What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule
economist.com
economist.com
It's remarkable that the WTA has stood up for Peng Shuai. International corporations typically knuckle under to the CCP. See the IOC's response, and also Jamie Dimon recently backtracking on his mild joke.
The quotation seems to be garbled in that link, https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/jamie-dimon-jokes-jpmorgan... has one that makes more sense
> The Communist Party is celebrating its 100th year. So is JPMorgan. And I’ll make you a bet we last longer.
Tho second link isn't a citation for:
> I can’t say that in China. They are probably listening anyway.
Why are people referring to it as a joke? He may have said it in a jocular tone-of-voice, but I don't think it was a joke at all: it's a reasoned statement to make and furthermore it's a statement I agree with: given US blue-chip companies' propensity to entrench themselves and the CCP's reversion back to authoritarianism (which history has made abundantly clear: rarely ends-well for authoritarians) means that absent anything unexpected happening, the CCP may very-well no-longer exist within a generation or two from now - or at least the CCP won't exist as-we-know-it.
My grandfather grew up there and was fond of saying "you have to remember the Chinese did not pray to God. The average Chinese person is not important enough for that. They prayed to the third under-secretary to God's chamberlain. What they really worship is bureaucracy". I don't know China well enough to comment on this myself, but I always found it a fascinating take on the situation.
China's history is as complicated as any other similarly sized territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_Dynasties.gif and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#/media/File:D...
Meanwhile, other "nations" entitled their ruler as a successor, bestowing upon them the title of Caesar, Kaiser, Tsar. So, you can link it up until the fall of Imperial Russia. Or you can even keep it up to today with Romania, or even Turkey.
When Constantinople fell, there were no lack of claims.
2. You're explaining why this "joke" might be taken serious by CCP
3. Most jokes have a hint of truth to them
Actually, I'm not.
It’s funny ‘cause it’s true.
But then I look to certain contemporary female lesbian politicians in my country and I reconsider that...and there have been people like David Graeber, James Scott, Mikhael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Edward Snowden and many others as well.
Due to Covid several tournaments in China were cancelled, which seems to have helped.
The fact one dude has a mistress he raped then followed on, doesnt need to reflect on the political model, the party legitimity, or China's success.
Just look at Trump and the republicans in the US, they rolled with it, Toad dick or not.
We are talking here about a former professional player the China government made disappear.
Seeing this comment, and seeing e.g. CBS highlight the story, it really just seems fishy in general. Something is different - maybe we’re just in a new era, but who knows.
Meanwhile in Xinjiang...
Every story about the Olympics should have a comment asking "Where is Peng?"
What effects does this have on Chinese society? What happens when the only public scandals are those that are convenient for the government?
I've checked this translation and I agree with most of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/qzhxao/translation_...
It attempts to highlight a few cultural nuances missing from the original translation. However it hasn't had any native speakers weigh in on it on r/tennis.
I disagree with note 4, claiming that that paragraph is her evidence for non-consensual relationship. My reading of that paragraph (about 10 years ago, the previous time she had an affair) is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken at him for having broken up 10 years ago.
The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous. It could be something like "my parents forced me to become doctor" (they didn't literally force, they nagged until you agree).
There is no doubt that Zhao is a manipulative jerk and that he engaged in unacceptable questionable acts. But given the ambiguity of this phrase, plus the fact that the rest of the text is not focused on that single even, makes some wonder whether this is even a rape allegation at all. The rest of the text say things like "I reopened my love for you", "we are so compatible", "we could talk endlessly". Some believe that this is more like her venting that he played with her feelings and then dumped her.
What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.
Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.
>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..] The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.
Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.
And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.
Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
Whats your interpretation of her social media post when taking into account the panicked crying? Does it change your opinion of her claim being ambiguous? Yes, or no?
The fact that you have repeatedly dodged that question is what will cause myself and other readers to jump to conclusions. Nothing else.
Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.
I didn't say "that's just your interpretation" (implying I am downplaying that opinion), I said "whatever interpretation you hold is fine, it's not up to me to decide" (implying respect). That's something totally different.
Oh, come on. You offered your opinion. You presented yourself as an authority (which is somewhat fair, given you are a native speaker). But, your opinion can only be seen as biased if you won't even respond to a well-intentioned, well-reasoned, and completely factual counterpoint.
Any idiot reading this can see what you're doing. It won't work. It's so obvious that you are engaging honestly.
The issue is that the woman was kidnapped by the Chinese government because simple because she spoke out publicly, and it seems to me that the media’s reporting has been very complete in that regard.
What specifically has been lacking?
I also asked you what specifically has been lacking in those media reports.
You are not just posting this information to share it. You are making a claim that the media's reporting has been incomplete, which claim you have not substantiated.
So, I ask again, what specific relevant information has been lacking from media reports?
That is, except perhaps for the emotional anguish that the poor woman was feeling, which can only really be discerned from her writing. The pain that led her to write this simply cannot be expressed accurately except through her own words.
Is that what you meant? That the western media has not painted a sympathetic enough picture of Peng Shuai? That the media has been too deferential to the Chinese government in not giving her voice a platform?
Whether that means that the media was or wasn't sympathetic enough, isn't my point. It also doesn't matter whether I think the media was/wasn't sympathetic enough.
Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation. It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
This sentence is rather condescending, and I believe it reveals something of your true intention here that you refuse to admit.
