9 ms·

> India should follow the same. I hope not. Just because it is effective doesn’t mean it is right.

by kobeya 9y ago

t1o5 9y ago
Though this does not appeal to the pro west crowd. If you have noticed, recently there is this anti China sentiment floating around on the internet and even on hackernews as well. This IMO is purposefully engineering to make China look bad, because they have had huge progress lately. China has effectively blocked all these social conditioning tactics from their population by wielding a greater control over the internet. It is effective and it is right for their progress as a nation. If India starts to make progress, India will also be targeted. In a country divided by many languages and cultures, India is very vulnerable for social conditioning. The case of missing nuclear scientists is one of them.
- secfirstmd 9y ago
  "It is effective and it is right for their progress as a nation."................I'm sorry, what? What about all the journalists and activists who are arrested, harassed, tortured and disappeared in China? Is it right for their progress?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - t1o5 9y ago
    The so called first world countries, its media, and its people, with good encouragement from certain sectors in the west, often confuse themselves with the world. US fears and dislikes loss of power and being irrelevant in Asia Pacific. The public digests news from these media houses and resonate the same elsewhere. Among the state and non state actors, China is deeply disliked by global journalists too. It is also deeply disliked by Human Right Propagandists/Upholders, and the so called "global civil society on the internet". The problem is that these people have an ultra large impact on the perception because these are the people who control media, and a general person's access to information. They have abject monopoly over access to knowledge, and are deeply ideological. So much so that, these people are often found lobbying the United States and on the internet forums for policies that may harm the world. But they have huge power in Western discourse, and if they get pissed, they will start a whole ideological parade against their perceived nuisance. For US, it is simply their loss of influence that they are worried about. The biggest people, and the most vocal, which leads to this perception, are the Global Civil Western Society, who just can't tolerate a state like China's to succeed. It is against their almost fanatically religious form of worship for some ideas, systems, and ideologies most of them tend to be under the guise of pro humanitarian but in reality is borderline jealousy and the fear of losing out. This also should be read in tandem with the fact that this is the very same society which supports the NRA, African American suffrage etc. A similar phenomenon happened in the 1980s and 90s with Japan. The United States, not the world, was desperately concerned that Japan would not just pass over them in the future, but had already done so economically and culturally. The American mindset is extremely fickle, superficial, paranoid, and shortsighted when it comes to the possibility of foreign rivals. They just cant stand the very thought of competing in a global economy.
- kobeya 9y ago
  I'm Chinese (well, half-Chinese). I don't appreciate an opinion on individual liberty and freedom of expression, association, self-determiniation, etc. being labeled as "East vs West" or worse, connected to imperialism or being implicitly racist. The Enlightenment began with the belief that all people are equal. ALL. Doesn't matter if you are white or black or asian or indigenous, or what family, race, gender or sexual orientation you happened to be born into. The Enlightenment has torn down the institution of slavery, overthrown monarchies, revoked state-run monopolies, and given franchise to women and minorities. And it has brought monumental progress to ALL of humankind, including basically all modern technology and medicine. And we are still moving forward, this juggernaut of progress, and we are doing so BECAUSE we have freedoms. The history of the world is that of brief stints of progress being flamed out by oppressive regimes until at long last the scientific revolution took hold. I won't apologize for standing with the Enlightenment and judging governments by how well they achieve these goals for their citizens. As China seeks to control its people, it does so at the detriment of future progress not in service of it. China's anti-liberty actions and policies are regressive and on the wrong side of history. And to say that it is somehow just an expression of different culture is insulting to the Chinese people who deserve freedom and personal liberty, and dishonor to the memory of those like Sun Yat-sen and others who fought for and achieved societal revolution towards Enlightenment ideals in China and with the support of the Chinese people. There's nothing uniquely Chinese about totalitarian oppression, or anything unique about the Chinese people that make them ineligible for our sympathies.
  - t1o5 9y ago
    Your opinions depends on your citizenship. When you say Chinese (well, half-Chinese), are you a citizen of China ?
    - kobeya 9y ago
      > Your opinions depends on your citizenship. Wow. I don't think anything I said got through to you.
      - t1o5 9y ago
- fartcannon 9y ago
  So their model works for them because it excludes external influences. But there government is just exerting it's own Orwellian influence on the group is has control of. Is there not a solution that benefits everyone in the world without one group controlling other groups? I'm curious what theoretical model has the best outcome for everyone, not just for the few people in power and their group. It would be nice if the model included controls for previous failures.
- t1o5 9y ago
  The very mention of it irked the hornet's nest.
perseusprime11 9y ago
I agree. China, in general, is not a good role model. U.S is a better role model.
- 1024core 9y ago
  Anybody who thinks that the US does not control its media is naive. See, for example, how Al Jazeera and RT (granted, the latter is no bastion of independent journalism) are effectively exiled from the US. Al Jazeera had to set up an "American owned" subsidiary before it could get access to the cable network.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing? There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - 1024core 9y ago
      Monica Lewinsky is nothing. When the drum beat of war in Iraq was happening, even the NYT wrote editorials supporting the war. Later, in 2004, NYT had an article ready about how Bush lied to get us into the war. But, surprise! it was not published until after the election.
      - woodandsteel 9y ago
        Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war. You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
How is resisting foreign attempts to kill your scientists wrong? Is it only right for the countries that have nukes to ever have them but no one else?

