China arrests filmmaker Deng Chuanbin because of Tweet

[Shalcker]

Majority of WHO? Russians in Russia proper? Because Baltics clearly did not. We clearly did not want that, as our votes showed (choose whichever language you want https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E...B2%D0%B8%D0%B8)

Baltics would get independence regardless of USSR referendum.

Millions of extra deaths? Lolwhat? Are you confusing the Russian Civil war with the fall of USSR?

Russian mortality trends for 1991-2001: analysis by cause and region

Results: Mortality increased substantially after the economic crisis in 1998, with life expectancy falling to 58.9 years among men and 71.8 years among women by 2001. Most of these fluctuations were due to changes in mortality from vascular disease and violent deaths (mainly suicides, homicides, unintentional poisoning, and traffic incidents) among young and middle aged adults. Trends were similar in all parts of Russia. An extra 2.5-3 million Russian adults died in middle age in the period 1992-2001 than would have been expected based on 1991 mortality.

Widely acknowledged fact. Sorry if you had no idea.

And 1991 mortality was already higher then previous years too...

Glasnost and perestroika were just words, without any salt. The last thing USSR ever "did".

Given that Glasnost and Perestroyka led to USSR dissolution, those were pretty powerful words.

[Easo]

Baltics would get independence regardless of USSR referendum.


Russian mortality trends for 1991-2001: analysis by cause and region

Results: Mortality increased substantially after the economic crisis in 1998, with life expectancy falling to 58.9 years among men and 71.8 years among women by 2001. Most of these fluctuations were due to changes in mortality from vascular disease and violent deaths (mainly suicides, homicides, unintentional poisoning, and traffic incidents) among young and middle aged adults. Trends were similar in all parts of Russia. An extra 2.5-3 million Russian adults died in middle age in the period 1992-2001 than would have been expected based on 1991 mortality.

Widely acknowledged fact. Sorry if you had no idea.

And 1991 mortality was already higher then previous years too...

Given that Glasnost and Perestroyka led to USSR dissolution, those were pretty powerful words.

Oh we would? Suuuuure. Communists never have wanted anyone to leave or let them leave. Democratic communism sounds like an oxymoron. Sure, there were attempts at "communism with a human face", or "national communism", but those ended poorly when Moscow squashed them. I fail to see why the new magical fairy land democratic communism goverment would not attempt the same against disidents. Old farts in power would still be there, just in different suits.

Well, Russia again as usual failed to manage absolutely everything. Guess what - 90ties were fun times in whole ex-USSR, not just in Russia. I know that. What did you think would have happened anyway? USSR was so totally rotten and backwards that when borders opened everything built (and I do not mean buildings...) just collapsed.

Fair enough and good. Empire of evil fell, and I will stick by those words.

[shadowmouse]

Oh the Chinese government killed tank man, you know that.

There are people who "know" the US and/or Israel brought down the World Trade Center. However popular the idea is in some circles, it is a conspiracy theory. Unless you have proof beyond "you know" you're now into conspiracy theory territory.

How many social credit points do you get for denying that?

As you know from your failed social credit threads, the number is absolutely zero since 1) the system isn't in place and 2) I'm not Chinese.

Do you actually have anything to say or are recycled memes the best you can come up with? Like I asked earlier, it is easy for you to be a keyboard hero spamming threads on the off topic forum of a gaming board, but what are you actually doing about it if it is so important to you? You are, by your own admission in other threads, a person with autism who has problems on other forums. I can see why.

[Tabrotar]

That's because we live in relatively new nations with only hundreds years of history rather than thousands, 1/4 the population, triple the economy and living in a nation built on the backs of slaves and stolen land. I mean we're well in recognition of this, so that's why we have the freedom to criticize our own governments and whatnot. That's why immigrant families come here, it's technically a better life. But at the same time we also face the unique (dare I say first-world) problems granted by all this freedom - freedom to spread misinformation, freedom to change the government around and tear down systems that were voted in just 4 years prior, freedom to go forwards while going backwards. There's no true suffering faced here, few of us living here have faced actual terrorism or actual war (at least in NA). Hell, an epidemic is one of our least concerns, all things considered.