There is something about Peng Suai’s post that you believe exonerates Chinese officials or the Chinese government in some way, but you are unwilling to explain what it is for some reason.
> It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
Humor me. What is the alternate interpretation of these events that you believe is missing from western media reports? What are the different interpretations that people may arrive at other than “the media’s interpretation” as you put it?
> Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation.
You seem not to agree with the “media’s interpretation”. Why not? Why in your opinion would anyone disagree with the media’s interpretation of events after reading Peng Shuai’s post?
Look others have already said they found the extra information helpful. Respect the fact that others may find this information useful instead of going on a witch hunt, ok? You seem extremely angry at the possibility that others may think differently than you. You don't get to police of dictate others' thoughts.
All I am asking for is an articulation of the alternative interpretation of events that you have said is lacking in media reports.
I can only think of one reason why you would believe that my questions somehow show me to be “extremely angry” (when I am not) or that I want to “dictate others’ thoughts” (which I don’t) or that I am somehow on a “witch hunt” just because I am being persistent in responding to your comments (this is a two-way street). It is the same reason that you cannot articulate any other interpretation than the one found in media reports:
In your own heart you know that there is only one reasonable interpretation of these events and of Peng Shuai’s writings. This poor woman was abused—certainly emotionally and possibly physically—by a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, and officials of the Chinese government have taken extraordinary steps to cover it up.
If there were any other reasonable interpretation you would say what it is!
See also @honglilai on Twitter ("Hongli Lai") for more exclusively pro-China commentary. I'm afraid that engaging him in honest debate is an exercise in futility.
(Note: I'm not attempting to dox the user, his Twitter handle/name can be found in his HN profile)
Come on man, aren't we supposed to be "only against the CCP and for the Chinese people"?
[1] https://twitter.com/honglilai/status/1256923741940068353?s=2...
[2] https://twitter.com/honglilai/status/1454718292191596551?s=2...
TLDR: no.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/tennis/peng-shuai-china-expla...
Relevant quotes:
> For almost three weeks following the accusation, Peng was not seen in public and her whereabouts were not publicly disclosed.
> WTA chief Simon told CNN he had been in conversation with counterparts at the Chinese Tennis Association, who had provided assurances Peng was unharmed in Beijing. However, attempts to reach Peng directly had proved unsuccessful, he said.
After her initial disappearance (not just from social media, but also from public) she has only been seen in stage-managed circumstances, only accompanied by state officials:
> New video clips of the tennis star were tweeted by members of Chinese state media on November 20 and 21.
> One clip appears to show Peng sitting with China Open tournament co-director Zhang Junhui and two women around a table in a restaurant in Beijing. The clips appear to deliberately emphasize specific dates. Throughout the video, Zhang is speaking to Peng, but she doesn't say anything.
> Then later on Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced its President Thomas Bach held a video phone call with Peng. The two were accompanied on the call by a Chinese sports official, Li Lingwei, as well as the Chair of the Athletes' Commission, Emma Terho.
The evidence points to her having been physically seized by state officials, who seem to be attempting to mitigate the PR crisis created by her accusations by controlling her physical person. Of course, this is only my opinion and personal interpretation of reported events.
As long as no one takes notice, I am free to say whatever I want.
You should reflect on how much effort you spend defending such a regime all over this website, twitter, and elsewhere.
I have reflected and I disagree with you. Explaining how China works and presenting alternative views is not "defending [an evil] regime", thank you very much.
Any criticism that is a legitimate threat is met with blanket censorship - as in the case of Peng Shuai - or deadly violence as in the case of Tiananmen.
It's not independent, a study, or by York University, it was a ccp sponsored poll performed in China, by party members, with data collated and compiled by party members.
It's rare to see propaganda crumble to so delicate an interrogation, that's some primo stuff.
The author even explicitly stated that the survey was anonymous. The author states that their findings are consistent with other studies.
Except when it comes to Taiwan, right?
Besides, not a reason to look at Taiwan's future, while you can look at Honk Kong past two years.
You either lie, either are (in my opinion) delusional, because your writing here 'CCP is open to criticism', on this very thread about Peng. This is nuts. Literally 30 minutes after publication of her _personal_ post, remind you she is a China citizen, the post is removed (no trial! pure force gov action) and discussion is actively blocked in China. It is a very simple cognitive task in reasoning and critical thinking, to conclude what does it mean for CCP and China in general, if there are _personal_ things not allowed to be aired there.
If you can't grasp it, do a simple exercise: on your next trip to China (or ask your china based family) do a post about Peng, asking for answers, reposting her post etc -> you will be healed quickly and promptly by the very CCP.
p.s. I'm just a guy, my opinion is mine, I may be wrong. Yet I observed your karma on this thread, literally hundreds of people dont agree with you on HN. I would start thinking about me if that many HN people tell me I'm wrong.
Saying "you clearly and plainly defend CCP" is unnuanced at best, a complete misrepresentation at worst. Explaining how the Chinese government works and explaining that many Chinese people view things differently, is not at all the same as "defending the CCP", and even further from "defending the CCP blindly" as you seem to be implying. One can say "this is how it works, and the population there don't see it as much of a problem as here" without personally agreeing with everything.
You are also being very reductive about this matter. It's perfectly possible to have complex thoughts and complex stances. My stance is "the CCP has many problems but it is unfair to ignore the good aspects, and one should recognize that some issues depend very much on one's perspective, and the Chinese perspective differs from western perspective". That is not at all the same as "the CCP great".
