4 ms·

While you may be right about the CCP's motives, China has its own long history of political thought, including the correct role of the State and public dissent.

While you may be right about the CCP's motives, China has its own long history of political thought, including the correct role of the State and public dissent. Guess what? For the vast majority of Chinese history, rulers viewed public dissent as tantamount to open rebellion and reacted accordingly. Political systems are in part products of their culture. Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China, as it is in the West.

option 9y ago
This is called culturalism. Saying X is not for race Y is racism. Saying that X is not for culture Y is culturalism. There is really not that much difference here. Because I am Chinese/Saudi/Russian etc. in no way implies that I, or my culture, does not value such a basic right as free speech
- Sacho 9y ago
  I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is it culturalism to say that Western cultures value free speech? If you just wanted to say that parent was wrong that Chinese don't value free speech, why the diatribe about culturalism and racism? You also haven't really put forward any argument that the Chinese value free speech - you can make a base argument that it's valued in some Western countries because they've codified it in their laws - most notably the FA in the US(it's questionable how much this "basic right" is respected in reality). Calling it a "basic right" is culturalism by your own definition, as you apply your own cultural values(whatever they may be) over the whole of humanity. What makes you think humanity as a whole values this "basic right"? Millions of people live in countries where free speech is not as important as religion, for example, and blasphemy laws exist.
  - hartator 9y ago
    You seem to omit that's possible that we have universal pricinciples that's superior to whatever culture. You can attain these principles via philosophy. Any individuals can rediscover the values of free speech, freedom of government arbitrary, freedoms of thoughts and actions by just reflexion itself.
    - chii 9y ago
      One cannot disassociate philosophical principles with the culture and history that brought about it. By claiming there's some Universal Principal that's superior is basically saying that you're own beliefs and culture (presumably the one and the same as the proported Universal Principle) is superior. This isn't mathematics where there's some objective truth.
  - hartator 9y ago
    You seem to omit that's possible that we have universal pricinciples that's superior to whatever culture. You can attain these principles via philosophy. Any individuals can rediscover the values of free speech, freedom of government arbitrary, freedoms of thoughts and actions by just reflexion itself.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >This is called culturalism. Saying X is not for race Y is racism. Saying that X is not for culture Y is culturalism. You can give a name to anything, and call it a no-no, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are nuances, and there's also the matter of who gives the name, and under what premises. >Because I am Chinese/Saudi/Russian etc. in no way implies that I, or my culture, does not value such a basic right as free speech Actually it does. Many cultures value other things over and above free speech or individual freedom, like cooperation and social cohesion. Try selling the Japanese your "universal idea" of free speech in social situations for example... It's funny how the "fundamental" rights projected to others as "universal" are often the rights and cultural preferences that are characterizing and championed by one's own culture. "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." (G. Bernard Shaw, Julius Caesar)
- dilemma 9y ago
  What if you say that one culture is inferior to another? What's that called?
mustacheemperor 9y ago
>Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.
- hasenj 9y ago
  Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there. Or how the Arab Spring devolved into brutal civil wars. It's not tenable to pretend that western values can be separated from western culture and exported to other cultures as-is. It doesn't work.
  - tehwebguy 9y ago
    > Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there. ...by force.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others (something that's based on one's own culture and, when intervened and enforced, is often interpreted by their own national interests -- like "bringing democracy"). Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US, and you can land in jail or be hit with a hefty fine for stuff that's considered as protected by "free speech" in the US, and they consider it totally fine. >There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today. Well, until China rejects their traditions, it's not for other countries to dictate it to them.
  - zmb_ 9y ago
    > Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others If you accept the concept of "fundamental human rights", then it seems to me that they are rights that are derived from the simple fact of being a human, regardless of what your culture or rulers currently impose on you, and which you accept axiomatically. That is what makes them "fundamental", rather than just the (larger) set of normal rights afforded to you by your state. I could easily see things like having the right to not be held as a slave as belonging to such a fundamental set. > Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US I think the issue is more about how much trespassing on the freedom of speech is allowed by different jurisdictions. Even in Europe very few argue that holocaust denial laws, or blasphemy laws are not a trespass on freedom of speech. It is just that many accept them. And many, including myself, do not, because it has had a chilling effect of public discourse on many important issues.
forapurpose 9y ago
> Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China, as it is in the West. This is not at all unique to Chinese culture - It is and has been the universal argument of dictators and oppressors worldwide. Putin uses it in Russia these days. The claim is belied by Taiwan and Hong Kong, two indisputably Chinese places where free speech is highly valued. The idea that it's a Western value at all is belied by places like Japan, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey (until recently) and endless more nations and cultures. Protestors in Iran and throughout the Mideast and into N. Africa in the Arab Spring risked (and many paid with) their lives for it. And very rarely does anyone with a choice vote to be rid of it. It's widely considered a universal human value, and I think the evidence is overwhelming in support of that.
euyyn 9y ago
For the vast majority of Spanish history, rulers viewed public dissent as tantamount to open rebellion and reacted accordingly. Same with most European countries, if not all.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  And how many hundreds of years and how much blood was spilled before the principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution took root in Europe? Would it have happened faster if instead external parties tried to push it on Europeans?
  - euyyn 9y ago
    The current spell of freedom in Spain isn't the culmination of some positive trend that developed through the centuries. 50 years ago we had less freedom than the Chinese have today. Then the tyrant died of old age, and the absolute monarch that succeeded him decided democracy was the way to go. Latin American countries have the same cultural roots as Spain. They were part of Spain for more centuries than they've been independent; and even after independence the cultural exchange has been continuous. Today, some are free, and some like Cuba or Venezuela are tyrannies. That fatalism about some cultures not being ready for freedom is too simplistic when faced with the details of reality. The Chinese of Hong Kong and Taiwan handled freedom no problem; one from within, the other "pushed on them" by the British.
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      It seems very unlikely that Spain would have immediately adopted a stable, multiparty parliamentary democracy after Franco if it were not literally surrounded by a community of European nations that it interacted with intimately. The right to self determination for every nation is the bedrock of the international system that Europeans created after centuries of bloody religious strife. Not sure how Hong Kong is a great example, unless you're proposing to go back to the days of colonialism and Westerners imposing their rules and values by force.

