3 ms·

Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world. We know this because it is what

Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world. We know this because it is what the media is telling us everyday 24/7. And there is no way that intelligent and decent Chinese people support this, right? Whoever that support such censorship which clearly violates the principles that we hold so dear must be uneducated and uninformed deplorables, right? Oh now I see that you are being sarcastic and I am offended, let me give you a lesson on freedom of speech by downvoting you.

CodeMage 10y ago
> Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world. I find it very interesting that you're putting the globalization in the same group as human rights and freedom of speech. > We know this because it is what the media is telling us everyday 24/7. No. We know it goes against freedom of speech by definition. We know it goes against human rights, because suppressing freedom of speech is one of the main ways to get away with violating human rights. We know being able to get away with violating human rights is bad, because we don't want that to happen to us. You don't need to blame media on what can be explained by reasoning and empathy. Media has enough to be blamed for already. > And there is no way that intelligent and decent Chinese people support this, right? Of course there is. History is full of intelligent and decent people supporting decisions that range from distasteful to downright horrific. Being intelligent has little to do with this kind of decision. "Decent", on the other hand, is hard to define and agree on. At best, it's a really low bar to clear. > Whoever that support such censorship which clearly violates the principles that we hold so dear must be uneducated and uninformed deplorables, right? That would obviously follow if your previous statement were correct. > Oh now I see that you are being sarcastic and I am offended, let me give you a lesson on freedom of speech by downvoting you. You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't protect you from the court of public opinion. I consider any downvotes to your comment rightfully earned, because it oversimplifies a very complex topic without adding anything to the discussion of it. Worse, the tone of it leads me to believe that it is meant to actively discourage discussion and disagreement.
- paradite 10y ago
  > You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't protect you from the court of public opinion. You did a good job rebutting my comments until this part. Now I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me because what you said here is exactly the reality in China now and you seem to be okay with it.
joe_the_user 10y ago
I downvoted you because you didn't offer any arguments.
- paradite 10y ago
  Good point. Here are some of the arguments to substantiate my comment: 1. Each country has its own cultural and historical background. I here state without justification(purely based on my understanding as a Chinese citizen) that China has its own unique cultural and historical backgrounds that discourages the dissemination of information deemed to harm social order or stability. Hence, with that assumption, it is justified that China would adopt such policies on the Internet in contrast to what other countries are doing. 2. Each country is in a different phase of development, and in each phase there are different priorities. Many western countries has been through the stages of industrial revolution and increased productivity, then followed by more freedom of speech and focus on human rights. In this case, China is just in a different phase of development as compared to the country that you are living it, and it has its own priorities, such as economic growth and urbanization. When it comes to policy planning, you need to consider what is your priority, and obviously the priorities would be different for countries in different phases of development. I've written more related to this subject here: https://paradite.com/2014/03/13/linear-progression-and-stages-belief-or-fact/ https://paradite.com/2014/03/13/linear-progression-and-stage... Note to moderators: Feel free to detach or mark this as off-topic. I know continuing this discussions would be pointless and not good for the site.
  - emmelaich 10y ago
    1. "unique cultural and historical backgrounds" is a pretty empty phrase. What sort of cultural and historical backgrounds? I think that the relative homogeneity over a large population and area is a factor. But the difference is exaggerated. 2. Western countries had a significant level of personal freedom and rights well before the industrial revolution. China could easily tolerate a lot more freedom. What is presented as good for all is very good for the well-connected, good for most (probably) and very bad for a sizeable minority.

CodeMage 10y ago

> Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world. I find it very interesting that you're putting the globalization in the same group as human rights and freedom of speech. > We know this because it is what the media is telling us everyday 24/7. No. We know it goes against freedom of speech by definition. We know it goes against human rights, because suppressing freedom of speech is one of the main ways to get away with violating human rights. We know being able to get away with violating human rights is bad, because we don't want that to happen to us. You don't need to blame media on what can be explained by reasoning and empathy. Media has enough to be blamed for already. > And there is no way that intelligent and decent Chinese people support this, right? Of course there is. History is full of intelligent and decent people supporting decisions that range from distasteful to downright horrific. Being intelligent has little to do with this kind of decision. "Decent", on the other hand, is hard to define and agree on. At best, it's a really low bar to clear. > Whoever that support such censorship which clearly violates the principles that we hold so dear must be uneducated and uninformed deplorables, right? That would obviously follow if your previous statement were correct. > Oh now I see that you are being sarcastic and I am offended, let me give you a lesson on freedom of speech by downvoting you. You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't protect you from the court of public opinion. I consider any downvotes to your comment rightfully earned, because it oversimplifies a very complex topic without adding anything to the discussion of it. Worse, the tone of it leads me to believe that it is meant to actively discourage discussion and disagreement.

paradite 10y ago
> You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't protect you from the court of public opinion. You did a good job rebutting my comments until this part. Now I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me because what you said here is exactly the reality in China now and you seem to be okay with it.

joe_the_user 10y ago

I downvoted you because you didn't offer any arguments.

paradite 10y ago
Good point. Here are some of the arguments to substantiate my comment: 1. Each country has its own cultural and historical background. I here state without justification(purely based on my understanding as a Chinese citizen) that China has its own unique cultural and historical backgrounds that discourages the dissemination of information deemed to harm social order or stability. Hence, with that assumption, it is justified that China would adopt such policies on the Internet in contrast to what other countries are doing. 2. Each country is in a different phase of development, and in each phase there are different priorities. Many western countries has been through the stages of industrial revolution and increased productivity, then followed by more freedom of speech and focus on human rights. In this case, China is just in a different phase of development as compared to the country that you are living it, and it has its own priorities, such as economic growth and urbanization. When it comes to policy planning, you need to consider what is your priority, and obviously the priorities would be different for countries in different phases of development. I've written more related to this subject here: https://paradite.com/2014/03/13/linear-progression-and-stages-belief-or-fact/ https://paradite.com/2014/03/13/linear-progression-and-stage... Note to moderators: Feel free to detach or mark this as off-topic. I know continuing this discussions would be pointless and not good for the site.
- emmelaich 10y ago
  1. "unique cultural and historical backgrounds" is a pretty empty phrase. What sort of cultural and historical backgrounds? I think that the relative homogeneity over a large population and area is a factor. But the difference is exaggerated. 2. Western countries had a significant level of personal freedom and rights well before the industrial revolution. China could easily tolerate a lot more freedom. What is presented as good for all is very good for the well-connected, good for most (probably) and very bad for a sizeable minority.