7 ms·

Edit: This is not a justification or defense of internet censorship. It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict governm

Edit: This is not a justification or defense of internet censorship. It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict government controls than the West. While most Westerners see actions like this as serious violations of individual rights, the Chinese are used to such exercises of control by their leaders. There is a firm historical basis for similar behavior going back thousands of years, and the desire for social harmony and stability which in part enables strict government control through tacit public acceptance is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. The foundational political philosophy taken for granted in the West has no parallel in China. Their political philosophy is grounded in a very different hierarchy of values.

terminalcommand 9y ago
IMHO it is not just the hierarchy of values. In Turkey Wikipedia has been blocked for months, without a court order. The government man-in-the-middle's its own citizens and makes wikipedia unreachable. Even if you use a dns, they spoof the dns and redirect you to their own IP. It seems to me that people do not care, when it is the internet. The thoughts of Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes are taught nearly in every university and there is no culture of conformity. People seem to simply not care, or are afraid to speak their minds.
- DPW_ 9y ago
  Apathy is conformity by default.
msla 9y ago
This is very essentialist, and I'll only point out that, prior to the Renaissance, you could say very similar things about European cultures. In short, history explains, it doesn't justify. And this can be explained even better by a closed oligarchy wanting to stay in power. Edited to add: Modern Western countries have had experiences with autocracy as well. Do you think there's some deep cultural reason Germany went Nazi which sets it apart from France or the UK? How about Spain and Portugal?
- narag 9y ago
  This is very essentialist, and I'll only point out that, prior to the Renaissance, you could say very similar things about European cultures. Thank you for showing me a new word: essentialism. It sounds philosophical, which is a kind start... to then calling the bs.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
metaphorm 9y ago
Chinese philosophical roots include both Confucianism and Taoism, as well as the imported schools of though associated with Buddhism, and more recently quite a lot of modern Western ideas (particularly Marxism). Taoism is anti-authoritarian in the extreme. Buddhism is significantly more neutral on the subject but is definitely aligned closely with personal liberation and at minimum it does not make special exceptions for authorities. There are many famous incidents involving Bodhidharma trying to disillusion authority figures about their own authority. So I disagree with you that there are no Chinese philosophical traditions that are anti-authoritarian or that promote individual liberty. There are, but they are losing right now.
- whiddershins 9y ago
  I think your characterization of Buddhism might be a bit one dimensional. Tradition Tibetan society, for example, seems very hierarchical to me.
  - metaphorm 9y ago
    you're correct, there are many many different varieties of Buddhism. It's more correct to talk about Buddhisms since it's not just one thing. In the Chinese context though we're generally looking at Mahayana schools ranging from apolitical to anti-authoritarian. The Chan/Zen school founded by Bodhidharma is particularly anti-authoritarian though.
- FabHK 9y ago
  > Chinese philosophical traditions that are anti-authoritarian or that promote individual liberty Would you count Mozi/Mohism among them? And what about after the Han synthesis? Confucianism and legalism seem to have tempered the anti-authoritarian Taoist ideas.
ed 9y ago
They may be used to it, but I strongly suspect (given the widespread use of VPN's in china) they're not totally cool with it.
dmix 9y ago
> It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. Neither did South America but they were inspired by all of them when they formed their modern republics after the various revolutions, after kicking out the Spanish rulers in the 1800s the military generals had a choice to form democracies and they sought inspiration from Europe, just as America did a century earlier... Almost every European country had a legacy of monarchy, Japan with their Empire, etc. There's a long history of centralized control in every culture. Why is China unique? The problem is China went the authoritarian route, the party defines the culture, it's not a natural phenomenon of the people. It won't matter if there is a shift towards liberalism when people don't have a choice. Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan aren't far from China's core culture yet they respect liberalism. Chiang-kai Shek could easily have won the war against Mao and it's entirely possible their culture would look a lot more like South Korea or Japan and less "Chinese". People downplay the complete and total effectiveness of government controlled media and propaganda campaigns. This idea that Chinese culture is just different from the 'west' is exactly what is forced down the Chinese people's throats, it's the party line - not an original concept. The "chinese way" is what they constantly use to justify their repressive actions. While any time anything bad happens in the West they promote those acts widely in the media as examples of the flaws of the western worldview, while thoroughly suppressing their own flaws... so I'm highly suspicious when I hear this excuse.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Serious question: what would happen if China abolished the Communist Party or whatever they call and chose democracy. Chaos? Breakdown of the country into separate states /provinces? Civil war? Military rule? I would not want to the one in charge the day after. Obviously (moderated) rule by the people is best but not sure how China and say countries in the mold of Saudi Arabia will handle it.
