China's President Xi says internet control key to stability

[Zmaniac17]

fundamentally the same under similar conditions... wow... no, how u were raised makes the biggest difference in the world to how u react to something... people arent raised the same way in the world so similar conditions is not possible to achieve...

How you were raised is a condition. You misunderstand me.

[shadowmouse]

If 99% are fine and 1% are persecuted for their political beliefs that's not a good government in my opinion. The ends do not justify the means.

Fewer slogans, more thinking. In any country of the world, under any system of government, there are probably at least 1% of the population who feel they meet that criterion. If I were to throw your words back at you though, wishing China to accept changes to their government at a speed and under conditions they are not choosing would seem to be a case of the end not being justified by the means.

The U.S. no longer has alcohol prohibition.

Which completely avoids the point. Our political system allowed the Constitution to be amended, with all of the subsequent troubles.

There are many arguments against democracy but none of them are better than the arguments for it in my opinion. With a well educated population democracy works.

Then you support the US becoming an actual democracy, right? We currently have a president that was not actually popularly elected and gerrymandering is used in some districts to skew elections.

As for the well educated population, that is not going to happen and probably never has actually existed. What one gets is an educated elite who then sway groups of people less educated and with fewer resources.

I don't believe in east vs west ideas. People are fundamentally the same under similar conditions.

You may not believe it, and some deny the Earth is round. Science, however, supports neither. I refer you to The Geography of Thought as a starter. Follow up with the works of Edward T. Hall and throw in a dose of Richard D. Lewis. When I talk about differences, I'm not just pulling things out of thin air. Here is one article showing that a difference exists that is testable and which shows up on brain scans: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13560741/n...h-differently/

It is my belief that Chinese citizens will demand more representation in their national government as they become more affluent and well educated. And it's not possible to ignore 1.3 billion people.

Check your logic there. You've already noted that things have changed over the last 30 years. I've called your attention to announcements of further changes to come in the future. How are the people being ignored? Simply because you prefer a different political model? You even concede that your ideal rests on a well educated population, but one of the things taking place in China (and paying my bills) is the education of the population. That's a work in progress and they have a long way to go in the rural areas. It isn't going to happen with the click of a switch.

If the economic success of a country depends on well educated healthy citizens, those citizens become the keys to a leaders power. China wants a high tech economy, so it will need this to happen. And that means a more representative government.

Again, you skip steps in your logic. If anything, you've described the current system, where educated elites tend to be party members. How do business leaders, for example, get heard? They go to the relevant government offices, meet with people, fill out forms. It isn't that much different than what happens in the US. There are elections in the US, offices get staffed by appointments and civil service, then a mix of the wealthy and the connected make the rounds to get things done. PACs exist and play a role in influencing the process up and down the chain.

Those citizens and the businesses they create will push for change and this may take the form of a push for a more aggressive foreign policy in order to support a slowing economic growth rate. China will eventually develop it's own massive military industrial complex.

Um, you might want to catch up on the news from the past five years.

[Judgedredd]

not another topic on why the West is just butthurt at China's success again.

- - - Updated - - -

If 99% are fine and 1% are persecuted for their political beliefs that's not a good government in my opinion. The ends do not justify the means.

Except that those who don't believe this are on the wrong end of history.

Clearly someone has not read their Machiavelli. This ain't some Disney nonsense of the world as it should be, if you want to stay in power (and be alive) it is best to take the world as it is and assume the worst (in people, that is).

[Zmaniac17]

not another topic on why the West is just butthurt at China's success again.

- - - Updated - - -



Except that those who don't believe this are on the wrong end of history.

Clearly someone has not read their Machiavelli. This ain't some Disney nonsense of the world as it should be, if you want to stay in power (and be alive) it is best to take the world as it is and assume the worst (in people, that is).

If what you say is true then history would favor those who ruthlessly oppress and cull all their political rivals. And clearly looking at the world today that is not the case. Machiavelli was wrong about a lot of things. You only need to take a look around to see that. Maybe his writings were more true in Machiavelli's time, but the economy functions differently now. To optimizing economic growth dissenting ideas must be allowed to rise to the top. The world can no longer be run by a man in a castle.

