18 ms·

> they don't envy our free for all either The Chinese are constantly brainwashed to believe that yes, it's true, China is a dictatorship and other countries ar

> they don't envy our free for all either The Chinese are constantly brainwashed to believe that yes, it's true, China is a dictatorship and other countries aren't (this fact cannot be totally hidden no matter how much their firewall tries to block keywords like 'democracy') ... but that's not really a problem and democracy vs dictatorship are just two different styles with neither being better than the other. China has dictatorship and America has democracy but that's fine because China's needs are different, etc. Any student of international history knows full well that this viewpoint is complete crap. The track record of totalitarian dictatorships is awful. But don't underestimate the power of total information control to warp and distort people's minds. I've encountered a Chinese person who believed they are well educated and understood the West well, and then came out with ridiculous statements like "people in the west have to wait a week for emergency medical care" as justification for why a "paternal" government is not so bad really. The local perspective of Chinese people is essentially worthless for judging what's actually going on in China. They are fed a constant diet of lies, and unlike in other parts of the world their access to organised debunking of those lies is severely restricted. They can't even judge what's going on by measuring the opinion of those around them because the government subtly distorts that too (as seen by this article).

optforfon 10y ago
I think you've completely missed the point. I wasn't talking about politics at all, nor was I condoning censorship and saying it's some moral good. I'm just illustrating its perceived benefits. While we as a country have a national freak-out and foam at the mouth because we saw a nipple during the super bowl - some people might see that are media manipulation of mass psychology When it comes to politics they're obviously using it for their own benefit, keeping their people in the dark and trying to rob the country as much as possible without being too obnoxious about it. These things are completely obvious to any outside observer and it's not interesting to just repeat them ad nauseum. I find it much more interesting to think that the censorship lets them say... contain hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang, or stop the whole place from turning into a crazy anti Japanese riot when some PM decides to go visit Yasukuni. Then you can stop and think "Oh okay.. I can see how they can end up thinking it's a good thing..." B/c at face-value it makes no sense for them to put with it
- Retric 10y ago
  Perceived benefits, or conditioned response? One of this most insidious things about totalitarian states is people self censer to the degree it's hard to know what they actually feel. One example I think most people on HN may see is how people talk about work. It's really rare for people with white collar jobs to admit they hate their job. Sometimes it's years after they quit before someone will say they hated a job.
  - optforfon 10y ago
    Are the two are mutually exclusive? I'd argue both are true to a degree - though "conditioned response" evokes the kind of simplistic "mindless puppet" view of the Chinese perspective I'm trying to avoid. It has its own self contained logic that should be appreciated regardless if it's something from their culture and traditions, or something instilled subversively by the government. All I've tried to do is illustrate that logic as best as I understand it - without passing judgments or condoning it
    - Retric 10y ago
      I don't mean people are getting brain washed, just that they may not be expressing their views freely. Being willing to complain to strangers has huge cultural significance.
- okc 10y ago
  regardless of what you mean, can I just put phrases like: "hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang" into context: "Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms." Specifically on Xinjiang: "Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture. While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools." Sources: Human rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china-and-tibet https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china... and again: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china-and-tibet https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china... It appears these sources are blocked in China. Source: http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/ http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/
mikeash 10y ago
I think it's also useful to keep in mind that it's not just propaganda, China's government is overall doing a decent job especially if you compare to how things were before. China basically spent a century being kicked around by outside powers, culminating in the Japanese rampaging around the place for a decade. Since the Communist Party took over, China rose to become a world power, with a strong economy, strong military, and no trouble with invaders. Clearly, the Communist government is not without its own problems, e.g. the Cultural Revolution, which I'm not trying to diminish in any way. Some of those (like the Cultural Revolution) are seen as a failure of government which the current government tries very hard not to repeat. Some (censorship, general political repression) are accepted, either as necessary or unfortunate but tolerable. Clearly, you can make the argument that China would be doing even better under a good democratic government. I'd be pretty receptive to that argument personally. But it's pretty hard to convince people that they should undergo a radical change in government, when the terrible effects of political upheaval are still fresh in people's memories, and the current regime has overseen such improvements. Throw in the ridiculous shit coming out of Western democracies at the moment (e.g. Trump) and that job gets even harder. Edit: regarding the downvote, let me ask: if you had to be transplanted into the body of a Chinese person at some point in time, would you rather it be 1900, 1940, 1970, 2000, or today? From everything I know, I'd vote 2000 or "today" without hesitation, and not just because of computers and smartphones.
- okc 10y ago
  What do you mean not just propaganda? The Chinese nationalism you talk about has strong roots in propaganda. Its the very purpose of propaganda. Its also the same communist party which caused the great famine that are in power now. Different people, same party. The amount of doublespeak in your writing makes me question if you really believe what you write. why are you defending propaganda? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
  - shifter 10y ago
    Mike is a respected member of both HN and the Cocoa community. Are you implying that he's a shill?

optforfon 10y ago

I think you've completely missed the point. I wasn't talking about politics at all, nor was I condoning censorship and saying it's some moral good. I'm just illustrating its perceived benefits. While we as a country have a national freak-out and foam at the mouth because we saw a nipple during the super bowl - some people might see that are media manipulation of mass psychology When it comes to politics they're obviously using it for their own benefit, keeping their people in the dark and trying to rob the country as much as possible without being too obnoxious about it. These things are completely obvious to any outside observer and it's not interesting to just repeat them ad nauseum. I find it much more interesting to think that the censorship lets them say... contain hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang, or stop the whole place from turning into a crazy anti Japanese riot when some PM decides to go visit Yasukuni. Then you can stop and think "Oh okay.. I can see how they can end up thinking it's a good thing..." B/c at face-value it makes no sense for them to put with it

Retric 10y ago
Perceived benefits, or conditioned response? One of this most insidious things about totalitarian states is people self censer to the degree it's hard to know what they actually feel. One example I think most people on HN may see is how people talk about work. It's really rare for people with white collar jobs to admit they hate their job. Sometimes it's years after they quit before someone will say they hated a job.
- optforfon 10y ago
  Are the two are mutually exclusive? I'd argue both are true to a degree - though "conditioned response" evokes the kind of simplistic "mindless puppet" view of the Chinese perspective I'm trying to avoid. It has its own self contained logic that should be appreciated regardless if it's something from their culture and traditions, or something instilled subversively by the government. All I've tried to do is illustrate that logic as best as I understand it - without passing judgments or condoning it
  - Retric 10y ago
    I don't mean people are getting brain washed, just that they may not be expressing their views freely. Being willing to complain to strangers has huge cultural significance.
okc 10y ago
regardless of what you mean, can I just put phrases like: "hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang" into context: "Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms." Specifically on Xinjiang: "Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture. While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools." Sources: Human rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china-and-tibet https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china... and again: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china-and-tibet https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china... It appears these sources are blocked in China. Source: http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/ http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/

mikeash 10y ago

I think it's also useful to keep in mind that it's not just propaganda, China's government is overall doing a decent job especially if you compare to how things were before. China basically spent a century being kicked around by outside powers, culminating in the Japanese rampaging around the place for a decade. Since the Communist Party took over, China rose to become a world power, with a strong economy, strong military, and no trouble with invaders. Clearly, the Communist government is not without its own problems, e.g. the Cultural Revolution, which I'm not trying to diminish in any way. Some of those (like the Cultural Revolution) are seen as a failure of government which the current government tries very hard not to repeat. Some (censorship, general political repression) are accepted, either as necessary or unfortunate but tolerable. Clearly, you can make the argument that China would be doing even better under a good democratic government. I'd be pretty receptive to that argument personally. But it's pretty hard to convince people that they should undergo a radical change in government, when the terrible effects of political upheaval are still fresh in people's memories, and the current regime has overseen such improvements. Throw in the ridiculous shit coming out of Western democracies at the moment (e.g. Trump) and that job gets even harder. Edit: regarding the downvote, let me ask: if you had to be transplanted into the body of a Chinese person at some point in time, would you rather it be 1900, 1940, 1970, 2000, or today? From everything I know, I'd vote 2000 or "today" without hesitation, and not just because of computers and smartphones.

okc 10y ago
What do you mean not just propaganda? The Chinese nationalism you talk about has strong roots in propaganda. Its the very purpose of propaganda. Its also the same communist party which caused the great famine that are in power now. Different people, same party. The amount of doublespeak in your writing makes me question if you really believe what you write. why are you defending propaganda? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
- shifter 10y ago
  Mike is a respected member of both HN and the Cocoa community. Are you implying that he's a shill?