  - adventured 9y ago
    India with its 1.3 billion people is capable of operating via a Democratic system (with its various issues and flaws not detracting from that fact), and they're even poorer than China and with fewer resources. There's no reason China can't manage a successful (even if messy) transition away from authoritarianism to a variation of representative government.
jrmurad 9y ago
> the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes How about Lao-Tzu? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi
- justaman 9y ago
  Perhaps you could give examples as to how they are similar?
  - Jach 9y ago
    I wonder if the intent is to compare their outputs directly, or to point out that China has its history of great writers just like the West. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_classics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_classics is a nice list.)
criddell 9y ago
Do you think it's changing? Are young adults in China as accepting of government controls as their great-grandparents were?
- xeonoex 9y ago
  Anecdotal, but I have a friend who grew up in China but spent most of his adult life in the US. He's well traveled and his family is wealthy. I thought his time in the US might change his views on the (IMO) oppressive Chinese government, but it has not. He is 100% willing to forgo freedom for ease of life. He prefers the Chinese culture because being a good citizen is almost enforced. I've tried to explain the negatives, but he doesn't seem concerned about anything I brought up.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gerbilly 9y ago
I know you didn't intend your comment this way, but I see it as a bit patronizing to assume that just because China hasn't produced a Rousseau or a Hobbes domestically[1], that they couldn't possibly take new ideas from them. Asia is about a lot more than social harmony and the mandate of heaven. There is an incredible diversity of opinion on almost any subject there, just as in the West. [1] Citation needed.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Well they could take new ideas from them, but it's much easier said than done. The philosophical, historical and cultural framework that allowed the thought of Rousseau and Hobbes to spread in the West does not exist in China. Interestingly this also partly explains why totalitarian Communism spread easily in China... Chinese culture was conducive to that philosophy.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  Yes, but what is being said is that Rousseau and Hobbes and Locke are ingrained in Western culture in much the same way that Confucianism is ingrained in Chinese culture. Lapses in the absolute power of Western monarchy opened up a space for an Enlightenment and gave rise to those new ideals, not to mention the prior blows that this style of governance had suffered in the West -- the Magna Carta, more frequent war, rapid losses in colonial territories, and the growth of Catholicism. The collapse of Western monarchy was what brought on the Enlightenment, which then served as a catalyst for further destruction of that system. China didn't experience hundreds of years of rebellion against the government, and for a long time it wasn't openly trading new ideas with the West (whereas the European countries were tied closely together in a lot of political matters). For the most part, the Chinese approach to this power structure was also much, much more defined. Keep in mind that Europe was largely still connected to Greco-Roman history, and these basic cultural foundations called for democracy and republicanism rather than an absolute social harmony. In the context of today, it's important to remember who the teachers and adults in China are: people who grew up under the Communist government. And with more respect towards the older generation, historically China has had a hard time rebelling against social norms ingrained in their culture. Trying to do away with Confucianism isn't a question of how many people are involved when the elders were all indoctrinated in those ideas by a Communist regime. Even if half the young population of China had independently stumbled upon papers describing these Western cultural values, spreading the idea is impossible when it goes against the CPC's core values, defies the ideas of the older generation, and is completely foreign from what was taught in school. The fundamental difference between the West and China here is that China has always been under a strong, conservative leadership that these ideas have not been able to permeate. To think that China could simply pick up ideas from Western philosophy misses the point.
bluetwo 9y ago
China didn't invent communism but somehow they were able to adapt it to their society.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  Would love to know who I offended this time.
camus2 9y ago
> the Chinese are used to such exercises of control by their leaders When was the last time the Chinese elected their leaders? the fact that they are "used" to this doesn't mean they approve. If there is a consensus, then let the Chinese people sanctify it with a democratic vote.
musage 9y ago