- - - Updated - - -

Fewer slogans, more thinking. In any country of the world, under any system of government, there are probably at least 1% of the population who feel they meet that criterion. If I were to throw your words back at you though, wishing China to accept changes to their government at a speed and under conditions they are not choosing would seem to be a case of the end not being justified by the means.

There's a difference between oppressing political rivals and not accepting their ideas.

Which completely avoids the point. Our political system allowed the Constitution to be amended, with all of the subsequent troubles.

The point is it was changed back when it didn't work.

Then you support the US becoming an actual democracy, right? We currently have a president that was not actually popularly elected and gerrymandering is used in some districts to skew elections.

As for the well educated population, that is not going to happen and probably never has actually existed. What one gets is an educated elite who then sway groups of people less educated and with fewer resources.

I think there are a lot of positive changes that can be made to U.S. government. I think representative government is good but in many ways it is still flawed. I think this is true in China as well. And I don't believe the population will never be educated enough to make intelligent political decisions about national issues. But I do think that small groups of people, no matter how well educated will never adequately represent the majority interests. The system must be allowed to hold them responsible for their actions.

You may not believe it, and some deny the Earth is round. Science, however, supports neither. I refer you to The Geography of Thought as a starter. Follow up with the works of Edward T. Hall and throw in a dose of Richard D. Lewis. When I talk about differences, I'm not just pulling things out of thin air. Here is one article showing that a difference exists that is testable and which shows up on brain scans: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13560741/n...h-differently/

You can say people think differently. But people also think similarly. That is the point I am making. Under the right conditions they are all very similar.

Check your logic there. You've already noted that things have changed over the last 30 years. I've called your attention to announcements of further changes to come in the future. How are the people being ignored? Simply because you prefer a different political model? You even concede that your ideal rests on a well educated population, but one of the things taking place in China (and paying my bills) is the education of the population. That's a work in progress and they have a long way to go in the rural areas. It isn't going to happen with the click of a switch.

They aren't being ignored they are just not adequately represented. And I'm not saying things can or should change over night. But they should change and probably will.

Again, you skip steps in your logic. If anything, you've described the current system, where educated elites tend to be party members. How do business leaders, for example, get heard? They go to the relevant government offices, meet with people, fill out forms. It isn't that much different than what happens in the US. There are elections in the US, offices get staffed by appointments and civil service, then a mix of the wealthy and the connected make the rounds to get things done. PACs exist and play a role in influencing the process up and down the chain.

To a certain extent this is true as well. It's a question of degree.

Um, you might want to catch up on the news from the past five years.

Ya, I know. I'm not exactly predicting something here just saying that it will continue to head in that direction. My worry is that China will gain too much influence and start to coerce other countries into accepting their desire for censorship. It's already happening with businesses that want to operate in China.

[Grym]

Dictators gonna dictate... I still can't believe China voted this asshole President for life. They're going to regret it.

They didn't vote him for life.

He chose himself for life.

[Judgedredd]

If what you say is true then history would favor those who ruthlessly oppress and cull all their political rivals. And clearly looking at the world today that is not the case. Machiavelli was wrong about a lot of things. You only need to take a look around to see that. Maybe his writings were more true in Machiavelli's time, but the economy functions differently now. To optimizing economic growth dissenting ideas must be allowed to rise to the top. The world can no longer be run by a man in a castle.

The strong will always rise to the top, that has always been true even before our species was the dominant one.

And before u say optimising economic growth, you do realise China's economy grows at half a trillion every year right, in stark contrast to the limp economic growth (among other things) of the West.

Like I said, the West is just butthurt cause China is more successful than them. Bet Uncle Xi, in his high castle/palace/forbidden city, must be musing at how delicious those tears are.

In short, ends will always justify the means. When the other guy has their hand on your throat/gun to your head, you are free in that fleeting moment (before non existence) to argue otherwise. I'm sure that is the last thought to go through the head (other than the bullet) of the Ned Starks of this world.

[The Stormbringer]

They didn't vote him for life.

