posted
I'm not convinced that he was all that effective even before going abroad. That said, I'm always in favour of more immigration to North America Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Interesting thoughts on Japanese language boards:
quote:
I will say this: Simplified CHinese is a way better way to write than either Japanese or Traditional CHinese, and I have found that many of the simiplifications have actually found their way into Japanese handwriting recognition programs:
The *'d ones seem to work alot, so I have just incorporated them into my writing The one unoffical Japanese simplification 門 to the one listed in this article has saved me much time, sInce the simpifed Chinese for that one does not work, but it does
posted
If by "better" he means "easier" then yes. But since more and more people do their writing on computers, that argument gains less traction. The only real reason to keep simplified around is that so many more people now use it. Traditional is still my preferred method, though I have been known when writing by hand to throw in a simplified character here and there when I can't remember how to draw the traditional form.
-------------
Li Wang Yang found dead in his hospital. There's a rightful uproar about a man who has campaigned and fought and suffered for so long, who did not appear suicidal to be found dead.
This is further born up by a (Warning, Disturbing) image where his feet appear to be firmly planted on the ground.
I hope the autopsy is done far away from Shao Yang, but even then I don't expect we'll hear the truth of the matter. One day, after enough activists are exiled, die, or are brutalized the Chinese people will have had enough.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That's pretty naive. I think you underestimate to what extant people don't care or think the activists (who haven't joined think tanks or consulting groups for the government) are pot stirring troublemakers.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine you think that is the case. How many government think tanks did revolutionaries from the 1900s belong to? If the Chinese care so little why is it important the news and Internet be heavily censored? Why are history books basically propaganda? Because oppressive goverments seek to suppress knowledge precisely because they are worried people will care when they know the truth. Frankly I find it depressing you think China a country with a history of creating intellectuals as well as spiritual giants is really that apathetic. You will never approach the worth of somebody like Li until you learn to take from yourself so as to give to others.
Until the death of other people actually angers or saddens you, you can never belong to us Blayne. Li is certainly viewed by some as a rabble rouser. But if you think only a small number of Chinese feel hurt or angry that the government treats its' own people this way I can only assume it's because you are ignorant of the Chinese having never been to China. Or you don't understand the innate concern for others that is part of the human race.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
China is also in a state that is different (and rabble-roused) enough that it is difficult to analyze the situation and imagine what is going to happen; when I ask people who live in china what's going on, they typically say something to this effect
- there was this blind activist we knew nothing about. he went to america. issue leaked out to us. state media framed the issue to make america out as the enemy, if and when it couldn't just hide it forever. normally this would have worked, but information is a bit different now and people openly grouse about things and trade articles from outside the great firewall, and for the first time we look at the story and go 'yeah that's probably what happened' and it just increases popular dissent against the state rather than just keeping us pliably antagonistic towards the people we've been told are the real troublemakers.
- why has there been such a reversal? what's different? well, you should have seen things after Bo Xilai. it creeps up slowly. little things, then big scandals, then the whole front just slowly droops down and attitudes change and the state ends up in this place where the methods it uses just dig it deeper in a hole it made for itself. does it know how to change before it digs a hole so deep that it throws everything into disarray? I don't know, but one way or another the internet has more or less driven it even as citizen journalists disappear as quick as the authorities can eel through their own bureaucracy to justify the diversion of resources to apprehend them with "fallout containment."
This is heavily massively paraphrased from personal conversations, but more or less what I get consistently in any industrialized portion of china.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't necessarily think that it is clear that it wasn't a suicide. Suicidal people aren't always clear about their intentions and every month there are usually one or two people who kill themselves in high profile ways, over land evictions and the like.
There also a strong fatalistic bent in Chinese culture. In North America, you go shoot others up or do suicide by cop. In China you kill yourself. It's no accident that, say, Foxconn workers threatened to throw themselves off a roof en masse over unpaid wages.
If that sounds like a defense for the government in this case, I would say it is just damming in a different way. Both in terms of how trust in the government has eroded to the point at which rumor and unreliable speculation have become "more" trust worthy and their approach to, well, this http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/remarkable-pictures-from-hong-kong/258074/ which may have posted the guy towards suicide.
In the end, living or dead, let's not get too off track. That public act of remembrance is probably what the accused suicide would have wanted more of closer to home (rather than more talk about conspiracy theories).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:. In North America, you go shoot others up or do suicide by cop. In China you kill yourself.
Actually, I think this is more 'in north america, you kill yourself. in china you kill yourself' — things like suicide by cop and suicidal shooting sprees are not the 'go to' method in either country.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't necessarily limit it to suicidal shooting sprees, if you can get away with taking out your frustrations on others, so much the better. This is slowly changing in China, for better or for worse, if that helps.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing about calling BB naive in this context is that if he is, so is the government of China. Among many reasons for exerting the degree of control they do on information and the media there, one of them is surely to keep apathy and antagonism towards would-be reformers and activists as high as they can.