There is no "the" Chinese. There are a lot of individual people, and if you took a Chinese baby and raised it in an encouraging way, there is no Chinese gene that would make them timid and obedient regardless. And just like you wouldn't take, say, an alcoholic, and say that being an alcoholic is obviously the best way for them to be, or they wouldn't be one, I don't see how that is any more sensible with "cultures". I reject it. People hiding behind each other and in hierarchies is no less dysfunctional than people plastering over the holes in their souls with material goods and what have you, and harmony is a complete stranger to both, at least as I understand it. When I speak with a human being who wears a saddle of some kind, has some kind of dirt on their lens, peace enters my mind after the conversation, after the fake, uptight, unhappy circus leaves town and me with my mind and the world around me as it is, not as overly fearful people inside it want me to describe it.
- nabla9 9y ago
  Different cultures have different relationships to authority. Han culture is very different from the west. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    I get the impression that the idea that Chinese culture is somehow more naturally accepting of authoritarianism is part of a propaganda narrative promoted by Chinese authoritarians to protect their own power. > China Takes Aim at Western Ideas > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html?mcubz=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lead... > Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society. > These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Yeah my experience is that Americans lock on to how horrible and oppressed China must be, "those poor victims", perpetuated and validated by the Chinese-Americans whose parents came here after a revolution and have little-to-no connection to life in mainland China after that point, but the other Americans elevate the Chinese-American view as more canonical and don't dare to challenge it. While this stands in direct contrast to a large proportion of mainland Chinese who don't find the social order to be controversial at all.
darkhorn 9y ago
That's why they don't have nice things.
eighthnate 9y ago
> While most Westerners see actions like this as serious violations of individual rights Really? We do. Everyone here seemed okay with censorship on twitter, facebook, etc. > It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict government controls than the West. Where in the "west" are you? We have censorship and controls in the US. And last I checked, europe is even worse with their controls. > It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. Britain did and britain is at the forefront of censorship, control and monitoring of its population. > The foundational political philosophy taken for granted in the West has no parallel in China. It's empty words we used to pretend we are "superior".
the_common_man 9y ago
> Edit: This is not a justification or defense of internet censorship. It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict government controls than the West. What are you talking about? The west has completely accepted surveillance by it's governments. The ideas by Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes have 0 effect on western society. If you think western society is an 'freer', it's only because it's the perfect illusion created by your echo chamber.
- Danihan 9y ago
  That's simply factually wrong. The US has much better press freedoms, freedom of speech and gun ownership rights than any other large country. It has nothing to do with an echo chamber. The laws are objectively very different. Comparing surveillance by the NSA to information accessibility in general is disingenuous at best.
  - the_common_man 9y ago
    > The US has much better press freedoms, freedom of speech and gun ownership rights than any other country. Any country that requires and authorizes gun ownership is broken to start with. That you think this is somehow superior and better is.. I don't know what to say. > Comparing surveillance by the NSA to access to information in general is disingenuous at best. What's the difference?
    - Danihan 9y ago
      Guns are a constitutional right and a crucial part of self-defense. Not sure what the issue is to you. >What's the difference? One is access, one is privacy. Very different things. Why conflate them.
    - electrograv 9y ago
      Please justify your claims here. Most trends to ban weapons in politics are rooted in authoritarian desires disguised in “but think of the children!” emotional rhetoric without logical justification. There is actually a very deep theory behind why gun/weapon ownership is a necessary freedom derived from the fundamental human right of “self ownerhip” (which China would prefer you ignore), which we can dive into here. In short: If you do not have the right to defend a thing, you do not truly own it. If I give you an apple, but say “you’re not allowed to stop me if I try to take it back”, then you do not truly own the apple. Even if I continue to let you have the apple, ultimately I remain the sole owner of the apple (despite any illusions of the contrary) because I have the exclusive power over it. This applies to the self as well; if you do not have the right to effectively defend yourself, you are effectively owned by your government. If only your government has the authority to physical force towards defense of your property and yourself, then it is your government that truly owns you and ‘your’ property. All notions of ownership you may have are illusory, in the absence of such rights to defense. Now in China, at least there is no illusion of freedom. Everyone knows they are owned by the government.
buyx 9y ago
It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. The foundational political philosophy taken for granted in the West has no parallel in China. Their political philosophy is grounded in a very different hierarchy of values. I was quite young around the time of Tienanmen Square, but I seem to recall a Statue of Liberty and a lot of talk about democracy, before the protests were crushed. I wonder how Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes would have fared in the face of the equivalent state suppression.