---
You are confusing censorship with kidnapping. Unlike what people think, they are not related: censorship is a kind of super-moderation.[1] You and I dislike censorship on an ideological level, but that is besides the point I'm making. People getting censored is not an indication of people getting kidnapped. In fact, it happens regularly that people are censored for their criticism, and that the government responds to that criticism.
This, along with "CCP is open to criticism", isn't "delusional", it's fact supported by research papers[2][3][4], Asian media[5], independent accounts by foreigners who have lived in China[6] and street interviews[7]. None of these facts are well-known by popular western understanding of China, and indeed they seem so ludicrous that your first impression is that I am delusional, but they remain facts nevertheless. Please, go read my hard evidence before you declare me as delusional (or even lying).
My point isn't "censorship is fine and I defend it", it's "censorship is misunderstood, censorship works differently and its role is different than what westerners typically imagine, plus the Chinese themselves have complex and nuanced opinions about censorship, viewing them as both good and bad". That's not "defending the CCP", that's showing complex, nuanced reality and alternative perspectives.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
2. Harvard: How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression — https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
3. Harvard: Conditional Receptivity to Citizen Participation: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in China — https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414014556212
4. American Journal of Political Science: Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12207
5. https://mothership.sg/2019/12/news-china-protests-wenlou-hua...
6. Cyrus Janssen: About protests in China — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM
7. Asian Boss: what does democracy mean to the Chinese? — https://youtu.be/nl59t---30g
---
If you say that I am delusional, then what about my Chinese family? Are we all delusional then? My father in law told me this: that "censoring Peng Shuai is not necessarily bad, because it protects her privacy and protects her from angry mobs that will socially ostracize her for admitting to having been a mistress". This is a very typical example of nuanced Chinese thought on censorship. They're way less ideologically rigid. Disagree as we two may on censorship, who are we to tell a Chinese citizen what he should think about it?
He also said "Why would they arrest her? She didn't do anything illegal. Her social media will be restored once the controversy cools down". I'm pretty sure that, having lived in China for decades, he knows China better than you do.
Regarding your simple exercise: that exercise has already been done by others, so I will show you directly. The French embassy posted a message on Weibo on which they voice concern about Peng Shuai's safety. This message is not censored, you can read it here: https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4706377967338593 What's more, it attracted hordes of angry comments from Chinese people. Nobody believes that Peng Shuai has ever been in danger — because that's not the kind of place China is. People tell the French embassy to go mind their own business.
What may even be more incredible is that there are even messages in that thread criticizing the fact that Peng Shuai is censored. Here is an account by Dutch Sinologist Manya Koetse: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1463074733042380802 These criticisms have not been censored. What's notable about these criticisms is that they're not criticizing censorship wholesale: they're criticizing censorship for having added fuel to the fire. Even these criticizers don't believe that criticizing means that Peng Shuai has been kidnapped!
---
You say many people disagree with me. Yes no doubt. But do you know why I hold these opinions regardless? Because we are at the dawn of a new Cold War which could erupt into a hot war at any time. China is the flashpoint, and anti-China sentiment is being abused by the US military industrial complex to manufacture a consent for war. To you, it's just "criticizing the CCP for atrocities". To me, it's contributing to an environment in which anti-Asian crimes become socially acceptable, and contributing to an atmosphere in which a war with China would be a good idea. The maddening thing about this phenomenon is that half of these "anti-CCP" criticisms are based on facts for which one can verify that they've been misrepresented, if only people dig deeper than biased mainstream media reports.
I am taking a risk here to voice these unpopular opinions because I don't want nuclear warheads to fly all over the world. And for that to happen, people need to get rid of their unnuanced, reductionist ideas of China being an evil place.
Someone told me "but being against the CCP is not the same as being against the people". Here's why that doesn't stand to scrutiny: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29358557
I can turn the argument around: people see a Chinese person — who has obviously done a lot of research, seeing the number of sources I post — holding a controversial opinion, one that would even seem to harm that person's interests ("why would you support an oppressive government that murders your own people?"). Why do these people hold on to the notion that they are right, instead of wondering why I hold the opinions I do? Could it be that their assumptions are wrong? Why do so many people lack self-reflection?
Now it's my turn to give you an exercise. Go to a local university, find 20 mainland Chinese students and tell them they're being oppressed by the government and that you support their overthrow of the CCP. Watch their reactions. See whether you can still claim that I am being delusional.
I mean, I would answer "yes" to your "being oppressed by the government" part. And, to some extent, everyone who lives in mainland China and reads HN should feel so, as HN is censored by GFW.
Overthrowing CCP idk, I am not seeing how this could be practically done without making my life significantly worse. So that's the trade-off I made.
Wow, you're right about that. I thought you might have been saying it as an offhand comment, but I just looked through the 4 most recent pages of FooBarWidget's comments and only 2 comments of those listed were not directly defending or espousing CCP talking points.
Potential shill?
edit: Their earlier comments have a higher 'normal' to shill-esque ratio, but the greater majority of their comments that I have seen are shill-like.
Less on HN than other social media, maybe, but this place is far from immune.
As far as we've seen China has no shill operation outside of its borders outside of bots and some vote manipulation by Chinese companies for profit.
