People act like there's a Demon Portal in Zhongnanhai where CCP Officials emerge from a different plane to subjugate the Real Chinese People.
In reality, the government of China is made of... normal Chinese people with leadership/bureaucracy skills. You can't "separate" these two.
Where does the idea that "criticism of a government is criticism of its people because a government is made up of its people" logically follow? Is criticism of the American government (which I do regularly) criticism of my own American people? What about North Korea?
This is very abstract. Can you give a real world example of what you mean? What country should China closer resemble in your ideal world?
I would agree you if you argue it would be condescending to claim for any given issue that while the CCP argues X, people in China disagree and want Y. However, I think it's equally as condescending to claim that the opinions, behaviors, and ideologies of the CCP are fully condoned and endorsed by all of the Chinese people (and THEREFORE, criticism of one is criticism of the other). Conflating a government and its people in this way is specious for any country, but especially problematic for those where public criticism of government is unequivocally risky.
You can empirically test this. Harvard University did, and found that upwards of 90% of the Chinese people support their government. And why wouldn't they? QoL has skyrocketed for hundreds of millions of Chinese over the last 40 years.
10% of the Chinese populace is still over a hundred million people, am I to judge each of them as people according to the actions of their government (since apparently the two cannot be separated)?
of course? how does this _not_ logically follow? if you're going to extol the virtues of being able to select your own leaders you damn well ought to feel responsible for inflicting bad leaders on the world. you literally mentioned this yourself. civilians of authoritarian countries have far more claim to a pass than Americans.
Let's say you have a valid, blistering disagreement with an element of American foreign policy. Do I view this as criticism of my government? Yes. Might I disagree? Sure.
What I don't do is claim that criticism of my government's decisions and myself personally cannot be separated (as the original poster argues) or claim that others are "inciting inter-cultural contempt" as the article cites.
In parts of China that do and did have free expression, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the people strongly support democracy and freedom and strongly oppose the CCP.
It is the oppression of the CCP that I oppose. I wish the people of China were free and could choose their government - that would be - will be - a great moment in history.
> In reality, the government of China is made of... normal Chinese people with leadership/bureaucracy skills.
And an absolute dictator who will remain in office for life.
What does that even mean? The Ohio State Penitentiary is made up of... normal American people. You can't "separate" these two. So I guess I shouldn't criticize murderers either, lest I criticize all US citizens!
(If you respond that murderers aren't normal citizens, then you're at least partway to understanding why it's possible to "separate" the Chinese government from its citizens.)
If imprisoned murderers are like empowered politicians, then toppling the government is like freeing the murderers. A revolution of the status quo.
That's an obviously ridiculous claim to make; Chinese people do not want the dangerous murderers freed.
At least, I am not aware of a single government that allows such speech. Are you?
His point was if it was the people's will, you wouldn't need authoritarianism.
1) you might not need government at all
and
2) you are living in a fantasy world
The choices of the CCP are their choices by your own admission it can't be all the people.
The people defending the CCP are either:
1) delusional
2) 50 cent shills
Push too far and your "free speech" gets reclassified as something illegal.
See: Jan 6 dissidents, Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz, et al.
Put it more bluntly: it's fine to hold up a sign saying "meat is murder" and protest. It's not okay to break into abattoirs and trash them. Speech is legal, breaking and entering is not.
Drawing any sort of equivalency between these two events strikes me as extremely far fetched.
Trespassing and trashing the Capitol Building is what got people in trouble. The people peacefully protesting faced no legal repercussions.
> Julian Assange,
Leaking classified documents isn't the same as political messaging.
> Aaron Swartz, et al.
Knowingly and deliberately violating copyright laws.
These instances definitely had political motivation, but the crimes in question were not because of speech itself.
The charges were for hacking.
But that's not an act of speech, that's an act of violence.
Anyways, sure, you will find exceptions to any rule if you look hard enough or strain the definition hard enough. Not really particularly interesting though.