When we're talking about a country that has such a high population where people can freely move around within the nation, the fear of terrorism is substantial and true. With a history of being exploited by foreign powers and division of the country from internal politics and strife going back centuries, even millenia, it's no wonder that China has reinvented itself the way it has. I mean if you delve into Chinese history, it's been taken over by outside powers and inside powers hundreds of times over. The current government is probably the strongest ever seen in the history of their nation, but it becomes very fragile if left open to the same freedoms we have in the west. We bicker amongst ourselves by favouring left/right ideals and tear at the foundations of our own government every time there's a shift. That already happened in China and they saw the results of internal strife- it allowed the Japanese to invade China. They aren't going to make the same mistake again after the revolution, and it's why they're so zealous in stomping out any religious-based terrorism they deem a threat to their society, be it Falun Gong, Uyghur muslims or others. It's totalitarian and it's strict, and it works. We see this resocialization as a bad thing only, and it's a terrible thing, but in the context of the Chinese government it's working towards a unified country, not one separated by culture or creed and left with radical ideals that can tear away at the systems they've worked so hard to build.

Their stance comes from a deep rooted history of internal conflict and having seen how internal politics lead to a complete fracture of their nation. What we observe here from the West is through tinted glasses - How can we judge a nation that is clearly tackling its own issues when we're unable to tackle our own? A handful of refugees enter the country and the government and society flips out. One terrorist event in the US turned the country around. Well, this is what China has been dealing with internally since... forever. It's a damn shame this is what is happening, but at the same time at least they're dealing with the terrorism problem rather than pretending upping security and diplomacy has lead to anything constructive. Unfortunately there is no sure-fire solution to religiously-fueled terrorism. That's the simple truth.

Bad example incoming, but I feel like it's looking at a zombie apocalypse. We're all treating zombies like they're a threat we have to contain, while China is trying to stomp it out completely through extreme means and breaking whatever human rights to do it. We're judging them now for their methods, but who will win out in the long run? We don't know if we can cure the zombies, even if we try our best to do so. But there might never be a cure, so we might be the losers in the long run and it would be our hubris and foolishness that leads us to our demise. We're not even thankful that we are a nation far from conflict.

TDLR: Oh don´t worry you just have to see it from their perspective, then it will all makes sence.

Don´t try to see it from a educated perspective...

[Triceron]

TDLR: Oh don´t worry you just have to see it from their perspective, then it will all makes sence.

Don´t try to see it from a educated perspective...

How does understanding the context make it any less of an educated perspective?

[Bodonius]

Well it happens in Sweden too, EU cant pretend to be better then china anymore.

[Tabrotar]

How does understanding the context make it any less of an educated perspective?

Maybe and really just maybe bcs saying that it´s just so bcs they had problems/invasions/uprisings is fucking stupid?

That´s the same as saying that it´s ok to kill/rape someone bcs you had it hard as a kid...

There´re things which are bad no matter what (and we had several similar things in the past to see why they´re bad "hint" nazi/east germany/udssr") and they shouldn´t ever be excused, but what do i know, seems like china ha dit bad in the past so it´s ok fot them to do that...

[Triceron]

Maybe and really just maybe bcs saying that it´s just so bcs they had problems/invasions/uprisings is fucking stupid?

That´s the same as saying that it´s ok to kill/rape someone bcs you had it hard as a kid...

There´re things which are bad no matter what (and we had several similar things in the past to see why they´re bad "hint" nazi/east germany/udssr") and they shouldn´t ever be excused, but what do i know, seems like china ha dit bad in the past so it´s ok fot them to do that...

But I didn't say it was okay what they are doing. I said what is happening is simply a problem they are dealing with in their own way, and that there is no universal solution to dealing with something like religious fundamental terrorism coming from your own citizens (as opposed to a foreign threat).