For reference, trust in government is 84% in Switzerland (highest in the OECD), 65% in Germany, 46% in the US, 42% in Japan, 35% in the UK.
Even if the source of the claim is the WaPo, such an outlier deserves extreme scrutiny.
https://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm
Edit: Those conducting the survey probably experienced reactions similar to this: https://vimeo.com/44078865
Additionally the Chinese government has a very skillful tactic where they make the local government much more accountable via the central government but charges it of all the unpopular things. That way it gets credit for the good while the local government is blamed for the bad. It's quite smart actually.
His data probably comes from this research : https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resil...
The data comes from in-person interviews. One may think that they were scared of saying bad things but plenty of negative feedback was received, they just reported that most issues were solved and were happy with the progress.
I the conclusion of dishonesty was much too quick.
Do you know why I am angry and pushed to speak up so much about China lately? Because the reality on the ground turns out to be really different from mainsteam media depiction. For 25 years I have heard tropes like "Chinese people are oppressed" but when I did deeper research I found a very different picture. It's like watching my father (the west) defame my mother (China) for 25 years and then finding out that 90% of the accusations are distorted.
You don't have to agree with me but please don't claim that I am being insincere. It's up to me to decide whether I am sincere or not.
"A German worker gets a job in Siberia; aware of how all mail will be read by censors, he tells his friends: “Let’s establish a code: if a letter you will get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter, written in blue ink: “Everything is wonderful here: stores are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, movie theaters show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair—the only thing unavailable is red ink.”"
But again, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Just don't claim I am insincere.
I had an apologist describe it to be once like "if you want to suggest improvements in local government, or you want to make a request, as long as you do it respectfully, then there is no problem at all", as if that is what free people mean when they talk of complaint.
We've all had a nice refresher about what happens in China if you complain, about a sexual assault for example. For the sake of "social stability", of course.
Let's see who's right in a few years from now. Maybe she'll be vacationing in Europe like Jack Ma is today while Zhang received a punishment.
You don't have to agree with me but please don't paint me as being insincere.
You don't have to agree with me. But please don't say silly things like that I am a paid shill or that I don't belive what I say. I will remind you that I have a job.
If you are not open to my arguments then don't listen to me. No need to defame me.
After all, I see that you are worried about "shills" and "propaganda". If you are not open to alternative perspectives then there's no need to talk to me. We can agree to disagree and still respect each other.
Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have international broadcasts in China been dropping out when her case is mentioned? Why did the CCP deny any knowledge of her situation, only to later say "she will be making a public appearance soon"?
- In China, censorship is common for any kind of controversy, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-government. It's common for people to be silent during a controversy regardless of what it was about. Furthermore, censorship is not related to whether someone will be caught/jailed/kidnapped or not. See my writeups here for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344676 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
- When you say "CCP deny knowledge of her situation", you need to understand that neither the CCP nor the Chinese government (there is a distinction, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume they're the same) are a monolith. The people who were asked are responsible for foreign relations. They don't know every single domestic issue right away, especially not if China didn't consider that issue to be a diplomatic issue. It's like asking the US ambassador "where is Britney Spears, her Facebook is blocked!"
The censorship apparatus operates independently from the foreign relations apparatus, and even from the law enforcement apparatus. Censorship is more like super-moderation rather than a police force. Furthermore, censorship is decentralized. The censorship authority provides guidelines on what sort of content to censor, and then Internet companies do the censoring themselves. It's not so that the censorship authority directly monitors every post at all times.
The western public kept pushing for "Chinese government, produce her". So they did.
- The Chinese public largely does not believe that she is or has ever been in danger. Some Chinese criticized the fact that she's censored, but even they don't believe she's in danger. They don't believe she's forced to give a false statement. Chinese have high trust in government and police, and they trust that if Zhao is indeed a corrupt official then he will be dealt with.
- The Chinese view censorship and information control in a more nuanced manner than westerners. Where censorship is a deadly sin in the west, Chinese view censorship as sometimes good sometimes bad. They believe that sometimes censorship is necessary for the greater good.
I will note that my writeups are not so much about endorsing them. My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west. You don't have to agree with their practices, but I do think it's important for people to understand what the Chinese public thinks, and how Chinese values are different from western values. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west, and the western way would work disastrously in China. China is different rather than universally evil. To each their own.
> Broadcasts from international news sources that mentioned Peng Shuai were censored
I do not know about this specific issue. What I suspect is that now it has become a foreign relations issue, they are pushing for unity in messaging. Unity in messaging is a core principle in Chinese foreign relations practice.
> And what business does the CCP have, if Peng Shuai is free from the kind of imprisonment it is assumed she is under, telling the public when she will be making a public statement?
This is a matter of values. Westerners believe that government should interfere as little as possible in citizen matters. That's fine.
The Chinese don't tend to see the government in an adversarial manner. In general, they prefer a strong, centralized government that actively meddles in citizen matters as long as it is for the public benefit. They see the government as a partner (though, depending on times and context, "necessary evil" may sometimes be more appropriate) in building a better society rather than an enemy of a better society.
Furthermore, the CCP and the government aren't just a top-down imposition. They are the very fabric of society. They are everywhere. Every neighborhood has a neighborhood commitee who are party members. They help the neighborhood and perform important community management tasks. If you have a complaint about the neighborhood, you go to them. They regularly come ask you whether everything is fine, whether you need something. During Wuhan's COVID-19 lockdown they were the ones on the front lines, ensuring that health workers stay supplied and ensuring that food gets delivered to every household. The CCP has 90 million members, or about 5% of the population. Everybody has some relative that's a party member.