He chose himself for life.

Ah, but they supposedly voted. That's what the Chinese media outlets say! Why would they lie? /s

[NED funded]

In short, ends will always justify the means. When the other guy has their hand on your throat/gun to your head, you are free in that fleeting moment (before non existence) to argue otherwise. I'm sure that is the last thought to go through the head (other than the bullet) of the Ned Starks of this world.

So, should millions of lives be thrown to the gutter so that the goals of the elite can be continued? Would you personally be willing to be thrown under the gutter to achieve that .1% gpd growth?? That China achieves impressive growth is not a justification for the abuses it commits towards its people. I agree that in the cases of existential threats you have leeway to do whatever is necessary to save oneself, but the US is not an existential threat to China and the same is true in the other way. China is not an existential threat to the US.

[shadowmouse]

There's a difference between oppressing political rivals and not accepting their ideas.

The problem here being that you keep failing to establish that "oppression" exists at a meaningful level and in a form the Chinese care about. Those points matter. They matter with regard to Scotland and independence, Hawaii and its independence, American Indians and their treatment within the US, First Nations peoples in Canada, and in many other situations as well.

The point is it was changed back when it didn't work.

The One Child policy was recently reformed too. That happened through the existing government and its processes.

I think there are a lot of positive changes that can be made to U.S. government. I think representative government is good but in many ways it is still flawed. I think this is true in China as well. And I don't believe the population will never be educated enough to make intelligent political decisions about national issues. But I do think that small groups of people, no matter how well educated will never adequately represent the majority interests. The system must be allowed to hold them responsible for their actions.

I suppose Donald Trump might have time to fit Gen-OT into his schedule of posting, but so far it would seem you're just a random voice on the Internet. As such, what you believe or what you say "must" happen just doesn't carry much weight.

You can say people think differently. But people also think similarly. That is the point I am making. Under the right conditions they are all very similar.

The problem here is that you seem to be posting without fact checking things. I am not "saying" there are differences, I've linked you to an article (which in turn links to the study) that has pictures showing differences in brain activity that can be imaged

They aren't being ignored they are just not adequately represented. And I'm not saying things can or should change over night. But they should change and probably will.

"Adequately" by what standard? By you wanting things to be in your own comfort zone? I'll refer you back to Katie N. s posts and the idea of cultural imperialism.

To a certain extent this is true as well. It's a question of degree.

And that's an evasion.

Ya, I know. I'm not exactly predicting something here just saying that it will continue to head in that direction. My worry is that China will gain too much influence and start to coerce other countries into accepting their desire for censorship. It's already happening with businesses that want to operate in China.

Did you follow the Kim Dotcom arrest? Do you think the US doesn't do the same? There may be some countries that don't care how businesses and foreigners interact with their citizens, but I wouldn't call that the norm.

[Deleted]

I'll refer you back to Katie N. s posts and the idea of cultural imperialism.

What makes Katie N some kind of authority on this? Why do you keep referring to them instead of making your own argument?

[NED funded]

What makes Katie N some kind of authority on this? Why do you keep referring to them instead of making your own argument?

@bungeebungee I also want to know this. I presume you are not a moral relativist and believe that some things are unacceptable even if a majority of the public approves or is indifferent to it.

[shadowmouse]

Why do you keep referring to them instead of making your own argument?

Back in the sock drawer with you. Post on your main account when you get unbanned.

Why do I refer to @Katie N.? Because part of the discussion is about cultural differences, and Katie N. is one of the few Asians posting in the thread. As such, she serves as an example of how perceptions differ across cultures.

[Deleted]

Back in the sock drawer with you. Post on your main account when you get unbanned.

Why do I refer to @Katie N.? Because part of the discussion is about cultural differences, and Katie N. is one of the few Asians posting in the thread. As such, she serves as an example of how perceptions differ across cultures.

They don't even live in China. That they justify oppression instead of supporting abolishing it should make you wary, brainwashed to maximum to view dissent as criminal.

[shadowmouse]

They don't even live in China. That they justify oppression instead of supporting abolishing it should make you wary, brainwashed to maximum to view dissent as criminal.

