6 ms·

could we address the implication here more critically? what logical reason is there for violence and bloodshed? it feels like us westerners are so prone to cari

by bllguo 7y ago

could we address the implication here more critically? what logical reason is there for violence and bloodshed? it feels like us westerners are so prone to caricature the Chinese government as some kind of cartoonish villain. to me the CCP is coldly rational, and I don't see the reasoning here for them escalating the conflict.

komali2 7y ago
They're at least as cartoonishly villainesque as early Nazi Germany given that they have reeducation camps for minorities they don't like.
- logicchains 7y ago
  There's a key difference in that the camps are actually about reeducation/brainwashing (or at least forced conversion away from Islam), as opposed to systematic slaughter of said minorities.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > as opposed to systematic slaughter of said minorities. By "early Nazis"? No. And the purpose isn't restricted to the people in them, it goes way beyond murder. > While the separation of inmates into categories was merely a tactical-organisatory measure for the the purpose of administration of the camps, the arbitrariness of committal demonstrates the essential principle of the institution as such. The existance of a political opposition is just a pretext for the concentration camp system, and its purpose is not achieved when the population more or less voluntarily conforms as consequence of the most monstrous deterrence, that is, to give up its political rights. The arbitrariness has the purpose to deprive those under the totalitarian regime of all their rights as citizens, which finally become as outlawed [vogelfrei] in their own country as otherwise only the stateless and homeless. The deprivation of humans of their rights, the killing of the juridical person in them is just a precondition of their being totally controlled, for which even voluntary agreement is a hindrance. -- Hannah Arendt That was true in China even before those camps, and that people with a cartoon understanding of history, concentration camps, Nazism, just about anything related to this, roll their eyes at "making" someone a "villain" is as predictable as it's their own fault.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - OscarCunningham 7y ago
    If you read the reports from the camps you see that there is a very high death rate. For example this woman (https://www.apnews.com/61cdf7f5dfc34575aa643523b3c6b3fe https://www.apnews.com/61cdf7f5dfc34575aa643523b3c6b3fe) claims that 9 of the 60 women in her cell died over the course of three months. Extrapolate that over 2000000 people being held and it's clear that this is genocide.
- Sojuwa 7y ago
  Do NOT compare this to the holocaust. The Jewish are the most persecuted people on earth. Meanwhile Islam is the fastest spreading all while having an ideology that literally tells them to lie/cheat/kill/lie low, as needed, to convert everyone on earth.
stevefan1999 7y ago
Because of the Chinese threat theory/yellow peril, period.
- Sojuwa 7y ago
  It's highly anti-semetic to accuse major news outlets of this.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    I like the idea that making the argument "the major media are corruptly harking back to the Yellow Peril", phrased in those terms, is "highly anti-semitic", while making the argument "the Jews control all the major media" is also "highly anti-semitic". If the first claim is anti-semitic, on what grounds can you dispute the second?
  - deehouie 7y ago
    You didn't even get the word right. It's "anti-semitic". And also pls explain and elaborate how is a piece of news about Hong Kong related to the Jews? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic
inlined 7y ago
I agree that some stereotyping might be happening, though there are several cases of aggression that fuel it. 1. Tiananmen Square was a brutal massacre that gives a visceral reaction 2. The hunting of the Falun Gong practitioners seems insane. I had a friend in the US whose family members were disappearing and were being harassed in the US. They were getting phone calls with recordings of their wiretaps. 3. China is holding ethnocidal camps for the Uyghurs 4. China threatens war quite often, whether it be about disputed islands in the South China Sea or even whether China should get to artificially set currency exchange rates. (I understand that the US is practically speaking much more belligerent, though many US citizens may be blind to their own behaviors)
clouddrover 7y ago
What logical reason is there to imprison 1 million Uyghurs in detention camps and to restricting travel and to separate husbands from wives and to separate young children from their parents. Where is the logic in doing what can only further alienate the Uyghur population? Where is the value in it? That sure looks like cartoonish villainy to me.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  Multiculturalism doesn’t seemed to have gone well in the Western world, India, or SE Asia. Have you considered China is responding to facts that are uncomfortable for your ideology?