The Chinese public does not view the issue as "the govt is telling her to make a public statement". Rather, they view it as "the foreign public is making so much fuss about her, the government and the media are helping her voice get heard by foreign public". That her social media account remains blocked for now is seen as a completely separate matter, related to domestic social stability, which has got nothing to do with foreign relations.
Regarding the future of her censorship: that will be lifted once things have calmed down. See my case studies on Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
With regards to the value judgement, it depends on whether you can accept that western values are not universal. I propose the thesis that they are not, because many other Asian and African countries have also criticized the western "our values are the only right ones" attitude.
Furthermore, the characterization of China being "totalitarian" is wrong because China is in no way comparable to the likes of North Korea or Saudi Arabia. You should check out the works of political science professor Daniel A. Bell: https://youtu.be/ckt94_JWHPs
This isn't a "coincidence". The Chinese government has evolved to its current form because of Chinese values. The CCP won the civil war because it had support of the majority of the population.
Han supremacism — while it exists — is largely not a thing and certainly not state policy. State policy is that minorities receive extra benefits that Han do not enjoy, and that the provincial government heads of minority provinces must be of those ethnicities.
Please go to China and tell a Chaoxianzu he's not Chinese. He'll tell you to fuck off.
Please go to China and tell people that the KMT should have won the civil war and see how people react.
> China is different rather than universally evil.
I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.
I've seen very few comments on HN (or even in real life) that criticize the people or the culture - everything is about the CCP and its policies, which are authoritarian-for-your-own-good at best.
Every piece of evidence that I've seen points to the CCP being a very evil organization that has hijacked the legacy of a great and old empire and convinced its subjects that its merely the latest figurehead of it.
I'm an American, acutely aware of the many faults and malicious actors at work in my government, yet I'm capable of separating that from the ideals of my country.
Don't confuse criticism of your government with criticism of your people, history, culture, or national ideals. They're completely separate.
This is something I have heard many times before, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For one, I have debated with a lot of people. The majority of them say something along this line, but then a few messages later they post things like "Chinese people can't innovate, only copy" or "they are brainwashed". A lot of people hide blatant racism, sinophobia or plain prejudice behind "we are only against the CCP, not the people". This is no criticism to you or the other poster specifically, but is a criticism against the general public.
Furthermore, even among the more honest people, what I have noticed is that most of even them are not so much "against the CCP and not the people", but rather "against the CCP and don't care about the people". They will happily suggest actions (sanctions, revolutions, overthrow of government, war, etc) that will result in Chinese people suffering. But they consider that fine, because they are just "standing up to the CCP". In other words, they don't care whether Chinese people become cannon fodder and collateral damage in their fight of justice against the Chinese government.
Why would Chinese people want this? We just got out of 120 years of war, revolution and famine. We've tried many things. Many different governing and social organization forms failed, and now when things are finally going well foreigners want us to start over again just because they think our government is bad? Can't we have a say in this too? Can't we say, look the government is not perfect but it's not as bad as you think, they also do a lot of good things and things are still improving (and they have improved), so we don't want another revolution and we certainly don't want you to encourage one for us?
Anti-China sentiment (or anti-CCP sentiment, as you'd prefer to call it) isn't just about logic and debate, it's a gateway drug into a war against China. The US military industrial complex is literally pouring millions of dollars in anti-China propaganda and the prop-up of "the China threat", with the aim of manufacturing consent for a war against China.
The more people jump on the China-evil (or the CCP-evil) bandwagon, the more you enlarge the echo chamber and the more willingness there is for a war. It doesn't matter whether the bandwagon is "China is evil" or "the Chinese government (but not its people) is evil" — the potential outcomes are equally disastrous. You can already see this on the streets: anti-Asian violence has spiked in the US thanks to all the anti-China reporting. Thugs on the streets don't care whether a person is Vietnamese or Taiwanese or anti-CCP Chinese or whatever, they are all Chinese to them. Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat, recently visited New York, reporting that the mood in New York is very dark: people see the Chinese state as "the enemy".
As someone who thinks about many things rationally, what I find stupid about this bandwagon is that half of the reasons people cite for declaring the Chinese government as bad, are based non-understanding of Chinese context and values, an inflated sense of "the China threat", the idea that the western perspective is the only legitimate one, or just plain biased reporting. Yet most people refuse to critically examine whether their attitude against China/CCP is even correct and based on the right facts and the right perspectives. Most people start with the final conclusion that China/CCP is evil and then they find arguments to fit that conclusion, while sticking to the notion that the western perspective is the only perspective that could possibly be right. This attitude perfectly aligns with the goal of manufacturing a consent for war.
TLDR: focussing on the people-government separation is akin to sleepwalking into a war.
TLDR 2: Attacks on the CCP are attacks on the Chinese people. But not because I see it as such, but because the western public makes it into such, as measured by potential practical outcomes.
I probably don't need to remind you that a war with China can escalate into WW3, in which lights all over the planet will go out.
Note the third para that describes the censorship. How despicably efficient is the Chinese censorship apparatus that they caught this and deleted it within an hour and commenced with clean-up. They knew this could have incited dissent.