Unless they join the government, of course. Then they're no longer 'pot-stirring activists', heh. One of the funniest things about these conversations, when they go this way, is to imagine Blayne's reaction if one morning a Canadian official, with a few goons, appeared at his door and informed him they were aware of that rally he went to that time, and did he know only pot stirring troublemakers attended such rallies? Well the state surely does, and if he were to continue, they'd make a note of it.
Short of having a tank driven over them, most injustices perpetrated against people are understandable...over there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The funny thing about calling BB naive in this context is that if he is, so is the government of China.
That's actually a pretty common POV.
A good number of reporters/China watchers have observed that the Chinese government IS actually naive in this sense i.e. by blowing up and making a big deal of minor issues that would normally quickly disappear, they effectively shoot themselves in the foot and make things "worse" for themselves.
I put "worse" in quotes because that's a bit simple of a summary. There are factions within the government that are "worse" off when this happens, there are factions that are "better" off.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The funny thing about calling BB naive in this context is that if he is, so is the government of China. Among many reasons for exerting the degree of control they do on information and the media there, one of them is surely to keep apathy and antagonism towards would-be reformers and activists as high as they can.
Unless they join the government, of course. Then they're no longer 'pot-stirring activists', heh. One of the funniest things about these conversations, when they go this way, is to imagine Blayne's reaction if one morning a Canadian official, with a few goons, appeared at his door and informed him they were aware of that rally he went to that time, and did he know only pot stirring troublemakers attended such rallies? Well the state surely does, and if he were to continue, they'd make a note of it.
Short of having a tank driven over them, most injustices perpetrated against people are understandable...over there.
Hyuk hyuk the opposite of the "if you love them so much why don't you live there?"
Also the government isn't being naive, it's a deliberate strategy read "Fragile superpower" by Shirk.
What's naive is the belief that "Any day now *this time* the government is going to break the legs of one more dissident and the PEOPLE WILL REVOLT EN MASS AND TOPLE THE *ALLEGEDLY* illigitimate government."
Since people just *love* having an American style government right? End of History and all that, neoliberal democracy totally won the cold war guys so lets just give up and automatically abandon all other possible evolutionary paths of governence.
Are there situations that may trigger revolt? Some; economic collapse is possible, not even remotely likely but possible. Maybe if a demonstration is broken up in a way tangibly connected to the central government instead of corrupt local officials, that's *also* possibly but very unlikely since the "Good Tsar's Bad Boyers" became more or less official policy for dealing with local disputes.
But the most likely? Usually foreign policy concerns, of the central government not being ultranationalistic enough if the demonstrations of the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade are any indication.
IP: Logged |
quote:What's naive is the belief that "Any day now *this time* the government is going to break the legs of one more dissident and the PEOPLE WILL REVOLT EN MASS AND TOPLE THE *ALLEGEDLY* illigitimate government."
Since people just *love* having an American style government right? End of History and all that, neoliberal democracy totally won the cold war guys so lets just give up and automatically abandon all other possible evolutionary paths of governence.
What a nice example of a big pile of 'nobody said anything like that'! Is this a contest? I didn't know, I haven't even rehearsed.
(I'm curious: were Canada to begin mandating who you could and couldn't vote for based on party affiliation, and regularly blocking all sorts of content from your Internet access, how long would it take you past the first curtailed Internet search before you deemed that government illegitimate?
Of course I know you'll find some way around admitting what is plainly true-the answer being 'not long at all'-having read your posts for years and having gained some idea of your reaction to slights and governmental injustice outside of China and Russia. And of course you'll reject out of hand this characterization, since I'm someone you don't like re: gabbing about China and therefore anything unpleasant can be discounted immediately. But I wonder: is there anyone here whose opinion you *don't* by allow yourself to automatically discount who believes you would regard that sort of government authority over you as lawful and legitimate?
Not a majority or a small minority or even a few, but just one.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Wouldn't Blayne be more likely to suck it up and continue applying for government benefits and student grants?)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which would not at all be the same thing as thinking the government was good or even legitimate, but rather (in a far from rare reaction, way back to bread and circuses and beyond) be an example of being effectively bought off.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What's naive is the belief that "Any day now *this time* the government is going to break the legs of one more dissident and the PEOPLE WILL REVOLT EN MASS AND TOPLE THE *ALLEGEDLY* illigitimate government."
Since people just *love* having an American style government right? End of History and all that, neoliberal democracy totally won the cold war guys so lets just give up and automatically abandon all other possible evolutionary paths of governence.
What a nice example of a big pile of 'nobody said anything like that'! Is this a contest? I didn't know, I haven't even rehearsed.
(I'm curious: were Canada to begin mandating who you could and couldn't vote for based on party affiliation, and regularly blocking all sorts of content from your Internet access, how long would it take you past the first curtailed Internet search before you deemed that government illegitimate?
