6 ms·

Held in "secret detention" and posting a full apology including praise for the government. It sounds like the Chinese government is in full tyranny mode.

24gttghh 8y ago
As opposed to when it wasn't in full tyranny mode... when exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequence... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China#Technical_implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China#T... etc, etc...
- rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
  I mean you could technically go all the way back to the Qin emperor and the Great Wall...
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I suppose, if you want to argue on explicitly racist grounds, that you might do that. I wouldn't because the states where those things happened don't even exist anymore.
    - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
      What’s racist about it? The Chinese state has a very long and well documented history of brutal authoritarianism spanning many emperors and dynasties. Mao didn’t change that and neither did Xi. If you think I meant anything about Chinese individuals maybe you should re-examine my words and your conclusions...
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        I think you're a bit confused about the nature and continuity of the "Chinese state." How do you account, for instance, for warlords ruling the country in the early 20th C., if it's just a series of emperors ruling a unified country for thousands of years? Given the fractured continuity, it seems to me that you could only argue for the unchanging cruelty of Chinese rule by arguing that there's something cruel about Chinese people or their culture.
        rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
        Wew lad, that’s an awful lot of words you’re putting into my mouth. If I had argued similarly that the American state has a history of brutality, which it does (Native American genocide, slavery, colonialism, for-profit prison labor, etc) am I subsequently arguing that Americans themselves are cruel? Of course not. Self-centered, detached, unaware of their constitutional privileges to change things or unwilling to use them, perhaps. But certainly not cruel. I would welcome a discussion about the nuances of Chinese dynasties, individual emperors, interdynastic states of affairs, and so on, but come on, but let’s at least have a conversation in good faith, ok? Perhaps a point to start with: individuals with very little power compared to the state have little to no say in the state’s affairs. If the state is brutal and cruel, how much of that is their responsibility? Could they be blamed for political inactivity if it only brings suffering on their household? Are they complicit in th activities of the state if they merely want to make money and live a comfortable life with their friends and families, given that they pay taxes which are used for wars and state suppression?
        emodendroket 8y ago
        America is a poor example because it has only existed for a few hundred years with essentially continuous government. My objection to what you're saying is that you want to lump together every various dynasty that's ruled China with every modern government, when there is little basis for doing so besides ethnic ones. Would you appeal to the cruelty of the Merovingians to say France has always been cruel? I'd guess the thought wouldn't even occur to you.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    Sure, but for this argument I think the most recent Chinese Civil war to present (1927- ) will suffice. I don't give the KMT a free pass either just because they were buddy-buddy with the "West". Different sides of the same autocratic coin if you ask me. edit: And before this devolves any further, no I don't give the "West" a pass for its tyrannical tendencies either...
- Chinese 8y ago
  Why censor illegal contents is tyranny? How come we have no power to delete those contents? Your country has your law, and our has ours. Our Chinese people have the right to delete what we think are illegal contents!
- Symmetry 8y ago
  for a while after Mao's death China functioned more as an authoritarian oligarchy than a totalitarian dictatorship. Not a liberal democracy by any means but clearly less bad. This has been reversing somewhat under Xi Jinping.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    China was never really a totalitarian dictatorship under Mao either, he mostly got forced out of power by the rest of the communist party in 1959 after his great leap forward reforms resulted in millions dying. He never really regained power except in a sort of spiritual sense. There is a lot of complex political history in communist China. Its most certainly incorrect to compare Mao with Xi.
    - ArchTypical 8y ago
      > Totalitarianism is a political concept that defines a mode of government, which prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life He was unabashedly and indisputably, totalitarian. The fact that he lost power eventually, is irrelevant. Every type of leader, eventually, loses power.
      - throwaway2048 8y ago
        The key term was dictatorship, not totalitarian, China under the communist party has always been totalitarian. You don't need a dictatorship for horrific things to occur.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    >[...] China functioned more as an authoritarian oligarchy than a totalitarian dictatorship Those both still sound like tyranny to me.
- CyberDildonics 8y ago
  He didn't say anything about it being new, I don't know why you would try to take the opposite side of an argument that didn't exist.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
See "Life and Death in Shanghai" by Cheng Nien, this isn't exactly "new" behavior for the Chinese government.