If this is the “utopia” that awaits us in the up-and-coming centralized walled gardens of software, count me out.
check Laowhy86's video about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dc4tNY7S6Q
You think CCP had make anything out that sports community can have a talking point?
Is the production of deepfakes by the world's largest internal security service outside the domain of plausibility? A smart programmer can crank one out in a weekend by themself. What can an entire cyber security bureau accomplish with the backing of the CCP?
It's China after all (according to China alone).
https://taiwan-scene.com/cool-ice-hockey-in-a-hot-hot-land-t...
Taiwan actually has a hockey scene, I'm sure they'd love to host.
As a non-Chinese I never could understand the relationship of CCP, Chinese nationals and Chinese immigrants in the US and West. To me, it seems very hyocritcal to live in the Western societies and be very pro-CCP. I have interacted with many Chinese immigrants that defend CCP at any cost. I'm very confused about it.
Specifically, there are doubts on whether it's a rape charge at all. See the translation discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244
One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead.
The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows:
1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM
3. Chinese have high trust in their government, between 93% and 98%. These are not fake government numbers: they're measured by Harvard and York University through thousands of participants and anonymous surveys. See https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pande...
4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you for a short while after which the bubble bursts. Restructure your company and make sure it actually works for the benefit of the people". I'm not sure in which instance there was a gag order and in which instance the people involved voluntarily decided to lie low. But voluntarily lying low is not at all an uncommon practice during a major scandal involving a celebrity. In all these cases, after their reappearance (and a public announcement of the punishment), the situation is considered solved. Jack Ma is now vacationing in Europe and Fan Bingbing is making movies again.
Given these points, Chinese people at large don't believe at all that she's "disappeared" in the Soviet/Mao-era sense. They don't believe that she's ever been in danger. My relatives don't even believe that she's silenced. "What, why would they silence or catch her? She didn't do anything illegal. If she wants to file a rape charge, the police will help her."
Anti-corruption is a thing in China nowadays. Even though western media frames anti-corruption purely as an excuse to purge political opponents, Chinese don't believe so. They have faith in it because it has actually produced results. Thus, Chinese have high trust in their police w.r.t. catching corrupt officials. People trust that if Zhang is truly guilty, then he will be convicted, even if he has a lot of power. It isn't the first time that a corrupt but powerful high official was convicted, and it won't be the last time.
Why Chinese wife is like, "why do westerners think that the Chinese government is a monster? westerners are so weird"
Some other posters noted patriotism. While this indeed plays a role, it's not the whole story. I think my above points are much more important. What patriotism contributes, is the sense that western criticism is often hypocritical and full of ulterior motives (which they often are).
There is indeed no evidence that any of her friends or family have reported her as missing. Western reports are purely based on the reasoning "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared". Hence "Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place?"
Okay this post has been very long and I'm about to hit the text limit. And it's late, so I'll continue tomorrow with part 2. Feel free to ask questions in the mean time.
[1] I'm just going to assume good faith on part of WTA here. There are those who doubt its good faith because it's not the first time that an organization is or has been turned into a front for US regime change operations. This probably sounds conspiracy theoristy if you've never heard of this concept, but you really should research what the NED does and how the US weaponizes human rights.
Can you provide any examples where praise of the government (CCP) was "censored"?
Quote:
>Large demonstrations erupted at consular offices of the United States and other NATO countries in China in reaction to news of the bombing. On May 9, 1999, then-Vice President Hu Jintao delivered a national televised speech calling the act both "criminal" and "barbaric" and that it "has greatly infuriated the Chinese people." He said the unauthorized demonstrations in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Shenyang reflected the anger and patriotism of the Chinese people, and which the Chinese government fully supported, but urged against extreme and illegal conduct.
>The protests continued for several days, during which tens of thousands of rock-throwing protesters kept U.S. Ambassador James Sasser and other staff trapped in the Beijing embassy.
There's zero evidence that the CCP censors pro- and anti- government information equally here. None. Only that, after first inflaming the rioters.... they eventually owned up to their internationally recognized responsibility to protect embassy staff.
> we now highlight the obverse condition by giving examples of two posts related to events with collective action potential that support the state but which nevertheless were quickly censored. During the bombings in Fuzhou, the government censored this post, which unambiguously condemns the actions of Qian Mingqi, the bomber, and explicitly praises the government’s work on the issues of housing demolition, which precipitated the bombings:
> “The bombing led not only to the tragedy of his death but the death of many government workers. Even if we can verify what Qian Mingqi said on Weibo that the building demolition caused a great deal of personal damage, we should still condemn his extreme act of retribution.... The government has continually put forth measures and laws to protect the interests of citizens in building demolition. And the media has called attention to the plight of those experiencing housing demolition. The rate at which compensation for housing demolition has increased exceeds inflation. In many places, this compensation can change the fate of an entire family.”
---
A more recent example. Jerry Grey is a Canadian who lives in China and who opposes the Xinjiang narrative in western mainstream media because he has travelled to Xinjiang and saw a different reality than described in the media.
On Chinese social media he posted a criticism of Adrien Zenz, one of the people pushing the genocide narrative. Grey's criticism was that Zenz has never been to Xinjiang, and Grey says that Zenz should go and take a look. This was then censored, because "it's not China's place to encourage other's to change their minds".
https://twitter.com/Jerry_grey2002/status/131872917977329664...