terminalcommand 9y ago

IMHO it is not just the hierarchy of values. In Turkey Wikipedia has been blocked for months, without a court order. The government man-in-the-middle's its own citizens and makes wikipedia unreachable. Even if you use a dns, they spoof the dns and redirect you to their own IP. It seems to me that people do not care, when it is the internet. The thoughts of Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes are taught nearly in every university and there is no culture of conformity. People seem to simply not care, or are afraid to speak their minds.

DPW_ 9y ago
Apathy is conformity by default.

msla 9y ago

This is very essentialist, and I'll only point out that, prior to the Renaissance, you could say very similar things about European cultures. In short, history explains, it doesn't justify. And this can be explained even better by a closed oligarchy wanting to stay in power. Edited to add: Modern Western countries have had experiences with autocracy as well. Do you think there's some deep cultural reason Germany went Nazi which sets it apart from France or the UK? How about Spain and Portugal?

narag 9y ago
This is very essentialist, and I'll only point out that, prior to the Renaissance, you could say very similar things about European cultures. Thank you for showing me a new word: essentialism. It sounds philosophical, which is a kind start... to then calling the bs.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

metaphorm 9y ago

Chinese philosophical roots include both Confucianism and Taoism, as well as the imported schools of though associated with Buddhism, and more recently quite a lot of modern Western ideas (particularly Marxism). Taoism is anti-authoritarian in the extreme. Buddhism is significantly more neutral on the subject but is definitely aligned closely with personal liberation and at minimum it does not make special exceptions for authorities. There are many famous incidents involving Bodhidharma trying to disillusion authority figures about their own authority. So I disagree with you that there are no Chinese philosophical traditions that are anti-authoritarian or that promote individual liberty. There are, but they are losing right now.

whiddershins 9y ago
I think your characterization of Buddhism might be a bit one dimensional. Tradition Tibetan society, for example, seems very hierarchical to me.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  you're correct, there are many many different varieties of Buddhism. It's more correct to talk about Buddhisms since it's not just one thing. In the Chinese context though we're generally looking at Mahayana schools ranging from apolitical to anti-authoritarian. The Chan/Zen school founded by Bodhidharma is particularly anti-authoritarian though.
FabHK 9y ago
> Chinese philosophical traditions that are anti-authoritarian or that promote individual liberty Would you count Mozi/Mohism among them? And what about after the Han synthesis? Confucianism and legalism seem to have tempered the anti-authoritarian Taoist ideas.

ed 9y ago

They may be used to it, but I strongly suspect (given the widespread use of VPN's in china) they're not totally cool with it.

dmix 9y ago

> It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. Neither did South America but they were inspired by all of them when they formed their modern republics after the various revolutions, after kicking out the Spanish rulers in the 1800s the military generals had a choice to form democracies and they sought inspiration from Europe, just as America did a century earlier... Almost every European country had a legacy of monarchy, Japan with their Empire, etc. There's a long history of centralized control in every culture. Why is China unique? The problem is China went the authoritarian route, the party defines the culture, it's not a natural phenomenon of the people. It won't matter if there is a shift towards liberalism when people don't have a choice. Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan aren't far from China's core culture yet they respect liberalism. Chiang-kai Shek could easily have won the war against Mao and it's entirely possible their culture would look a lot more like South Korea or Japan and less "Chinese". People downplay the complete and total effectiveness of government controlled media and propaganda campaigns. This idea that Chinese culture is just different from the 'west' is exactly what is forced down the Chinese people's throats, it's the party line - not an original concept. The "chinese way" is what they constantly use to justify their repressive actions. While any time anything bad happens in the West they promote those acts widely in the media as examples of the flaws of the western worldview, while thoroughly suppressing their own flaws... so I'm highly suspicious when I hear this excuse.