24gttghh 8y ago

As opposed to when it wasn't in full tyranny mode... when exactly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequence... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China#Technical_implementation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China#T... etc, etc...

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
I mean you could technically go all the way back to the Qin emperor and the Great Wall...
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I suppose, if you want to argue on explicitly racist grounds, that you might do that. I wouldn't because the states where those things happened don't even exist anymore.
  - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
    What’s racist about it? The Chinese state has a very long and well documented history of brutal authoritarianism spanning many emperors and dynasties. Mao didn’t change that and neither did Xi. If you think I meant anything about Chinese individuals maybe you should re-examine my words and your conclusions...
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I think you're a bit confused about the nature and continuity of the "Chinese state." How do you account, for instance, for warlords ruling the country in the early 20th C., if it's just a series of emperors ruling a unified country for thousands of years? Given the fractured continuity, it seems to me that you could only argue for the unchanging cruelty of Chinese rule by arguing that there's something cruel about Chinese people or their culture.
      - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
        Wew lad, that’s an awful lot of words you’re putting into my mouth. If I had argued similarly that the American state has a history of brutality, which it does (Native American genocide, slavery, colonialism, for-profit prison labor, etc) am I subsequently arguing that Americans themselves are cruel? Of course not. Self-centered, detached, unaware of their constitutional privileges to change things or unwilling to use them, perhaps. But certainly not cruel. I would welcome a discussion about the nuances of Chinese dynasties, individual emperors, interdynastic states of affairs, and so on, but come on, but let’s at least have a conversation in good faith, ok? Perhaps a point to start with: individuals with very little power compared to the state have little to no say in the state’s affairs. If the state is brutal and cruel, how much of that is their responsibility? Could they be blamed for political inactivity if it only brings suffering on their household? Are they complicit in th activities of the state if they merely want to make money and live a comfortable life with their friends and families, given that they pay taxes which are used for wars and state suppression?
        emodendroket 8y ago
        America is a poor example because it has only existed for a few hundred years with essentially continuous government. My objection to what you're saying is that you want to lump together every various dynasty that's ruled China with every modern government, when there is little basis for doing so besides ethnic ones. Would you appeal to the cruelty of the Merovingians to say France has always been cruel? I'd guess the thought wouldn't even occur to you.
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  Sure, but for this argument I think the most recent Chinese Civil war to present (1927- ) will suffice. I don't give the KMT a free pass either just because they were buddy-buddy with the "West". Different sides of the same autocratic coin if you ask me. edit: And before this devolves any further, no I don't give the "West" a pass for its tyrannical tendencies either...
Chinese 8y ago
Why censor illegal contents is tyranny? How come we have no power to delete those contents? Your country has your law, and our has ours. Our Chinese people have the right to delete what we think are illegal contents!
Symmetry 8y ago
for a while after Mao's death China functioned more as an authoritarian oligarchy than a totalitarian dictatorship. Not a liberal democracy by any means but clearly less bad. This has been reversing somewhat under Xi Jinping.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  China was never really a totalitarian dictatorship under Mao either, he mostly got forced out of power by the rest of the communist party in 1959 after his great leap forward reforms resulted in millions dying. He never really regained power except in a sort of spiritual sense. There is a lot of complex political history in communist China. Its most certainly incorrect to compare Mao with Xi.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Totalitarianism is a political concept that defines a mode of government, which prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life He was unabashedly and indisputably, totalitarian. The fact that he lost power eventually, is irrelevant. Every type of leader, eventually, loses power.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      The key term was dictatorship, not totalitarian, China under the communist party has always been totalitarian. You don't need a dictatorship for horrific things to occur.
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  >[...] China functioned more as an authoritarian oligarchy than a totalitarian dictatorship Those both still sound like tyranny to me.
CyberDildonics 8y ago
He didn't say anything about it being new, I don't know why you would try to take the opposite side of an argument that didn't exist.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

See "Life and Death in Shanghai" by Cheng Nien, this isn't exactly "new" behavior for the Chinese government.