Depends on whether as is in the case in China, the government is the only one that say, prevented Quebec from separating or keep Russia from staking a claim in the artic or other existential threats.
quote: Of course I know you'll find some way around admitting what is plainly true-the answer being 'not long at all'-having read your posts for years and having gained some idea of your reaction to slights and governmental injustice outside of China and Russia.
Herp derp.
quote:
And of course you'll reject out of hand this characterization, since I'm someone you don't like re: gabbing about China and therefore anything unpleasant can be discounted immediately.
Herp derp.
quote: But I wonder: is there anyone here whose opinion you *don't* by allow yourself to automatically discount who believes you would regard that sort of government authority over you as lawful and legitimate?
Not a majority or a small minority or even a few, but just one.)
Maybe you should spend less time speculating about peoples motives.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, certainly one of the people who should stand tall on resisting the urge to speculate on people's motives is you, Blayne:)
Anyway, I wasn't speculating so much as confidently predicting and with cause as it turns out. So...when Russia gets up to no good, it's generally kosher in the business of nations...except when it's against China. Well, that fits your observed hierarchy of Awesome Nations, at least.
Now, as to your points-well, point-what is the shelf life when it comes to oppression justified by that sort of thing, Blayne? Certainly Russia is a minimal threat to China right now,, has been for years, and will be for years to come. There's nukes on both sides, after all, and in conventional terms things look pretty decent to say the least for China right now, with those prospects only growing rosier.
So it's been how long, exactly, since China faced an 'existential' threat (I agree Russia is a good example)? A threat which it dealt with not just successfully but capably? How long will it have to be before the government of China isn't simply permitted various 'indiscretions' to put it mildly?
Ohh, hey! Our government won the Cold War, dealing successfully with an existential threat. What's the shelf life on its justification for abuses? I'll just bet that if it ever existed, it's expired. I'm positively holding my breath over here.
(Of course you would flatly reject the notion of anyone else reinforcing your notion of your thinking on China as rational, objective, balanced. I have no doubt you know you wouldn't be able to find such a person. This was brought up admittedly partially for fun, but also in another fleeting almost certainly doomed-to-fail gesture of 'Hey! You're a bit full of it on this topic, and don't just take it from me!')
---------
You know, BlackBlade treats you with remarkable respect given your not-uncommon descent into shrill tantrums, Blayne, and he is not exactly an ignorant provincial with respect to China either. Yet you sneer at him and suggest he's naive because he expresses confidence that something will happen that the very government you're defending is surely wary of too, popular discontent with its rule and a major political upheaval from the bottom up. You do it without batting an eye, either. Kind of pissed me off. Is he now another person whose opinions you get to just write off and roll your eyes at in your usual pompous, unjustified manner?
I don't speak for him, it was just intensely irritating to see someone who makes such a point of demanding apologies for slights and demands as much unwarranted respect as you sneer like that.
But I'm sure that as usual, your points and style scintillate while those who disagree are idiotic ignorant bullies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You open your posts with paragraphs that honestly make remarkably little sense; Might usually disagree with your posts for various reasons but at least your reasoning and arguments are clear.
But this isn't, so... D-, rewrite it and then get back to me, it's like your talking to some completely other person and not responding to my argument.
IP: Logged |
posted
I asked a pretty straightforward question. I'll just skip past the part where your reading comprehension is graded in turn and repeat myself: if the government of China's legitimacy isn't tainted by abuses because of the threats it has protected its people from-there's a case to be made there, yes, protection being one of the roles of government-at what point does this veneer expire?
How long after dealing with such a threat can the government of China, say, exert substantial control over what information its people can access and who they can vote for on political grounds? How long can problematic 'trouble-starters' be quietly jailed or roughed up?
You said you wouldn't label such a government illegitimate if you lived under it based on protection from external threats. I am thoroughly skeptical of that. I'm saying that the shelf life must be so long or the standard for such a threat be so low that once this claim of yours is examined, it will fall apart.
But in any event, if you claim this standard, I ask about America again. Cold War won, existential threat, how long after that does our government get to play shenanigans?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'll answer your question with a question; does sovereignty and the Right-To-Protect ever expire? And is sovereignty tied to government legitimacy?
Also its comparing apples and oranges, ultimately you cannot apply as per my original point (really a critique of Fukiyama) one nation's standard on another. For the entire history of the United States it knew constitutionally derived Federal governence; Canada benefitted from British institutions and the historical issues of having to compromise with mutual coexistence with Francophone Canada which is why we have Quebec and its Constitution State within a State today; with the unique cultural identities it derives.
The government of Canada and the United States are arguably the legitimate governments because of their respective historical ties and traditions; but here's the thing this historical ancestry differs state to state. For Canada it is its heritage as a Dominion, for the United States it is the Constitution.