tryingagainbro 9y ago
Serious question: what would happen if China abolished the Communist Party or whatever they call and chose democracy. Chaos? Breakdown of the country into separate states /provinces? Civil war? Military rule? I would not want to the one in charge the day after. Obviously (moderated) rule by the people is best but not sure how China and say countries in the mold of Saudi Arabia will handle it.
- adventured 9y ago
  India with its 1.3 billion people is capable of operating via a Democratic system (with its various issues and flaws not detracting from that fact), and they're even poorer than China and with fewer resources. There's no reason China can't manage a successful (even if messy) transition away from authoritarianism to a variation of representative government.

jrmurad 9y ago

> the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes How about Lao-Tzu? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

justaman 9y ago
Perhaps you could give examples as to how they are similar?
- Jach 9y ago
  I wonder if the intent is to compare their outputs directly, or to point out that China has its history of great writers just like the West. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_classics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_classics is a nice list.)

criddell 9y ago

Do you think it's changing? Are young adults in China as accepting of government controls as their great-grandparents were?

xeonoex 9y ago
Anecdotal, but I have a friend who grew up in China but spent most of his adult life in the US. He's well traveled and his family is wealthy. I thought his time in the US might change his views on the (IMO) oppressive Chinese government, but it has not. He is 100% willing to forgo freedom for ease of life. He prefers the Chinese culture because being a good citizen is almost enforced. I've tried to explain the negatives, but he doesn't seem concerned about anything I brought up.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gerbilly 9y ago

I know you didn't intend your comment this way, but I see it as a bit patronizing to assume that just because China hasn't produced a Rousseau or a Hobbes domestically[1], that they couldn't possibly take new ideas from them. Asia is about a lot more than social harmony and the mandate of heaven. There is an incredible diversity of opinion on almost any subject there, just as in the West. [1] Citation needed.

meri_dian 9y ago
Well they could take new ideas from them, but it's much easier said than done. The philosophical, historical and cultural framework that allowed the thought of Rousseau and Hobbes to spread in the West does not exist in China. Interestingly this also partly explains why totalitarian Communism spread easily in China... Chinese culture was conducive to that philosophy.
nv-vn 9y ago
Yes, but what is being said is that Rousseau and Hobbes and Locke are ingrained in Western culture in much the same way that Confucianism is ingrained in Chinese culture. Lapses in the absolute power of Western monarchy opened up a space for an Enlightenment and gave rise to those new ideals, not to mention the prior blows that this style of governance had suffered in the West -- the Magna Carta, more frequent war, rapid losses in colonial territories, and the growth of Catholicism. The collapse of Western monarchy was what brought on the Enlightenment, which then served as a catalyst for further destruction of that system. China didn't experience hundreds of years of rebellion against the government, and for a long time it wasn't openly trading new ideas with the West (whereas the European countries were tied closely together in a lot of political matters). For the most part, the Chinese approach to this power structure was also much, much more defined. Keep in mind that Europe was largely still connected to Greco-Roman history, and these basic cultural foundations called for democracy and republicanism rather than an absolute social harmony. In the context of today, it's important to remember who the teachers and adults in China are: people who grew up under the Communist government. And with more respect towards the older generation, historically China has had a hard time rebelling against social norms ingrained in their culture. Trying to do away with Confucianism isn't a question of how many people are involved when the elders were all indoctrinated in those ideas by a Communist regime. Even if half the young population of China had independently stumbled upon papers describing these Western cultural values, spreading the idea is impossible when it goes against the CPC's core values, defies the ideas of the older generation, and is completely foreign from what was taught in school. The fundamental difference between the West and China here is that China has always been under a strong, conservative leadership that these ideas have not been able to permeate. To think that China could simply pick up ideas from Western philosophy misses the point.

bluetwo 9y ago

China didn't invent communism but somehow they were able to adapt it to their society.

bluetwo 9y ago
Would love to know who I offended this time.

camus2 9y ago

> the Chinese are used to such exercises of control by their leaders When was the last time the Chinese elected their leaders? the fact that they are "used" to this doesn't mean they approve. If there is a consensus, then let the Chinese people sanctify it with a democratic vote.