No country has successfully dealt with civil forms of fundamentalist/radical terrorism without imposing some harsh restrictions. The alternative has been ignoring the problems, such in the case of school shootings. Things are bad everywhere, but not equally and not with any solution that is easily applicable.

Pragmatically speaking, the world is a big place and not everyone has the freedom to live openly transgender anywhere or have the same freedoms of religion and speech everywhere. We can't just criticize these places without context of why it is happening, because the usual critics are those who do not come from countries that face those same problems.

This is a odd case in the world we live in because the historic solution to any sort of fundamentalism has been war or genocide. Its what has worked in the past, its what our world is based on with history of it in all cultures. And since human rights, we have been continually unable to resolve any terrorism conflict without bloodshed. Yet its easier to wage war with foreign entities than your own citizens, and that is pretty much what we are witnessing in China.

A softer approach may very well exist, one that allows freedom of religion and harmonious living between radical cultures. We have that in Canada. But the problem is this is based on an honour system, as well as be a potential breeding ground for radical fundamentalism too, and potentially domestic terrorism. China doesn't want to deal with that risk, they have seen the worst of that in the past. They are all moving forward culturally under unification. So our solutions are inapplicable to them. This is not an excuse for human rights violations though, do not get me wrong. But in terms of protecting human rights, we open ourselves up to domestic terrorism if we do not do something about radical thinking and fundamentalism. And how is fundamentalism fought through peaceful means? It has never been successful.

You talk about rape. Well is this rape? Thats not a very good metaphor at all considering this isn't about justifying rape.

[gobio]

"Hey China isn't so bad I live here"

"Chinese don't value individual freedom, its normal here"

A guy suddenly wants personal freedom in the corner over there

"Just don't be that guy, he is in jail, but who cares, the important thing is I enjoy living here"

[Triceron]

It's similar to the Neo-Nazi thing that Neo-Nazi's do, "The holocaust didn't happen.... BUT IT SHOULD HAVE!"

- - - Updated - - -

I'm arguing against people denying reality, instead of letting them spew propaganda. A spark starts a fire, a fire causes change, change causes revolution.

China knows that, that's why they censor people.

For fucks sake Communism was started by the book of one man, and spread by the influence of one man who happened to be in power. It doesn't take a lot of people to cause change, it takes one or two charismatic individuals being influenced to cause change.

Yea it sparks change but a revolution towards what? Western ideals of freedom? That is already here and is the reason why neo nazism is allowed to exist today. Somehow that is better?

[Triceron]

Yes. Allowing Neo-Nazi's to exist is better than putting them in camps.

As we have seen with China it doesn't just begin and end with the very very worst of society, it has expanded to anyone the state views as a "threat" to the status quo. Indeed not "threat to society" not "threat to people" it's a threat to the CURRENT ORDER. I would rather have Neo-Nazi's roam the streets all day if it means the freedom to have all of the other good people also being able to roam the streets and protest against them. It's worked pretty well so far, as much as people like to panic about Nazi's taking over the United States, we aren't even close to that happening. Trump's agenda is well within the scope of the Republican agenda at large, with no foreseeable plans to change. Nazi's were hated in the US, and they are still hated.

It still isnt equivalent. Neo nazis haven't gone as far as full blown terrorism, and had it done so then you wouldn't be saying the same thing. Again, you aren't living in a place where domestic terrorism is a true and imminent threat to the rest of your society. I doubt you would actually feel the same way if the threat were not simply panic, but reality.

[Stelio Kontos]

It still isnt equivalent. Neo nazis haven't gone as far as full blown terrorism, and had it done so then you wouldn't be saying the same thing. Again, you aren't living in a place where domestic terrorism is a true and imminent threat to the rest of your society. I doubt you would actually feel the same way if the threat were not simply panic, but reality.

Plenty of countries represented here on the forums deal with terrorism on a much more common basis than China does. Like Israel, or parts of Europe. Seeing how heavy-handed and harsh China has been with the Uighurs, I better not see any of China's defenders around here ever criticize Israel.