Japan's legitimacy rests with the Constitutional Monarchy and the Diet, with a democratic tradition since 1860's but a haphazard one that evolved to meet the needs of an ambitious Japan lacking direction. This dual pillar of legitimacy, the Emperor and the democratically elected Parliament have been the core of it; occupation from WWII and the constitution imposed on them by MacArthur allowed them to brush aside the anachronistic afterbrith of the Meiji government and redirect itself as a new Japan fully a part of the 'Western' world and its values with Japanese characteristics.
China's issues of governence have to deal with the similar political balancing act Israel has to grapple with. Israel has to deal with whether to be which two of the three; a Jewish State, a Democratic State or a Secure one.
China's leaders and intelligentsia largely see the trade offs as being can China be prosperous, a Great Power, and a stable one. A population of 1.3 to 1.6 billion people, the entire population of the United States is a rounding error of where still around 60 to 120 million people are still under the poverty line and hundreds of millions more aren't much better off. Massive wealth disparity between the Inland vs the Coast, North vs the South, the Autonomous Regions vs virtually anywhere else and especially the Special Economic Zones.
The issues of governing such a large country is unprecedented in human history and India is serving as a compelling example as to the issues of being a functional parliamentary democracy with a huge population and the trends are not reassuring.
And it should be of no surprise that there are many seeing the bipartisan gridlock in Washington as a further and compelling reason against democracy for the effective governence of the country through complex economic problems. As I posted earlier we already saw a stunning example of the Central Government able to effectively intervene in the its own housing and construction bubble, because regardless of the local and indemnic corruption in China the Central Government is not indebted to the speculators and Big Business and could put down the brakes on the bubble in such a way that actually harmed those who caused it.
There is the argument being made, especially in China and in the Confucian Institutes popping up around the world that effective governence need not be a liberal democratic one and that some form of balance can be struck.
Canada is not China and China is not Canada; hence the inherent sillyness in the "I bet you wouldn't like it if..." and other materialistic objections.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Which would not at all be the same thing as thinking the government was good or even legitimate, but rather (in a far from rare reaction, way back to bread and circuses and beyond) be an example of being effectively bought off.
Well obviously, but I mean so what? Maybe I'm missing a step in the reasoning here.
What difference does it make and why do we care what Blayne would think about such a hypothetical government?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it should be of no surprise that there are many seeing the bipartisan gridlock in Washington as a further and compelling reason against democracy for the effective governence of the country through complex economic problems. As I posted earlier we already saw a stunning example of the Central Government able to effectively intervene in the its own housing and construction bubble, because regardless of the local and indemnic corruption in China the Central Government is not indebted to the speculators and Big Business and could put down the brakes on the bubble in such a way that actually harmed those who caused it.
There is the argument being made, especially in China and in the Confucian Institutes popping up around the world that effective governence need not be a liberal democratic one and that some form of balance can be struck.
The majority of the people in China are not clamoring for less state sponsored industry, or less socialism. But what they *do* want is less censorship so they can get all sides of a story, the freedom to believe and express those beliefs without a by-your-leave from the government or without checking the party line, and lastly they want crony corruption stamped out. You can't build a world class infrastructure on men who take the government's money, spend as little as possible on materials, and pay for laborers, then take the excess money and send it to the US or elsewhere. We saw where that goes with the train wreck last year.
As long as there is the perception of social mobility people will support the status quo by and large. But right now all the top government positions are basically appointed, not just the Beijing government either, but the provincial governments too. Bo Xi Lai was such a big deal because finally for once, somebody who was in line for the top spot did so much bad crap that he was actually dismissed. Still, everyone in China knows truckloads of people were thrown under the bus before he was stopped.
This isn't about liberal democracy, it's about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If enough economic disparity develops, people will start agitating for reform, if the government stomps too hard, or bites off more than it can chew, the people get rid of that government. It's not that crazy of a concept Blayne. It's also not that crazy to believe that one day, there will be a reformer with enough credibility and charisma that the government can't touch them, they will have to deal.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You're moving the goalposts now, the question was about whether some other arbitrary crackdown no different from what currently goes will be sufficient to act as a "tipping point" and people will have had "enough" towards toppling the government and the fact is "no".
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... You can't build a world class infrastructure on men who take the government's money, spend as little as possible on materials, and pay for laborers, then take the excess money and send it to the US or elsewhere.
Or rather you can ... but only because current standards for world-class infrastructure seem to be awfully low
quote: Bo Xi Lai was such a big deal because finally for once, somebody who was in line for the top spot did so much bad crap that he was actually dismissed.
Maybe. For all we know, the "bad crap" was incidental and he just pissed off the wrong people.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You're moving the goalposts now, the question was about whether some other arbitrary crackdown no different from what currently goes will be sufficient to act as a "tipping point" and people will have had "enough" towards toppling the government and the fact is "no".