musage 9y ago

There is no "the" Chinese. There are a lot of individual people, and if you took a Chinese baby and raised it in an encouraging way, there is no Chinese gene that would make them timid and obedient regardless. And just like you wouldn't take, say, an alcoholic, and say that being an alcoholic is obviously the best way for them to be, or they wouldn't be one, I don't see how that is any more sensible with "cultures". I reject it. People hiding behind each other and in hierarchies is no less dysfunctional than people plastering over the holes in their souls with material goods and what have you, and harmony is a complete stranger to both, at least as I understand it. When I speak with a human being who wears a saddle of some kind, has some kind of dirt on their lens, peace enters my mind after the conversation, after the fake, uptight, unhappy circus leaves town and me with my mind and the world around me as it is, not as overly fearful people inside it want me to describe it.

nabla9 9y ago
Different cultures have different relationships to authority. Han culture is very different from the west. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  I get the impression that the idea that Chinese culture is somehow more naturally accepting of authoritarianism is part of a propaganda narrative promoted by Chinese authoritarians to protect their own power. > China Takes Aim at Western Ideas > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html?mcubz=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lead... > Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society. > These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

Yeah my experience is that Americans lock on to how horrible and oppressed China must be, "those poor victims", perpetuated and validated by the Chinese-Americans whose parents came here after a revolution and have little-to-no connection to life in mainland China after that point, but the other Americans elevate the Chinese-American view as more canonical and don't dare to challenge it. While this stands in direct contrast to a large proportion of mainland Chinese who don't find the social order to be controversial at all.

darkhorn 9y ago

That's why they don't have nice things.

eighthnate 9y ago

> While most Westerners see actions like this as serious violations of individual rights Really? We do. Everyone here seemed okay with censorship on twitter, facebook, etc. > It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict government controls than the West. Where in the "west" are you? We have censorship and controls in the US. And last I checked, europe is even worse with their controls. > It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. Britain did and britain is at the forefront of censorship, control and monitoring of its population. > The foundational political philosophy taken for granted in the West has no parallel in China. It's empty words we used to pretend we are "superior".

the_common_man 9y ago

> Edit: This is not a justification or defense of internet censorship. It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict government controls than the West. What are you talking about? The west has completely accepted surveillance by it's governments. The ideas by Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes have 0 effect on western society. If you think western society is an 'freer', it's only because it's the perfect illusion created by your echo chamber.

Danihan 9y ago
That's simply factually wrong. The US has much better press freedoms, freedom of speech and gun ownership rights than any other large country. It has nothing to do with an echo chamber. The laws are objectively very different. Comparing surveillance by the NSA to information accessibility in general is disingenuous at best.
- the_common_man 9y ago
  > The US has much better press freedoms, freedom of speech and gun ownership rights than any other country. Any country that requires and authorizes gun ownership is broken to start with. That you think this is somehow superior and better is.. I don't know what to say. > Comparing surveillance by the NSA to access to information in general is disingenuous at best. What's the difference?
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Guns are a constitutional right and a crucial part of self-defense. Not sure what the issue is to you. >What's the difference? One is access, one is privacy. Very different things. Why conflate them.
  - electrograv 9y ago
    Please justify your claims here. Most trends to ban weapons in politics are rooted in authoritarian desires disguised in “but think of the children!” emotional rhetoric without logical justification. There is actually a very deep theory behind why gun/weapon ownership is a necessary freedom derived from the fundamental human right of “self ownerhip” (which China would prefer you ignore), which we can dive into here. In short: If you do not have the right to defend a thing, you do not truly own it. If I give you an apple, but say “you’re not allowed to stop me if I try to take it back”, then you do not truly own the apple. Even if I continue to let you have the apple, ultimately I remain the sole owner of the apple (despite any illusions of the contrary) because I have the exclusive power over it. This applies to the self as well; if you do not have the right to effectively defend yourself, you are effectively owned by your government. If only your government has the authority to physical force towards defense of your property and yourself, then it is your government that truly owns you and ‘your’ property. All notions of ownership you may have are illusory, in the absence of such rights to defense. Now in China, at least there is no illusion of freedom. Everyone knows they are owned by the government.

buyx 9y ago

It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes. The foundational political philosophy taken for granted in the West has no parallel in China. Their political philosophy is grounded in a very different hierarchy of values. I was quite young around the time of Tienanmen Square, but I seem to recall a Statue of Liberty and a lot of talk about democracy, before the protests were crushed. I wonder how Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes would have fared in the face of the equivalent state suppression.