Being put under house arrest and prevented from having contact with the outside world by the government, without being charged with a crime is a pretty big abuse power. Imagine if Trump just put one of his critics under house arrest and prevented contact with the outside for several months. This would be an outrageous thing to do, and there'd probably have been riots outside the White House.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I believe that you earnestly feel this is an okay thing for the CCP to do. But that's not swaying my skepticism and distrust of the Chinese government. The fact that it's successfully normalized this level of authoritarianism among mainland Chinese to such an extent that they earnestly see it as normal is precisely why most Westerners are so distrustful of the Chinese government.
As far as I know Jack Ma never criticized Xi. He criticized (international) banking regulations that were ratified in 2009 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and that he was not in compliance of. Legally in the United States that could very well put you in prison for fraud and you are not guaranteed the right to make a phone call or see family federally, though some states guarantee phone calls to some people on the day of arrest. Then the prosecutors can seal the indictment and you can be held for a year without anyone except your immediate family and attorney (if you can afford one) knowing. And then the prosecutors can drop chargers a few months later.
What happened to Jack Ma could have happened in the US because he was did something (fraud) that is a federal crime in the US. Thankfully it doesn't happen often. You also don't know that he wasn't charged. He recorded himself giving probable cause for a crime. It was really stupid of him.
Because the CCP has built a blue-water Navy, which it continues to expand, with the stated goal of dethroning the US as the global hegemon?
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-ar... https://www.amazon.com/Unrestricted-Warfare-Chinas-Destroy-A... https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-seeks-become-worlds-next-025...
Because the CCP conducts influence operations globally? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49511231 https://uscnpm.org/2021/09/14/prc-overseas-influence-disaggr...
This is the typical level of Chinese influence operation. I really don't know why you're worried about it.
https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/chinese_malign_influ...
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/China-s-Belt-... (paywalled article)
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-264b-df97-a9ff-be7f6...
https://www.hudson.org/research/17118-the-ccp-goes-to-hollyw...
Far more dangerous than any hamfisted TV broadcasts.
What size defense force do you think China should have? China has a population 4.3 times that of the US you've got to allow them something.
It's important to understand the concept of the Petrodollar, how that system is secured by US maritime supremacy, and how it underpins the US financial system.
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/50983
*If there is another strong power that can provide military security and at the same time offer sufficient funds and industrial products, the whole Middle East oil can be freed from the dominance of the dollar*
It's not the size that matters per se, it's the content. China used to have a largely-coastal navy. It has massively expanded its ability to conduct expeditionary warfare, with aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. The latter category are basically carbon-copies of the equivalent US classes. You only need warships like this if you expect to put entire battalions of troops on other people's shores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_071_amphibious_transport_... compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio-class_amphibious_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_075_landing_helicopter_do... compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...
This is a wrong characterization.
China has different values and practices. Freedom means something different in China than in the west. China values other things more than western-style freedom of speech. For example there is a greater emphasis on responsibility.
The practice you quoted is unacceptable in the west. That's fine — for you. Chinese think differently and believe that such practices are sometimes necessary to prevent rumors from running wild and causing social instability. That's also fine — for them.
I just want you to know that Chinese genuinely have a different opinion and a different perspective. That you disagree with them is fine.
To each their own. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west. The western way would work disastrously in China. Let each country decide what they value and how they want to do things.
What a marvelous coincidence for the CCP that "what Chinese people value", according to you, is the kind of submissive defference totalitarian governments desire from the people under their control.
> And so what if you view them as totalitarian? By and large the Chinese do not.
They'd better not!
Why would she put herself and her family in danger to do that? She's basically at the age of retirement in her career. What do you think she'll do after she retires, with the CCP denying her further career prospects?
For those who are immigrants from mainland China who support the CCP, there's an element of patriotism with regards to seeing their country becoming a burgeoning superpower and as a form of comeuppance for national shame that stretches all the way back to the unequal treaties during the era of the Qing dynasty.
For people born and raised in the West who support the CCP, a lot of them tend to approach it from an enemy-of-my-enemy angle in opposition to US imperialism (they tend to be aligned along a subfaction of leftists), along with a general skepticism of US media.
homo sapiens are born to have defects that their brains can not differentiate model of their neural network and data (i.e. fact). The people from China have more data or ground facts compare to the Westerners who get all the information from media. There's a quite big discrepancy (There are some reasons but beyond the scope). What happened quite often is their perception of unfairness. More specific: The western media lied in a very tricky way so almost the whole western are brainwashed. Please note: that's somehow popular perceptions.
But the perception is also mixed and dynamic.
For the dynamic part: Today's popular perception was not popular 15 or 20 years ago. The perception has been changing gradually because the neural networks are fed with new data so the weights are changing and models i.e. opinions are changing. Especially young generation who have better neural plasticity.
For the mixed part: There are quite portion of anti CPP opinions. You can easily find many anti CPP people from China. Some are quite extreme. You can say it's somehow polarized. Even within China the portion of anti CPP is quite sizable.
Chinese system inherently evil.
Western system inherently good.
When a bad thing happens in the West; we condemn it but don't see it as the overall system being evil. When a bad thing happens in China; we condemn it and see it as further evidence of the fundamental evil of the system.
I think the Chinese basically have faith in their Government in spite of its short comings.