Could you stop using the terms strawman or goal posts when you discuss with me Blayne? I didn't errect goal posts, you did. I posted about a man who gave his life for his people. He didn't just die for them he lived for them too. Your response strikes me as cold and calculating. Maybe a million more men like Li will die without anything happening. Maybe 10 million. But there are activists who manage to come from the right backgrounds, they make the right moves, they are born at the right time. They might not turn everything on it's head but they change something forever.
I choose to admire men like Li and Chen Guang Cheng. You are welcome to mock or ignore them. I still think men like them change things. Maybe not in the way they had hoped, but sometimes more than they dreamed.
I think the Chinese government would do well to embrace dissent. It makes things harder to accomplish but a unified party walks en masse over the cliff.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Your not constructing an argument, your just repeating "Look at all these nice things people want" and "what's so wrong with people wanting nice things?".
I wonder who else was an activists in Chinese history? Oh right, mr "Chinese Jesus" who launched the Taiping rebellion that killed 90 million people.
I consider it naive because you seem to be outright ignoring the potential consequences of the government toppling. One only has to look at the Soviet Union and the control of kleptomaniac oligarchs to see many negatives in such a transition. Heck, have you ever given though to the possibility that a Democracy might be worse for regional stability as then there's nothing to keep growing ultranationalist energies restrained?
I do not believe the uncertainty of such a sudden "forced" transition, with the huge instability and civil strife it could cause; not to mention geopolitical weaknesses; is in the best interest of the Chinese people as a whole.
The Chinese government isn't a monolithic entity, it has its reformist elements and consults with inumerable thinktanks in which to craft policy, many of these think tanks are actually staffed by activists who were at Tiannamen; clearly it does listen to dissent and for a long time has been doing so.
Heck there's a good argument to be had even if there WAS an open democracy local villages would still be forced to open confrontations with police over land seizures or large demonstrations over unfair pay in factories because this is something that plagues all developing nations and still happens in the United States; strikes and large protests still happan even in industrialized democracies.
And still get crushed by the police.
Let me get my position absolutely clear in case you've forgotten it from these similar conversations years ago via the wayback machine: I am not opposed to China eventually becomming more open, transparent and democratic as a logical evolution of its economic and social circumstances.
What I am objecting to, is your to what I feel is a reckless line of reasoning that the system should just be toppled and torn down now and that is nearly indisputably but mostly arguably foolish.
IP: Logged |
quote:What I am objecting to, is your to what I feel is a reckless line of reasoning that the system should just be toppled and torn down now and that is nearly indisputably but mostly arguably foolish.
Since I barred you from using "Straw man" I shall extend you the same courtesy. Having said that, I have no quarrel with reforms happening in an orderly manner. I still recognize though that if a government becomes an enemy to the people it must needs be toppled. Jailing, abusing, suing, and murdering reformers who stand up to villains in the government is enemy behavior. It should not happen, in the US or China. It's why Chen Guang Cheng has so much traction. He was ighting *for* laws as written by the government against local officials who were breaking the law. What happened to him? Years of prison followed by years of unofficial house arrest with routine beatings and atrocities he isn't willing to detail, I'm sure in part to protect his family he stays silent. His family has already been found and abused since he escaped. State sponsored thuggery is not a necessary component of any nation.
If you support gradual reform fine! Let's hear you support the reformers! We've all heard more than enough support from you regarding the hard-liners. We all know you think they are doing the best job possible. Let's hear about what they are botching up from time to time.
That would make for more enjoyable conversations for me at least. Also, maybe being asked my opinion once in awhile like it was something worth seeking out, rather than the current state of affairs where it feels like you are calling me ignorant about a place where I spent 17 years of my life.
I promise I won't claim to have a monopoly on correct China opinions, if you can live in a universe where I am right some of the time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: But this isn't, so... D-, rewrite it and then get back to me, it's like your talking to some completely other person and not responding to my argument.
posted
The switch to a mixed economy is pretty compelling evidence of the existence of "Reformists" within the government.
quote: Since I barred you from using "Straw man" I shall extend you the same courtesy. Having said that, I have no quarrel with reforms happening in an orderly manner. I still recognize though that if a government becomes an enemy to the people it must needs be toppled. Jailing, abusing, suing, and murdering reformers who stand up to villains in the government is enemy behavior.
If it can be shown, and in which it certainly can be arguably shown here, that a greater utility is served. Then I do not see how one make moralistic judgements.
quote: It should not happen, in the US or China. It's why Chen Guang Cheng has so much traction. He was fighting *for* laws as written by the government against local officials who were breaking the law. What happened to him? Years of prison followed by years of unofficial house arrest with routine beatings and atrocities he isn't willing to detail, I'm sure in part to protect his family he stays silent. His family has already been found and abused since he escaped. State sponsored thuggery is not a necessary component of any nation.
I don't see how this is relevant, emotionally charged language is hardly productive in this context. No matter *how* oppressive and undemocratic or systemic the abuses, the alternative is almost always worse and you don't seem to recognize this as a problem.
