's worth of human productivity?
by fucking your own people's human rights, you're fucking yourself and your children in the long-run.
/rant.
Absolutely irritates the Hell out of me. I can't believe they censor the media like this....it's 1984 in reality!
I think this letter is to the point and very well written wihtout being respectless. I think this is the correct message to send to the Chinese government and, sadly, it is a message most Western leaders are afraid to send due to economic dependencies.
On September 29 2010 07:13 composition wrote: Charter 08 is a petition for Democratic Elections. Liu Xiaobo is inciting revolution.
"...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson
On October 09 2010 13:44 intrudor wrote: Chinese people have always seemed pretty damn smart in my eyes (at least those in North america)....i just dont get why they take absolutely every step necessary to ensure and enforce that human rights keep getting fucked over in their country. Like......why ?! who wakes up in the morning saying; yeah, great day today... i think im gonna go fuck some of my fellow citizens' human rights.
You do realize that only a very minuscule proportion of the people are in charge and have the power to enforce the "fucking over of people's humans rights" right? The average Chinese citizen most likely doesn't condone these actions; a nation's government's actions aren't usually reflective of the views of the nation's people, especially in a one-party state.
On September 29 2010 07:13 composition wrote: Charter 08 is a petition for Democratic Elections. Liu Xiaobo is inciting revolution.
"...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson
You really should read threads or at least skim through them before you post. Especially when it saves you from looking like a clown.
Why doesn't the UN bitch at China if its violating the international declaration of human rights? That doesn't seem entirely fair. Is it because China was one of the victors in WW2 and they have a permanent seat in the UN?
On October 24 2010 07:23 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Why doesn't the UN bitch at China if its violating the international declaration of human rights? That doesn't seem entirely fair. Is it because China was one of the victors in WW2 and they have a permanent seat in the UN?
Because China can whip up plenty of dirty laundry for other countries, Security Council or not. There's a reason why developed countries don't get into these fights; it doesn't do any good for anyone.
On September 29 2010 07:13 composition wrote: Charter 08 is a petition for Democratic Elections. Liu Xiaobo is inciting revolution.
"...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson
You really should read threads or at least skim through them before you post. Especially when it saves you from looking like a clown.
Actually that was a response to that specific person. If I made some sort of uncouth interruption of the discussion in the thread I apologize.
EPT
) perpetrators was a disaster. A lack of unified government response caused perpetrators to escape far enough that the vast majority of them remain uncaught. A wave of violence also spiked, and actually forced us to leave as soon as we were able, caused by fleeing rioters. 
, china indeed has a long way to go to be as dominant as the United States is currently(maybe it will never reach that point admittedly) but it is happening, They have a disgusting growth in economy(which may even grow TOO fast for the country itself) and with economic power comes political power.
![[image loading]](http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/media/blogs/Statistics/ChinaSurplus2010.jpg)