[Triceron]

Plenty of countries represented here on the forums deal with terrorism on a much more common basis than China does. Like Israel, or parts of Europe. Seeing how heavy-handed and harsh China has been with the Uighurs, I better not see any of China's defenders around here ever criticize Israel.

So a state that will never have peace between its people and is in a constant state of alert is what you consider a good example against terrorism?

That is not a solution, and the terrorism is still highly active. Its not under control whatsoever.

[Shalcker]

Oh we would? Suuuuure.

Yes, last time tanks were used to keep countries in a block was in 1968.

Communists never have wanted anyone to leave or let them leave.

Never wanted - true. Never let anyone leave - false. Plenty of countries were already let go when you did your independence referendum.

Democratic communism sounds like an oxymoron. Sure, there were attempts at "communism with a human face", or "national communism", but those ended poorly when Moscow squashed them.

Times change.

I fail to see why the new magical fairy land democratic communism goverment would not attempt the same against disidents. Old farts in power would still be there, just in different suits.

Except when those "old farts" tried putsch later, they failed... they didn't have nor guts nor power to "do it again".

Well, Russia again as usual failed to manage absolutely everything. Guess what - 90ties were fun times in whole ex-USSR, not just in Russia. I know that. What did you think would have happened anyway? USSR was so totally rotten and backwards that when borders opened everything built (and I do not mean buildings...) just collapsed.

Nope, it wasn't "opening the borders" that did it. Things could change a lot more gradually if USSR would be kept intact.

Fair enough and good. Empire of evil fell, and I will stick by those words.

It wasn't worth it.

[Stelio Kontos]

So a state that will never have peace between its people and is in a constant state of alert is what you consider a good example against terrorism?

That is not a solution, and the terrorism is still highly active. Its not under control whatsoever.

Targeting an entire ethnicity isn't a solution either.

Should the US punish all ethnic Chinese in its borders if the two countries ever go to war?

[Shalcker]

Plenty of countries represented here on the forums deal with terrorism on a much more common basis than China does. Like Israel, or parts of Europe. Seeing how heavy-handed and harsh China has been with the Uighurs, I better not see any of China's defenders around here ever criticize Israel.

Umm, are you sure Israel is good example of "dealing with terrorists"? Aren't they much more heavy-handed then Chinese?

[Stelio Kontos]

Umm, are you sure Israel is good example of "dealing with terrorists"? Aren't they much more heavy-handed then Chinese?

I don't know if I'd agree they are more heavy-handed. I'd say both are harsh, which is why anyone defending China shouldn't be criticizing Israel.

[Shalcker]

I don't know if I'd agree they are more heavy-handed. I'd say both are harsh, which is why anyone defending China shouldn't be criticizing Israel.

What do you think is the reason for Chinese oppression of Uighurs?

Countries generally don't spend such resources on specific ethnic groups without sufficient reason.

[Stelio Kontos]

What do you think is the reason for Chinese oppression of Uighurs?

Countries generally don't spend such resources on specific ethnic groups without sufficient reason.

I generally put very little weight on a government's "reasons" since they can usually make up any reason they need to to do what they want (the US is really good at that, among others).

Because that same question can be turned around, would the Uighurs be fighting if Chinese rule was actually of any benefit to them?

[Shalcker]

I generally put very little weight on a government's "reasons" since they can usually make up any reason they need to to do what they want (the US is really good at that, among others).

Because that same question can be turned around, would the Uighurs be fighting if Chinese rule was actually of any benefit to them?

I'm not asking "government approved reasons", i'm asking what do you think real reasons for such oppression are.

In many national struggles "chicken and the egg" are fairly hard problems; and it is obvious that West and Western intelligence agencies do try to tip balance into "harm China" direction (at least as far as Chinese perception of it is concerned) and bring such issues into forefront - and so sometimes do Western-nurtured Islamic terrorist groups.

Naturally, Chinese cannot ignore it - because, yes, some parts of China are more vulnerable to it then others.