I don't begrudge him whatever manner of reform or moves to crackdown on local corruption his or others sacrifices and suffering may eventually or probably result in; I object to the suggestion that the unmitigated humanitarian, social, cultural and economic disaster of revolt or revolution is the *solution* to even the most excessive overstretch of police targeted oppression.
The language you used would seem to imply that if say, tomorrow a bunch of Tibetans decided to set fire to an army barracks and the PAP responded in force to result in say 108 fatalities the government loses "legitimacy" and there should be "revolution" to set up democracy.
Regarding the issues you raised, personally for my part I aim to enter every conversation as a blank slate, in fact I largely have no choice over the matter as I do not 99% of the time recall who said what when, or who anyone even is.
Here is your post:
quote: I hope the autopsy is done far away from Shao Yang, but even then I don't expect we'll hear the truth of the matter. One day, after enough activists are exiled, die, or are brutalized the Chinese people will have had enough.
This is what I was responding to, this is what I felt was naive; and I gave a more thorough explanation as to why I feel that is the case. If you feel that me stating that the statement displays a certain degree of naiveness is personally insulting to you, I apologize as I did not mean it that way but I stand by my statement here; and I stand by my arguments here; that wishing for or otherwise advocating a new Chinese revolution here, would cause catastrophic harm and I do not think you can state with 100% confidence that there would be a short uneventful and peaceful tradition and everything would be fine.
IP: Logged |
quote:If it can be shown, and in which it certainly can be arguably shown here, that a greater utility is served. Then I do not see how one make moralistic judgements.
You are welcome to show me why it is necessary that the government make laws it is not going to enforce. And in fact, if you attempt to enforce those laws, they will persecute you for it.
quote:I don't see how this is relevant, emotionally charged language is hardly productive in this context. No matter *how* oppressive and undemocratic or systemic the abuses, the alternative is almost always worse and you don't seem to recognize this as a problem.
Emotionally charged language? What does that even mean? I simply stated what actually happened. The government isn't even trying to deny that he was kept under house arrest or that he was beaten, or that his family has been abused.
quote:I don't begrudge him whatever manner of reform or moves to crackdown on local corruption his or others sacrifices and suffering may eventually or probably result in; I object to the suggestion that the unmitigated humanitarian, social, cultural and economic disaster of revolt or revolution is the *solution* to even the most excessive overstretch of police targeted oppression.
Begrudge? Do you even agree with him? Are you OK with there being laws that say you cannot coerce a woman into having an abortion, and when that still happens, the lawyer who represents the woman and her family gets physically beaten?
quote:The language you used would seem to imply that if say, tomorrow a bunch of Tibetans decided to set fire to an army barracks and the PAP responded in force to result in say 108 fatalities the government loses "legitimacy" and there should be "revolution" to set up democracy.
Would seem, but that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm advocating is more akin to, the Tibetan monks protest in public, the army comes in to take them away and imprison/kill them privately, and they fight for their lives while encouraging others to do likewise.
quote:This is what I was responding to, this is what I felt was naive;
You seem quite OK with the Communists "having enough" and knocking over the KMT government. Stalin was well within his rights to have "had enough" and joined with Lenin to topple the Tsarist elements, followed by his former allies.
I understand that revolution is an ugly affair, and that often demagogues rise from the ashes to create more hell on earth. Which is why I am puzzled to hear you point that out when you are so pro-Mao. Again, I don't want to kill to get what I want. But the Indian people "had enough" and got their country back without murdering tons of Brits too. Right now there isn't a sense in China that if you need help, somebody has got your back. That's in part because the government can so easily hurt its own people. America isn't some shining beacon of standing up for the little guy, but we still countenance public dissent the Chinese wouldn't dream of letting stand.
I mean come on, June 4th rolls around and people in Hong Kong express a moving tribute to those who protested. They do it every year, and they aren't about to hop off the China train. In mainland China though you can't even Google June 4th.
Chinese people can be sophisticated in their political ideology. They aren't idiots. Maybe they need more authoritarianism, but to be honest, we haven't exactly given liberal democracy a fair shake over there have we? Whereas Imperialism and even Communism had their chance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since I barred you from using "Straw man" I shall extend you the same courtesy. Having said that, I have no quarrel with reforms happening in an orderly manner. I still recognize though that if a government becomes an enemy to the people it must needs be toppled. Jailing, abusing, suing, and murdering reformers who stand up to villains in the government is enemy behavior.
If it can be shown, and in which it certainly can be arguably shown here, that a greater utility is served. Then I do not see how one make moralistic judgements.
Am I seriously reading this right? You literally can't even understand how one can make moral judgments against the party's inhumane thuggishness, because you can 'certainly' argue a greater utility towards jailing, abusing, and murdering reformers standing up to villains in the chinese government?
