4 ms·

I believe he did believe China should be colonized. Even he didn't, his audience are genuinely considering and discussing that option. We have a word called "带

I believe he did believe China should be colonized. Even he didn't, his audience are genuinely considering and discussing that option. We have a word called "带路党", which literally means road-leading party, to describe people who think China being colonized is a viable idea and do whatever they feel it's helpful to achieve that goal. "Road-leading" means giving directions to intruders (or saviours in their view), in many cases, the US army. Yeah, amusing, I know. I don't have the exact definition of the word, here's an old meme people used during NSA's PRISM went viral, hope you get the idea. http://photocdn.sohu.com/20130613/Img378667270.jpg http://photocdn.sohu.com/20130613/Img378667270.jpg The text on the right means "it's necessary to speak English well." This comment is not going to be popular here though, predictable downvotes incoming, but I'm fine with it.

jackvalentine 9y ago
Thanks for your reply, I don't see it getting lots of down votes - it seems reasonable and has contributed to this discussion in a way lots of comments here haven't! > Even he didn't, his audience are genuinely considering and discussing that option. Imagine if this was a thirty year misunderstanding! In that case though, it'd be 100% his fault for allowing it to continue. I suppose we can only really go on by taking the view that the man is dead, and said a lot of things that you might and might not agree with. Take the good, learn from the bad, remember the writer of both as a flawed human like we all are and move on to the future right?
- dis-sys 9y ago
  you can believe what you choose to believe. His comments were widely reported and he never ever even tried to dispute about the general interruption.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    Hi there. I see you've posted a lot in this thread. Lots of very short replies like this one repeating the same basic thing over and over. I do think there is merit in condemning even entertaining the idea we're discussing but your many posts give a very desperate air to your position. Perhaps you could allow others to have side conversations in this thread without popping in constantly.
    - dis-sys 9y ago
      I posted my comments above because you are blindly defending Liu's repressive comments without providing any 3rd party proof that can be publicly verified. For your concerns regarding my post above, maybe you can start to back up your claims by providing some proof? For example, when you painted Liu's "China should be colonized by the west for 300 years" comments as some so called "misunderstanding", can you be more specific and shed some light on what makes you to believe that? Surely some convincing evidence is going to mute my doubts. If you check my posts, I've provided his comments together with some analysis on his stands from a mainstream western media. You posted 4 times in this thread but everything was just what _YOU_ believe. Sounds reasonable to you?
      - jackvalentine 9y ago
        > I posted my comments above because you are blindly defending Liu's repressive comments without providing any 3rd party proof that can be publicly verified. I'm not defending them. I'm questioning the interpretation of the quote posted which doesn't imply should. There is a difference and I can be swayed either way. > when you painted Liu's "China should be colonized by the west for 300 years" comments as some so called "misunderstanding" It was a joke. Can you imagine the absurdity if it was a 30 year misunderstanding? Your hostility in this thread isn't helping your case at all, which in spite of you attacking me I still believe can probably be made very well! I believe my questions have been quite reasonable, and I am the kind of person who can be 'won' over with good argument. What really turns me off is the kind of absolutist hostility that you're displaying.
        foldr 9y ago
        Check the rest of the thread. A number of people have indicated that there isn't much doubt about the interpretation of Liu's comments. You aren't contributing anything to the discussion by continuing to ask a question that's already been answered by a number of native Chinese speakers.
        jackvalentine 9y ago
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo > Liu admitted in 2006 that the response was extemporaneous, although he did not intend to take it back, because it represented "an extreme expression of his longheld belief."[32] The quote was nonetheless used against him. He has commented, "Even today [in 2006], radical patriotic 'angry youth' still frequently use these words to paint me with 'treason'."[32] Take that as you will. I've heard many Chinese call him racist and treacherous because of these words, that he deserved to die in prison. That is ridiculous, the position was definitely cringe worthy to many people, it isn't one I would agree with, but it was just one position made with lots of resignation. There is a reason why we just shrug out arms at this, not because we agree with the opinion, but because intellectuals are bound to hold a few opinions that are worse (as judged by whoever) than others. You can crucify almost anyone if you cherry pick.

jackvalentine 9y ago

Thanks for your reply, I don't see it getting lots of down votes - it seems reasonable and has contributed to this discussion in a way lots of comments here haven't! > Even he didn't, his audience are genuinely considering and discussing that option. Imagine if this was a thirty year misunderstanding! In that case though, it'd be 100% his fault for allowing it to continue. I suppose we can only really go on by taking the view that the man is dead, and said a lot of things that you might and might not agree with. Take the good, learn from the bad, remember the writer of both as a flawed human like we all are and move on to the future right?

dis-sys 9y ago
you can believe what you choose to believe. His comments were widely reported and he never ever even tried to dispute about the general interruption.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  Hi there. I see you've posted a lot in this thread. Lots of very short replies like this one repeating the same basic thing over and over. I do think there is merit in condemning even entertaining the idea we're discussing but your many posts give a very desperate air to your position. Perhaps you could allow others to have side conversations in this thread without popping in constantly.
  - dis-sys 9y ago
    I posted my comments above because you are blindly defending Liu's repressive comments without providing any 3rd party proof that can be publicly verified. For your concerns regarding my post above, maybe you can start to back up your claims by providing some proof? For example, when you painted Liu's "China should be colonized by the west for 300 years" comments as some so called "misunderstanding", can you be more specific and shed some light on what makes you to believe that? Surely some convincing evidence is going to mute my doubts. If you check my posts, I've provided his comments together with some analysis on his stands from a mainstream western media. You posted 4 times in this thread but everything was just what _YOU_ believe. Sounds reasonable to you?
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      > I posted my comments above because you are blindly defending Liu's repressive comments without providing any 3rd party proof that can be publicly verified. I'm not defending them. I'm questioning the interpretation of the quote posted which doesn't imply should. There is a difference and I can be swayed either way. > when you painted Liu's "China should be colonized by the west for 300 years" comments as some so called "misunderstanding" It was a joke. Can you imagine the absurdity if it was a 30 year misunderstanding? Your hostility in this thread isn't helping your case at all, which in spite of you attacking me I still believe can probably be made very well! I believe my questions have been quite reasonable, and I am the kind of person who can be 'won' over with good argument. What really turns me off is the kind of absolutist hostility that you're displaying.
      - foldr 9y ago
        Check the rest of the thread. A number of people have indicated that there isn't much doubt about the interpretation of Liu's comments. You aren't contributing anything to the discussion by continuing to ask a question that's already been answered by a number of native Chinese speakers.
        jackvalentine 9y ago

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo > Liu admitted in 2006 that the response was extemporaneous, although he did not intend to take it back, because it represented "an extreme expression of his longheld belief."[32] The quote was nonetheless used against him. He has commented, "Even today [in 2006], radical patriotic 'angry youth' still frequently use these words to paint me with 'treason'."[32] Take that as you will. I've heard many Chinese call him racist and treacherous because of these words, that he deserved to die in prison. That is ridiculous, the position was definitely cringe worthy to many people, it isn't one I would agree with, but it was just one position made with lots of resignation. There is a reason why we just shrug out arms at this, not because we agree with the opinion, but because intellectuals are bound to hold a few opinions that are worse (as judged by whoever) than others. You can crucify almost anyone if you cherry pick.