Most animals especially mammals evolved by the arm race between the predators and the preys to perfect their power,agility and intelligence. The algorithm is called GAN. There are few extreme instances that GAN between predators and preys is not enough. Human is among the few primates that often kill their own species. Competition and cooperation are 2 parts of evolution. The extreme competition is war among human tribes. We have the nature of fighting and killing other human even the society become civilized.
The concept of "evil" emerged as a reason to justify the killing of our same species. You can get that from a lot of Hollywood movies. There's a spiritual need for evil to exist.
That's why NATO can bomb the oppressive regimes all over the world everywhere. Because they are collectively supported by the people of NATO countries. When something's wrong they collectively blame wrong information. What I mean is: "Weapons of Massive Destruction was caused by intelligence failure" is a bigger lie than WMD itself. It's also cannot be blamed on a few politicians who are democratically elected by people. The real reason is there was a spiritual need for evil so the people were easily fooled.
Even today after millions of people's life were ruined and there are massive waves of immigration people in NATO countries still don't connect the cause end effects, never realize that it was their own arrogant belief that they own democracy and human rights, along with they have superior weapons to liberate the people from oppressive regimes, cause the chaos world today.
Will they wake up? not likely. The retreat from Afghanistan was because of running out of resource but not because realize it was fundamentally wrong.
I'm pretty sure this happens because people in ycombinator circles use HN as a high quality content pipeline, and because of dang's impeccable curation, front page HN content gets greenlit for immediate display. If you see something on HN, it'll almost inevitably show up on Slashdot, Reddit, Facebook, and a slew of other smaller sites and forums, often unchanged from its presentation here.
HN also has the bonus that many silicon valley movers and shakers frequent the site and join the discussions. China's troll generals would be foolish not to capitalize on that.
As far as immigrants defending ccp that's usually because they have family back in China and would like to see them again some day. Their family's social standing could take a hit if they are insufficiently "patriotic," even in the US. China's got social influence inside the US, and extensive networks of casual spies that report problematic behaviors, ranging from local cultural clubs and groups to college and campus outreach organizations. It's very (darkly) sophisticated.
The China racket of world sports https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/11...
I felt the same when Trump was running America. Now he is gone, my life is a bit nicer. China though, it doesn’t stop.
However, I'm surprised that more comparisons haven't been made to the way the West has erased Julian Assange, and how easily he disappeared from our collective consciousness.
A much more comparable incident is something like this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct... ), where nobody was "disappeared" - on the contrary, for several months, the media talked about it pretty much every day.
For now there's recent news that he's getting married, but that isn't going to be frontpage news
A closer analogy would be the accusations that were made against Bill Clinton. Those would (presumably, and hopefully) be dealt with differently today than they were at the time, but to echo your sentiment, it is a bit amnesiac to point fingers at China for behaviour that the West (or perhaps just some Western countries) has just barely started to change.
One difference is that rather than censorship, allegations of sexual abuse by the powerful have long been simply ignored by the police, judiciary, media, etc., rather than censored. The end result was much the same.
The real difference, as the old story goes, is in the quality of the propaganda. The west has managed to convince its people that Assange is a bad person, a rapist even. Whereas China has not managed to convince many of its people that Peng is a bad person, rather they are simply crudely prevented from talking about the issue online. The west is much much better at propaganda than China.
This is the typical level of Chinese propaganda: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1454346638596743173
Is their aim to be harmful in the west? My impression has always been that they’re pretty ambivalent about that, they’re more concerned with the internal effect.
I don’t know that people even do think Chinese propaganda is clever! In my mind their skill is overarching control over communication. It’s dumb and brute force but it seems to work.
But I've seen plenty of people paint everybody who have a non-mainstream opinion on China, as paid undercover propagandists.
Who would do that but a paid shill?
HN is one of the few places online that both allows free speech and isn't riddled with bots/spammers/shills. I'd like to keep it that way, meaning you should fuck off. No one is buying your shit, anyway, as you might have found from the replies your posts get. It's a lost cause.
I compare arguments from both sides and I make up my own mind. I have my own agency and my own opinion, thank you.
If you're gonna call me a "paid shill" even though I have 20 years of online history in a different field, you're gonna have to prove it.
If you don't like what I have to say, then fine, don't listen to me. But don't prevent others from listening to me and don't prevent me from speaking.
Ultimately I want peace and understanding between both sides.
You’re being extremely rude here, accusing people of being shills and telling them to literally “fuck off”. If anything goes against the HN ethos and rules, it’s terrible behaviour and bad faith behaviour like that, not a veteran Hacker News member with an account that’s twice as old as yours arguing a refreshingly non-mainstream perspective.
The difference is that the West has the media which puts its own propaganda, people on the internet putting their own propaganda, etc. There is a market. In China, that market is limited.
Edit: reworded
The former prime minister not only shoot his shot early and in an aggressive manner
Later he didn’t follow up the courting to make sure that she could be feeling good about being on his mind for a while (and not just his penis for a night)
More generally if you don’t have a ring on it expect every woman who you had a romantic approach (successful or unsuccessful) to talk smack about you .
Sometimes the smack talking also comes if you put a ring on it .
The higher the fame then the biggest the platform given to her when the smack talking begins
The smack talking is not personal , meaning it’s not “against-guys” ….it’s “pro-her” to reinforce to herself and society the fact that there was a clear reason for her not receiving a marriage proposal or 500 , and that she dodged a bullet .