option 9y ago

This is called culturalism. Saying X is not for race Y is racism. Saying that X is not for culture Y is culturalism. There is really not that much difference here. Because I am Chinese/Saudi/Russian etc. in no way implies that I, or my culture, does not value such a basic right as free speech

Sacho 9y ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is it culturalism to say that Western cultures value free speech? If you just wanted to say that parent was wrong that Chinese don't value free speech, why the diatribe about culturalism and racism? You also haven't really put forward any argument that the Chinese value free speech - you can make a base argument that it's valued in some Western countries because they've codified it in their laws - most notably the FA in the US(it's questionable how much this "basic right" is respected in reality). Calling it a "basic right" is culturalism by your own definition, as you apply your own cultural values(whatever they may be) over the whole of humanity. What makes you think humanity as a whole values this "basic right"? Millions of people live in countries where free speech is not as important as religion, for example, and blasphemy laws exist.
- hartator 9y ago
  You seem to omit that's possible that we have universal pricinciples that's superior to whatever culture. You can attain these principles via philosophy. Any individuals can rediscover the values of free speech, freedom of government arbitrary, freedoms of thoughts and actions by just reflexion itself.
  - chii 9y ago
    One cannot disassociate philosophical principles with the culture and history that brought about it. By claiming there's some Universal Principal that's superior is basically saying that you're own beliefs and culture (presumably the one and the same as the proported Universal Principle) is superior. This isn't mathematics where there's some objective truth.
- hartator 9y ago
  You seem to omit that's possible that we have universal pricinciples that's superior to whatever culture. You can attain these principles via philosophy. Any individuals can rediscover the values of free speech, freedom of government arbitrary, freedoms of thoughts and actions by just reflexion itself.
coldtea 9y ago
>This is called culturalism. Saying X is not for race Y is racism. Saying that X is not for culture Y is culturalism. You can give a name to anything, and call it a no-no, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are nuances, and there's also the matter of who gives the name, and under what premises. >Because I am Chinese/Saudi/Russian etc. in no way implies that I, or my culture, does not value such a basic right as free speech Actually it does. Many cultures value other things over and above free speech or individual freedom, like cooperation and social cohesion. Try selling the Japanese your "universal idea" of free speech in social situations for example... It's funny how the "fundamental" rights projected to others as "universal" are often the rights and cultural preferences that are characterizing and championed by one's own culture. "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." (G. Bernard Shaw, Julius Caesar)
dilemma 9y ago
What if you say that one culture is inferior to another? What's that called?