I hope for your sake that you can at least back up and admit that this is only worded extremely poorly, and is not actually a clear demonstration of shocking ethical blindness towards the issue of china on the whole.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The switch to a mixed economy is pretty compelling evidence of the existence of "Reformists" within the government.
Decades ago maybe, today not so much.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The switch to a mixed economy is pretty compelling evidence of the existence of "Reformists" within the government.
Decades ago maybe, today not so much.
I don't believe it can be disputed that there's a reformist faction. By definition all governments have a reform faction, the whole government cannot be entirely composed of ideologically pure "hardliners" meaning by default all the likely majority officials are NOT hard liners and thus at least moderates; of whom we can easily and logically suppose a number of them must be reform minded.
Blackblade why do you expect me to respond to loaded questions and irrelevant tangents? It is not my obligation to draw obvious distinctions for you. You said a silly thing and I said so, and provided my reasoning as to why, what is there remaining to clarify?
IP: Logged |
quote:By definition all governments have a reform faction, the whole government cannot be entirely composed of ideologically pure "hardliners" meaning by default all the likely majority officials are NOT hard liners and thus at least moderates; of whom we can easily and logically suppose a number of them must be reform minded.
Well that's a difficult logic map to follow. Remind me who the moderates were when Genghis Khan crossed Asia into Europe. By definition a moderate is only moderate when compared to the equivalent hardliner. If the hardliners from a fictitious group says lets kill all prisoners of war, and the moderates say lets instead kill all the men, but leave the women so that they can be intermarried with the soldiers, that's hardly a moderate faction we can all get behind. But they are still moderates.
quote:Blackblade why do you expect me to respond to loaded questions and irrelevant tangents? It is not my obligation to draw obvious distinctions for you. You said a silly thing and I said so, and provided my reasoning as to why, what is there remaining to clarify?
I'm insulted you are characterizing my words in this manner. Seriously. It makes me want to ignore you whenever you post anything about...well anything.
You have continually framed my argument into a, "I'm so excited to witness the chaos of revolution if it gets rid of the Evil Empire" argument. It's a suit I haven't put on Blayne. So stop telling me I'm wearing it. What is there left to clarify? Well, nothing, because you won't actually engage me in a conversation. I've tried to reach out to you as a human being, and your response is "You're silly. Also, a dummy."
If you don't really want to discuss the topic at hand, you can say so. If you are burned out, you can say so, if I really sound like I'm just spouting nonsense maybe you should get confirmation from another poster they feel the same way. I'll content myself with one question for you to answer. You can pretend I didn't say anything else.
"Chen Guang Cheng was working as a lawyer within the framework of the Chinese legal system. He completely supports the legitimacy of the Chinese government, and believes in observing the law, as well as reforming it through legal avenues.
He was advocating for the rights of Chinese women who were illegally forced to have abortions by local officials. He was convicted of trumped up charges, imprisoned, released, then placed under unofficial house arrest where he and his wife were beaten daily, and other harmful things were done to them which they will not disclose at this time.
What utility is accomplished by the central government allowing provincial governments to ignore the laws the central government has passed? And what greater good is accomplished by allowing a lawyer who has broken no laws to be mistreated in this manner?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's nice we get so many details courtesy of the British consular staff present at the trial. I doubt we will get such a candid picture when Bo is tried. Certainly no details on how he has the wherewithall to talk about real estate deals worth tens of millions of dollars on a civil servant salary.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can’t really say for sure what the final straw was. Probably it was a combination of things. Maybe the pollution; the constant food scandals; the oppression of the Tibetan and Uighur minorities; the inexcusable decision to delay Dark Knight Rises in cinemas until August 27. I mean, seriously, what the ****? I need to see that movie, now.
And look, this has nothing to do with the fact that the PSB tried to frame me as a drug dealer/ your father is a high-ranking PLA general who hate Americans/ my visa just ran out.
No. It’s just that now happens to be a very fashionable time to be leaving China. This isn’t personal. It’s not you. It’s me.
Well, mostly it’s you.”
Not sure if "Daily Show" is a nominal name for a comedic news or satire site or if its an actual Chinese branch for The Daily Show.
edit: Eh? I got really busy with my new work training so I actually lost track of this thread, BB do you still want me to answer your questions?
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the indeterminate nature of "facts" in this case really deters my interest. One does not know what is true, what was made up, or trumped up. Don't know who to sympathize with either, if anyone. A big bucket of "dunno".
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Well that's a difficult logic map to follow. Remind me who the moderates were when Genghis Khan crossed Asia into Europe. By definition a moderate is only moderate when compared to the equivalent hardliner. If the hardliners from a fictitious group says lets kill all prisoners of war, and the moderates say lets instead kill all the men, but leave the women so that they can be intermarried with the soldiers, that's hardly a moderate faction we can all get behind. But they are still moderates.
Not applicable, those events are not analogous to modern political theory; Especially since those events tend to predate the modern system of party politics.
