3 ms·

> that's already been answered by a number of native Chinese speakers. I don't think it's been answered to a reasonable level of certainty. The closest to a g

> that's already been answered by a number of native Chinese speakers. I don't think it's been answered to a reasonable level of certainty. The closest to a good answer was one guy who said he'd seen an interview in which the guy clarified that yes he did mean that. But nobody has been able to find that interview, so to my mind it's still an open question. I'm being very careful to not accept statements of opinion as statements of fact.

foldr 9y ago
>The closest to a good answer was one guy who said he'd seen an interview in which the guy clarified that yes he did mean that. No, the closest was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 You can find further confirmation of his views very easily by googling the English language media. Doing this could have saved a lot of pointless back and forth: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/nobel-winner-liu-xiaobo-chinese-dissident https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/nobel-... > In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human". > In a well-known statement of 1988, Liu said: > It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough. > Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  > No, the closest was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 Well, now we have this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780074 > In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human". > Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress. Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense. I've removed the quote we are discussing for clarity of my reply I hope you understand. My takeaway from everything I've read in the past few hours is that he was a bit of a cantankerous guy who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted and used to ruin him. He then refused to take it back either because he was unable to or too stubborn to do so. I'm glad I pushed as hard as I did for clarification of the colonisation thing. In the end there were a few good interpretations (some conflicting!) and we are richer for having read them rather than taking the first presented as gospel. The funny thing is I don't really give a shit about this dude, and actually don't think that he should have been given a nobel prize (nor Obama lol...) I think Nobel prizes for peace should go to those who actually promote or create peace... in whatever political framework that comes. Democracy isn't a panacea! But I feel like a lot of the criticism of this guy has been super heavy handed and like many young western men I bristle at the idea of being told what is right/acceptable without good explanation. I hope you understand my perspective and why I kept questioning when I I did.
  - foldr 9y ago
    >who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted It wasn't misinterpreted. He explicitly stood by what he said. If it was sarcasm, he could just have clarified that it was sarcasm. >Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense It kind of does, in the context of talking about a former British colony.
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      I was hoping for a more conciliatory ending to our conversation from you, but I suppose when you arouse someone's passions that isn't possible. Have a nice week.

foldr 9y ago

>The closest to a good answer was one guy who said he'd seen an interview in which the guy clarified that yes he did mean that. No, the closest was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 You can find further confirmation of his views very easily by googling the English language media. Doing this could have saved a lot of pointless back and forth: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/nobel-winner-liu-xiaobo-chinese-dissident https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/nobel-... > In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human". > In a well-known statement of 1988, Liu said: > It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough. > Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress.

jackvalentine 9y ago
> No, the closest was this: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14775990 Well, now we have this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780074 > In a 1988 interview he stated that "to choose westernisation is to choose to be human". > Affirming this sentiment in Open magazine in 2006, he added that progress in China depends on westernisation and the more westernisation, the more progress. Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense. I've removed the quote we are discussing for clarity of my reply I hope you understand. My takeaway from everything I've read in the past few hours is that he was a bit of a cantankerous guy who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted and used to ruin him. He then refused to take it back either because he was unable to or too stubborn to do so. I'm glad I pushed as hard as I did for clarification of the colonisation thing. In the end there were a few good interpretations (some conflicting!) and we are richer for having read them rather than taking the first presented as gospel. The funny thing is I don't really give a shit about this dude, and actually don't think that he should have been given a nobel prize (nor Obama lol...) I think Nobel prizes for peace should go to those who actually promote or create peace... in whatever political framework that comes. Democracy isn't a panacea! But I feel like a lot of the criticism of this guy has been super heavy handed and like many young western men I bristle at the idea of being told what is right/acceptable without good explanation. I hope you understand my perspective and why I kept questioning when I I did.
- foldr 9y ago
  >who said some dumb shit that was widely misinterpreted It wasn't misinterpreted. He explicitly stood by what he said. If it was sarcasm, he could just have clarified that it was sarcasm. >Westernisation doesn't imply colonisation in the traditional sense It kind of does, in the context of talking about a former British colony.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    I was hoping for a more conciliatory ending to our conversation from you, but I suppose when you arouse someone's passions that isn't possible. Have a nice week.