Hacker News Reader

Comment by FooBarWidget | Hacker News Reader

Are they word for word identical? Can you show me? This is not meant to criticize your comment, I am truly curious about your sources.

You say it's propaganda. From everything I've seen, Chinese propaganda is much more crude and much more official than that. They don't force other people — like celebrities — what to say, they broadcast via state TV channels and they put up huge banners. They have censorship, which means forbidding certain things, but I've never seen them coercing celebrities to say things they don't agree with. In general people can choose to stay quiet and not get involved. Do you have evidence that shows that the celebrity statements are coerced? Again: this is not criticism, I am truly curious about your sources.

From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?

View on HN

Agree that there is no need for CCP to coerce celebrities. But, help me understand, why should we give a rat's ass about what those celebrities say in favor of CCP policies, given that their only options are (1) Keep quiet (2) Endorse.

I don't comment on whether you should care. I am merely stating some facts. It's up to you to decide what to do with it.

Not to pile on, objectively they are not facts but partial observations with concrete conclusions

Well, my point isn't really about whether I care or not. Any rational actor wouldn't give any weightage to celebrities supporting an authoritarian regime, simply because they don't have any other options. (The "option" to keep quiet can be taken away any time. Although I agree that this particular instance wouldn't warrant such measures.)

I find it interesting that you say that at any time they could be forced to say something. Can you show me some sources that indicate that this practice exists after the end of the Cultural Revolution? I am not criticizing you, I truly want to know because this is not something I am aware of.

Can you comment on past track record? In any of the previous boycotts (for example against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist video, or against Japan honoring war criminals), have you seen evidence of peopke coerced by the government to say something, or people being prosecuted for staying quiet?

Again, my point is that, if an authoritarian government has the power to silence a person, then they certainly have the power to make a person say what it wants them to say. (Not directly related, but "confessions" are fairly common in these regimes. Gui Minhai - for example.)

Past track record? I think the events you've mentioned are organic protests, but that is beside the point.

I'm not the person you're replying to, and I don't have the evidence you're asking for.

However, China isn't stupid. Rather, they've often shown to be rather cunning, and it's impossible to know all the times they may use their weight and nobody notices.

I'd liken it to cold war era techniques from the US and Russia. Both sides would often do things wrong on purpose just to muddy the waters or throw red herrings. People at the time thought that the US was clumsy and stupid when a top-secret document was "accidentally" leaked, but it was done on purpose to track spies, waste Russia's resources, etc. I do not put it past China to have multiple prongs here, with the clumsy antics simply a smokescreen for the real propaganda. Obviously, this cannot be proven, but like I said, there are lots of lessons in history of this being the case with other states. They have lots of textbook examples to follow.

You say they've shown to be rather cunning. In what way? I've followed this topic for a long time, and from what I can see China is absolutely and horribly incompetent when it comes to media and propaganda. I know people who would be called "pro-China" in western circles, and even all of them think that the Chinese do a very bad job at propaganda and marketing themselves.

So I'm curious: what makes you believe that China is cunning? Is there anything you can show me?

Case in point: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1375898703970582536?s=19

A propaganda rap song? Really?? This is typical Chinese propaganda. How is this "cunning"?

They were retweeting the same post with the same slogan, essentially a hashtag, so being word for word identical neither supports nor denies the gp argument. It's like a bunch of people retweeting the same tweet with the exact same words "Black lives matter!"

In other news, apparently one of the most popular streamers in China sold CNY 23.52 million worth of Xinjiang cotton products within an hour yesterday (with 12M views). https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20210327-11345...

I haven't seen those posts. Can you link them? Again: not doubting you or criticizing you, I just want to read them myself.

Found it: https://weibo.com/2803301701/K7IpgaGqx?type=repost Slight correction to my original post: "essentially a hashtag" => "actually a hashtag". Most of the top retweets are just the hashtag or hashtag + emoji. Dilraba Dilmurat, a Uyghur actress, posted something more substantial.

This isn't about nationalism. Propoganda can also consist of censoring alternstive opinions. Chinese govenrment dont have to coerce celebrities to say something because it's totally sufficient for their regime is coerce everyone who not agree to keep their mouse shut.

Yeah you can tell something like "opinion majority of society align with government anyway", but if it was the case they wouldn't need censorship in first place.

I see your point. From what I understand though, your point contradicts a western study on Chinese censorship. This study was even featured in HN some time ago. The study states that censorship's goal is to limit controversy and to limit the ability of people to rally together, independent of whether the topic at hand is pro-government or anti-government. The censorship censored pro-government messages as well as anti-government messages: the only thing that mattered was whether it had the potential for lots of people to gather for activism.

This is not a criticism of your comment. I am truly curious about what you think of that study, and how that fits in this situation.

> From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?

I very much do. I've seen a few nationalist, but nationalism as such in China is not real.

The prime majority of people in China are completely apolitical, because they are afraid to get involved. Mainland Chinese are probably the most apolitical nation out there.

And of the few nationalists I've seen, none would come up in the open, and shout "I LOVE CHINAAAA," not even the dumbest ones. And none of those were normal people. One was a tech millionaire, another probably was already an insider to the system, and there were few idle socialite-intellectuals supported by rich parents who moved to the West.

The highly visible nationalism you see in China which pops out of nowhere, and disappears without a trace a day after is of a theatrical kind.

Okay, I see your point.

Although, are political participation and nationalism the same thing, or even strongly related? Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?

> Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?

In the context of China, no. Maybe in other countries, where the ruling party have not spent the last 100 years making an ideological singularity of itself, the state, the nation, and the country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com