But I would say that Ghengis Khan is certainly is moderate compared to many conquerers at the time, a time when warfare and conquest was perfectly normal, along with Alexander the Great.
Moral and ethical relativism sure, no doubt there but it doesn't really make sense to attempt to draw an equivalence to such far apart and disparate events.
quote: I'm insulted you are characterizing my words in this manner. Seriously. It makes me want to ignore you whenever you post anything about...well anything.
Maybe don't ask loaded questions? The purpose of honest discussion is to try to find common ground of agreement and consensus, this is impossible when you as a starting point frame the issue in emotional and alarmist terms.
Essentially you start from a situation from where the "Chinese people" are being "brutalized", a position I consider to be appallingly one sided and steeped within emotional language.
I arrive to this conclusion from a simple reading of where you are essentially saying that "the majority of China and Chinese" are inherently being oppressed by definition by the Communist Party existing in power; this implicitly requires a position where you agree with Fukuyama's conclusion that liberal democracy is the optimal solution for everyoneeverywhere.
A conclusion that I categorically reject as there could be other more optimal systems may arise and be developed in response to globalism and current economic challenges.
quote:
You have continually framed my argument into a, "I'm so excited to witness the chaos of revolution if it gets rid of the Evil Empire" argument. It's a suit I haven't put on Blayne. So stop telling me I'm wearing it. What is there left to clarify? Well, nothing, because you won't actually engage me in a conversation. I've tried to reach out to you as a human being, and your response is "You're silly. Also, a dummy."
Then do you categorically reject the notion that the "Chinese people" as you have defined it "should" ever "have enough" and "revolt" against the "goverment"?
I do not see a substantial difference, between malice and ignorance here, historical precedence in China is clear. A "Quiet Revolution" is exceedingly unlikely, any radical bottom up upheaval of political affairs is likely violent, chaotic, and bad and net negative for all involved and adjacent.
To still see revolution as preferable because of idealistic or ideological reasoning of principle "democracy good, authoritarianism bad" to be simplistic, is to still on one level and undeniably so, is to willingly accept responsibility for the consequences.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it.
quote:
"Chen Guang Cheng was working as a lawyer within the framework of the Chinese legal system. He completely supports the legitimacy of the Chinese government, and believes in observing the law, as well as reforming it through legal avenues.
He was advocating for the rights of Chinese women who were illegally forced to have abortions by local officials. He was convicted of trumped up charges, imprisoned, released, then placed under unofficial house arrest where he and his wife were beaten daily, and other harmful things were done to them which they will not disclose at this time.
What utility is accomplished by the central government allowing provincial governments to ignore the laws the central government has passed? And what greater good is accomplished by allowing a lawyer who has broken no laws to be mistreated in this manner?"
See again regarding my thoughts on this being a loaded question since you begin with the position that the central government is deliberately allowing disruptions to their harmonious big green dam (cutest thing ever over at Danbooru by the way, check it out, I showed some to a Chinese student I MSN with and he's like "OH! I've seen those! HOW DO YOU KNOW OUR MEMES!?" I'm still amused how I can say "xie xie" to a Chinese exchange student and she'll turn to her friend and say "*Gasp* He spoke Chinese! Isn't that amazing!?") society rather them simply pragmatically reacting to these situations in the however best Machiavellian way they can to insure their legitimacy through the tried and true method of "bad boyers good tsars".
To state it is a "deliberate" strategy would be giving the central government too much credit, in a nation as large and complex as China it is absolutely impossible to absolutely state that the Central Government as represented by Beijing/Zhongnanhai is "allowing" local provincial officials to break Chinese laws. Rather simply it is easier to state that the laws are being broken as a result of perverse incentives that only come to light when a media fire storm brings attention to it, and only then can the government notice and react to it.
Remember there are some 100,000 "protests" a year in China and I don't see the government toppling or any loss in legitimacy, rather as a way for the people via Maoist popular movements to air their legitimate grievances by gaining attention of the central government. Because the official channels to air grievances and seek redress is still immature and slow.
In short your question is not a useful question, as you are not asking the right questions. No system is perfect and it is too easy to get caught up in trivial trumped up "travesties" and ignore the greater context and complexity that the system has to deal with and balance on the whole.
Since the media tends to report on only the negativity of what goes on in China its easy to see only bad things happening in China, which is rather warped. So seeing this case its easy to draw conclusions as to it being "another systemic abuse" and not as "another unfortunate incident in an immature and still developing system."
One of these days we'll need a one world government that can govern over nine billion people probably, and I don't see democracy being compatible with this goal, but emphasis on to govern.
But putting all that aside, to "literally" answer your "literal" question; stability, order, prosperity to force 1.4 to 1.5 billion people kicking and screaming into modernity as fast as possible.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hehe, BlackBlade, you should listen to Blayne and on the subject of China stop asking loaded questions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Am I using the wrong word for this context?
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