mustacheemperor 9y ago

>Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.

hasenj 9y ago
Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there. Or how the Arab Spring devolved into brutal civil wars. It's not tenable to pretend that western values can be separated from western culture and exported to other cultures as-is. It doesn't work.
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  > Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there. ...by force.
coldtea 9y ago
>And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others (something that's based on one's own culture and, when intervened and enforced, is often interpreted by their own national interests -- like "bringing democracy"). Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US, and you can land in jail or be hit with a hefty fine for stuff that's considered as protected by "free speech" in the US, and they consider it totally fine. >There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today. Well, until China rejects their traditions, it's not for other countries to dictate it to them.
- zmb_ 9y ago
  > Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others If you accept the concept of "fundamental human rights", then it seems to me that they are rights that are derived from the simple fact of being a human, regardless of what your culture or rulers currently impose on you, and which you accept axiomatically. That is what makes them "fundamental", rather than just the (larger) set of normal rights afforded to you by your state. I could easily see things like having the right to not be held as a slave as belonging to such a fundamental set. > Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US I think the issue is more about how much trespassing on the freedom of speech is allowed by different jurisdictions. Even in Europe very few argue that holocaust denial laws, or blasphemy laws are not a trespass on freedom of speech. It is just that many accept them. And many, including myself, do not, because it has had a chilling effect of public discourse on many important issues.

forapurpose 9y ago

> Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China, as it is in the West. This is not at all unique to Chinese culture - It is and has been the universal argument of dictators and oppressors worldwide. Putin uses it in Russia these days. The claim is belied by Taiwan and Hong Kong, two indisputably Chinese places where free speech is highly valued. The idea that it's a Western value at all is belied by places like Japan, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey (until recently) and endless more nations and cultures. Protestors in Iran and throughout the Mideast and into N. Africa in the Arab Spring risked (and many paid with) their lives for it. And very rarely does anyone with a choice vote to be rid of it. It's widely considered a universal human value, and I think the evidence is overwhelming in support of that.

euyyn 9y ago

For the vast majority of Spanish history, rulers viewed public dissent as tantamount to open rebellion and reacted accordingly. Same with most European countries, if not all.

smallnamespace 9y ago
And how many hundreds of years and how much blood was spilled before the principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution took root in Europe? Would it have happened faster if instead external parties tried to push it on Europeans?
- euyyn 9y ago
  The current spell of freedom in Spain isn't the culmination of some positive trend that developed through the centuries. 50 years ago we had less freedom than the Chinese have today. Then the tyrant died of old age, and the absolute monarch that succeeded him decided democracy was the way to go. Latin American countries have the same cultural roots as Spain. They were part of Spain for more centuries than they've been independent; and even after independence the cultural exchange has been continuous. Today, some are free, and some like Cuba or Venezuela are tyrannies. That fatalism about some cultures not being ready for freedom is too simplistic when faced with the details of reality. The Chinese of Hong Kong and Taiwan handled freedom no problem; one from within, the other "pushed on them" by the British.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    It seems very unlikely that Spain would have immediately adopted a stable, multiparty parliamentary democracy after Franco if it were not literally surrounded by a community of European nations that it interacted with intimately. The right to self determination for every nation is the bedrock of the international system that Europeans created after centuries of bloody religious strife. Not sure how Hong Kong is a great example, unless you're proposing to go back to the days of colonialism and Westerners imposing their rules and values by force.