You are making a whole lot of assumptions there.

As I noted earlier, the difference in thinking patterns is deep rooted enough that it shows in brain activity. Their replies(Katie N. and @Freighter), although they don't live in China, are close to what I'd expect based on the values typical of a high context culture -- stability and the importance of a group for example. I'll repost some things to explain that further:

I refer you to The Geography of Thought as a starter. Follow up with the works of Edward T. Hall and throw in a dose of Richard D. Lewis. When I talk about differences, I'm not just pulling things out of thin air. Here is one article showing that a difference exists that is testable and which shows up on brain scans: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13560741/n...h-differently/

[NED funded]

You are making a whole lot of assumptions there.

As I noted earlier, the difference in thinking patterns is deep rooted enough that it shows in brain activity. Their replies(Katie N. and @Freighter), although they don't live in China, are close to what I'd expect based on the values typical of a high context culture -- stability and the importance of a group for example. I'll repost some things to explain that further:

Unjust laws don't stop being bad even if the people accept them as normal. Do you think the rapes in middle eastern countries are acceptable if the people have accepted those realities?

[Deleted]

unfortunately he is very correct.

The internet has done irreversible damage to our society and culture. Our children are stupid and more reckless, attention spans have dwindled, and it has become a platform for crime, exploitation and scams to thrive on.

Good job China. I'm glad you see reason.

We are what we always were... Just that everyone can show it to the World now

[Freighter]

Also many Chinese people don't read English which limits their ability to interact globally even without the internet censorship.

This seems to ignore the fact that it would be a secondary language.

Even if you can read English it does not necessarily mean you can actually readily absorb the information from English media. I used to get very tired when I was reading English because I constantly have to translate from English to my own language when reading English, so I felt fatigued after reading for more than a few minutes if it was any advanced text. It has gotten better as I've gotten more used to reading English and speaking English but by no means does it mean that I can absorb information as easily from English as I can if something is in Korean.

Often I don't even bother reading something in English if it also exists in Korean. Colloquialisms, proverbs and so forth further complicates how easy it is to understand what you're reading in a secondary language even if you're relatively formally fluent, like I am. You can be left not understanding what you're reading due to not being familiar with the used proverbs or colloquialisms because English education is very formal and because you don't understand cultural references that people from the country it is published in does not even think about but understand instinctively because they are constantly exposed to it, it permeates their lives.

To readily be able to absorb information in a secondary language, especially from foreign media, you need to not only be relatively formally fluent in the language to understand the terms used, you also need to know the regional proverbs, colloquialisms and cultural references.

- - - Updated - - -

Unjust laws don't stop being bad even if the people accept them as normal. Do you think the rapes in middle eastern countries are acceptable if the people have accepted those realities?

What constitutes unjust? Do you think it is unjust to deprive people of their freedom and imprison them if they are spreading subversive content or consuming such content with the intent to commit acts of subversion? Do you think it is unjust to ban such content?

[Macaquerie]

As someone who has lived in both China and the United States, I must say that this parroting of the tired old East vs. West cliche is patronizing at best and purposefully ignorant and blind at worst. The "correctness" of a particular value system has nothing to do with what people prefer and everything to do with what actually works. Chinese culture may have been around for thousands of years, but it has this nasty habit of completely falling apart whenever it has to deal with some foreign influence that doesn't fit neatly into its extremely restricted world view, whether that be from the Mongol invaders, European colonialists, or Communist agitators. The current government seems to want to build up that house of cards once more by exercising maximum control and repression, but that just means that it's going to suffer another epic collapse the next time something unexpected comes around.

[NED funded]

What constitutes unjust?

A simple example would be those that are arrested in Xinjiang and thrown into literal re-education camps or the ridicoulus laws the CPC passes in order to strip Tibetans from their culture and force compliance to the party.

[Freighter]

A simple example would be those that are arrested in Xinjiang and thrown into literal re-education camps.

Just skimming through that I find that they link to RFA.

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting corporation[2] that broadcasts and publishes online news, information, and commentary to listeners in East Asia while "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy."