4 ms·

I wish we would take this political discussion out of technology forums. Even if google started it, this is just a propaganda war between two countries with opp

I wish we would take this political discussion out of technology forums. Even if google started it, this is just a propaganda war between two countries with opposing political ideologies, and just the same we we are not discussing U.S vs Al Qaeda or Israel vs Palestine, we should not be discussing China vs U.S. It's the same political stuff - it's about free market, currency control, exports of cheap product and access to the raw materials of developing countries - but they say it's about free speech so that they can activate the democratic grassroots movement in support of this. Politics will come and politics will go, I don't think it's relevant to technology. All it will do is inflame passions and lead to name-calling on both sides. These are two different systems, and if they want to fight each other, let them, but why should we be involved? The chinese have an 80% satisfaction with their country, the Americans have a 50% satisfaction with their countries. Their leaders are the ones saying that the people of the opposing country are unhappy. Politics is people talking a lot, getting very angry, digging opposing trenches and changing very little. We can talk about this forever, why don't we stick to the topics we can change?

pretzel 17y ago
Because we can't change something if we don't talk about it?
- maxklein 17y ago
  People have been talking about Israel vs Palestine for 60 years.
  - AngryParsley 17y ago
    I'd say talking about a problem is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for change.
    - mahmud 17y ago
      Call it the Holly Lands, or some other noun, and refuse to recognize either until they embrace each other as one?
steve19 17y ago
Those are nonsense "statistics". What does "50% satisfaction" mean?
- andrewljohnson 17y ago
  Indeed... citation needed. Is there any such thing as a Chinese poll, much less one unvarnished by government oversight?
  - maxklein 17y ago
    Here it is: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/906/china-economy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/906/china-economy It's 86% satisfaction.
    - yters 17y ago
      Interesting, the satisfaction jumped from 50% to 80% in the span of 6 years (2002-2008). Do you know what caused the jump? It went above 80% in 2006, before the crash, so I don't think it's the economic differences. At any rate, it's an interesting, yet somewhat odd report. Everything else I read tells me China is destroying itself in its rush to the top, so it's strange the Pew report shows such satisfaction.
papersmith 17y ago
"These are two different systems, and if they want to fight each other, let them, but why should we be involved?" Sorry to digress. This is a genuine question out of curiousity and I am not trying taking any sides. I am not an expert on the history of the world, but is there any example of a first-world country that got from a rural agririan economy to its developed status without either 1) relying on exporting its abundant natural resources, or 2) exploiting its people under some form or authoritarian system during its early stage of industrialization? Scandanavia, Canada, and Australia were resource-based. Europe, America, and Japan had their dark days. The Asian Tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) were all authoritarian until the late 20th century. Israel started off with an educated population. Did I miss anyone? I am a bit pessimistic that there existents a good example of development for the poor countries to follow at all, and I really hope someone can prove me wrong. Of course, I am not saying a vague umbrella precedence justifies any particular wrongdoing, that's a big topic on its own. I just want to get a birds-eye view of where things came from and where they are going.
devin 17y ago
I really, really disagree with your ideas. This isn't "politics". Sure, the Chinese are playing politics by publishing this, but this information is quite valuable, and it should not be viewed as political trickery. These are things most Americans ignore and need to know. I was not aware of many of the topics in the article, and feel much more informed now on a number of topics. You don't need to accept the article as being "right" or "wrong" -- it's just a collection of factual information. You can take what you want from it, check sources, apply this knowledge to situations in your life. Dismissing this as a political boon is foolish. Did you even read the article?

pretzel 17y ago

Because we can't change something if we don't talk about it?

maxklein 17y ago
People have been talking about Israel vs Palestine for 60 years.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  I'd say talking about a problem is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for change.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    Call it the Holly Lands, or some other noun, and refuse to recognize either until they embrace each other as one?

steve19 17y ago

Those are nonsense "statistics". What does "50% satisfaction" mean?

andrewljohnson 17y ago
Indeed... citation needed. Is there any such thing as a Chinese poll, much less one unvarnished by government oversight?
- maxklein 17y ago
  Here it is: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/906/china-economy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/906/china-economy It's 86% satisfaction.
  - yters 17y ago
    Interesting, the satisfaction jumped from 50% to 80% in the span of 6 years (2002-2008). Do you know what caused the jump? It went above 80% in 2006, before the crash, so I don't think it's the economic differences. At any rate, it's an interesting, yet somewhat odd report. Everything else I read tells me China is destroying itself in its rush to the top, so it's strange the Pew report shows such satisfaction.

papersmith 17y ago

"These are two different systems, and if they want to fight each other, let them, but why should we be involved?" Sorry to digress. This is a genuine question out of curiousity and I am not trying taking any sides. I am not an expert on the history of the world, but is there any example of a first-world country that got from a rural agririan economy to its developed status without either 1) relying on exporting its abundant natural resources, or 2) exploiting its people under some form or authoritarian system during its early stage of industrialization? Scandanavia, Canada, and Australia were resource-based. Europe, America, and Japan had their dark days. The Asian Tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) were all authoritarian until the late 20th century. Israel started off with an educated population. Did I miss anyone? I am a bit pessimistic that there existents a good example of development for the poor countries to follow at all, and I really hope someone can prove me wrong. Of course, I am not saying a vague umbrella precedence justifies any particular wrongdoing, that's a big topic on its own. I just want to get a birds-eye view of where things came from and where they are going.

devin 17y ago

I really, really disagree with your ideas. This isn't "politics". Sure, the Chinese are playing politics by publishing this, but this information is quite valuable, and it should not be viewed as political trickery. These are things most Americans ignore and need to know. I was not aware of many of the topics in the article, and feel much more informed now on a number of topics. You don't need to accept the article as being "right" or "wrong" -- it's just a collection of factual information. You can take what you want from it, check sources, apply this knowledge to situations in your life. Dismissing this as a political boon is foolish. Did you even read the article?