> India should follow the same. I hope not. Just because it is effective doesn’t mean it is right.

by kobeya 9y ago

> India should follow the same. I hope not. Just because it is effective doesn’t mean it is right.

t1o5 9y ago

Though this does not appeal to the pro west crowd. If you have noticed, recently there is this anti China sentiment floating around on the internet and even on hackernews as well. This IMO is purposefully engineering to make China look bad, because they have had huge progress lately. China has effectively blocked all these social conditioning tactics from their population by wielding a greater control over the internet. It is effective and it is right for their progress as a nation. If India starts to make progress, India will also be targeted. In a country divided by many languages and cultures, India is very vulnerable for social conditioning. The case of missing nuclear scientists is one of them.

secfirstmd 9y ago
"It is effective and it is right for their progress as a nation."................I'm sorry, what? What about all the journalists and activists who are arrested, harassed, tortured and disappeared in China? Is it right for their progress?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- t1o5 9y ago
  The so called first world countries, its media, and its people, with good encouragement from certain sectors in the west, often confuse themselves with the world. US fears and dislikes loss of power and being irrelevant in Asia Pacific. The public digests news from these media houses and resonate the same elsewhere. Among the state and non state actors, China is deeply disliked by global journalists too. It is also deeply disliked by Human Right Propagandists/Upholders, and the so called "global civil society on the internet". The problem is that these people have an ultra large impact on the perception because these are the people who control media, and a general person's access to information. They have abject monopoly over access to knowledge, and are deeply ideological. So much so that, these people are often found lobbying the United States and on the internet forums for policies that may harm the world. But they have huge power in Western discourse, and if they get pissed, they will start a whole ideological parade against their perceived nuisance. For US, it is simply their loss of influence that they are worried about. The biggest people, and the most vocal, which leads to this perception, are the Global Civil Western Society, who just can't tolerate a state like China's to succeed. It is against their almost fanatically religious form of worship for some ideas, systems, and ideologies most of them tend to be under the guise of pro humanitarian but in reality is borderline jealousy and the fear of losing out. This also should be read in tandem with the fact that this is the very same society which supports the NRA, African American suffrage etc. A similar phenomenon happened in the 1980s and 90s with Japan. The United States, not the world, was desperately concerned that Japan would not just pass over them in the future, but had already done so economically and culturally. The American mindset is extremely fickle, superficial, paranoid, and shortsighted when it comes to the possibility of foreign rivals. They just cant stand the very thought of competing in a global economy.
kobeya 9y ago
I'm Chinese (well, half-Chinese). I don't appreciate an opinion on individual liberty and freedom of expression, association, self-determiniation, etc. being labeled as "East vs West" or worse, connected to imperialism or being implicitly racist. The Enlightenment began with the belief that all people are equal. ALL. Doesn't matter if you are white or black or asian or indigenous, or what family, race, gender or sexual orientation you happened to be born into. The Enlightenment has torn down the institution of slavery, overthrown monarchies, revoked state-run monopolies, and given franchise to women and minorities. And it has brought monumental progress to ALL of humankind, including basically all modern technology and medicine. And we are still moving forward, this juggernaut of progress, and we are doing so BECAUSE we have freedoms. The history of the world is that of brief stints of progress being flamed out by oppressive regimes until at long last the scientific revolution took hold. I won't apologize for standing with the Enlightenment and judging governments by how well they achieve these goals for their citizens. As China seeks to control its people, it does so at the detriment of future progress not in service of it. China's anti-liberty actions and policies are regressive and on the wrong side of history. And to say that it is somehow just an expression of different culture is insulting to the Chinese people who deserve freedom and personal liberty, and dishonor to the memory of those like Sun Yat-sen and others who fought for and achieved societal revolution towards Enlightenment ideals in China and with the support of the Chinese people. There's nothing uniquely Chinese about totalitarian oppression, or anything unique about the Chinese people that make them ineligible for our sympathies.
- t1o5 9y ago
  Your opinions depends on your citizenship. When you say Chinese (well, half-Chinese), are you a citizen of China ?
  - kobeya 9y ago
    > Your opinions depends on your citizenship. Wow. I don't think anything I said got through to you.
    - t1o5 9y ago
fartcannon 9y ago
So their model works for them because it excludes external influences. But there government is just exerting it's own Orwellian influence on the group is has control of. Is there not a solution that benefits everyone in the world without one group controlling other groups? I'm curious what theoretical model has the best outcome for everyone, not just for the few people in power and their group. It would be nice if the model included controls for previous failures.
t1o5 9y ago
The very mention of it irked the hornet's nest.

perseusprime11 9y ago

I agree. China, in general, is not a good role model. U.S is a better role model.

1024core 9y ago
Anybody who thinks that the US does not control its media is naive. See, for example, how Al Jazeera and RT (granted, the latter is no bastion of independent journalism) are effectively exiled from the US. Al Jazeera had to set up an "American owned" subsidiary before it could get access to the cable network.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing? There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1024core 9y ago
    Monica Lewinsky is nothing. When the drum beat of war in Iraq was happening, even the NYT wrote editorials supporting the war. Later, in 2004, NYT had an article ready about how Bush lied to get us into the war. But, surprise! it was not published until after the election.
    - woodandsteel 9y ago
      Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war. You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

How is resisting foreign attempts to kill your scientists wrong? Is it only right for the countries that have nukes to ever have them but no one else?