- logicchains 7y ago
  You can read the government's formal justification at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c34ef4ae.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c... . Their argument is basically that foreign influence is trying to make Uyghurs more extreme in their religious beliefs, causing them to commit acts of terrorism. They argue that if they can completely prevent this foreign influence, and brainwash everybody who's inclined to extreme beliefs into avoiding those beliefs, they'll eliminate terrorism and keep Xinjiang safe for the majority who are not religious or not extremists. Essentially their argument is that if you can stamp out non-mild Islam, you stamp out Islamic extremism, which is a logically consistent argument (although of course whether their approach could actually stamp out extreme Islam, as opposed to just breeding more resistance, is a matter of debate). In this context their justification for preventing travel and separating families is preventing the spread of extremism and preventing communication between extremist groups. Another way to look at it. Imagine you're an amoral government bureaucrat ruling Xinjiang, and you're getting pressure from above about the terrorist attacks there (especially when Xinjiang residents are committing terrorist attacks in other provinces). Your KPI is to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to zero, and you have near unlimited funding. What's the simplest approach? Lock up anybody who has even the tiniest possibility of committing a terrorist attack, and institute the maximum amount of surveillance and monitoring that's technologically possible to identify any planned attacks. Also prevent your residents from going to other provinces, so even if they do manage to conduct a terrorist attack, it won't piss off anybody important (other province governors). That's the logic behind it.
inlined 7y ago
The “one China” philosophy is a pretty core government tenet. If Hong Kong exercises its independence it could exacerbate other territories/provinces that want independence like Tibet and Taiwan (whose residents seem to pretty explicitly consider themselves a different country) One the other hand, military action could plausibly cause long-lasting international upset. I don’t envy Xi Jinping’s position.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Taiwan is effectively a different country. Tibet used to be in a different country until China invaded in the 1950s.
- petre 7y ago
  Taiwan is de facto independent. It's just that China is sabotaging recognition of its independence through the one China policy. But that could change if a country like the US would openly challenge this.
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    The One China policy states that there is one China, either under the PRC or the ROC. The PRC claims that Taiwan is a Special Administrative Region of the PRC while the ROC claims de jure sovereignty over all of China. There are significant political parties within Taiwan itself (the Pan-Blue Coalition parties) that support the One China policy. If there isn't even internal consensus regarding independence in Taiwan, I think it's fair to say that the issue is a little more complicated than "China is sabotaging recognition of Taiwan's independence".
    - loyukfai 7y ago
      Indeed, and what's happening in Hong Kong is already affecting Taiwan, giving additional support to the pro-independent camp. BTW, the ruling party of ROC was pretty authoritarian back then too. IMO, the contrasting political development of the ROC and PRC in the last few decades is worthy of further evaluation and consideration.
lacampbell 7y ago
what logical reason is there for violence and bloodshed? Democracies tend to be more stable than dictatorships because there's a relief valve for massive public dissent - ie elections. Dictatorships often meet their end suddenly, because a revolution is the only mechanism they have to change things. It's therefore better to quell a rebellion violently and cover it up later, than risk the spread of discontentment. The reason it's not being put down bloodily (as is typically the case) is because it's an issue confined to Hong Kong with a low chance of spreading. If it dud spread over the border, things would be different.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  I understand the point you are trying to get at, and it definitely applies to other countries/dictatorships. Present-day China, however, actually has a very efficient mechanism (relief valve) for dealing with massive public dissent, which is their largely hierarchical governance model (township -> county -> prefecture -> province -> central government). When citizens have grievances, it's often against policies perceived to be imposed by local government officials. If the unrest becomes serious enough, many times these grievances are actually brought to the attention of the central government who then have an opportunity to step in to save the day and fire/replace all of the local officials involved (to the satisfaction of the mob). A surprising number of mass protests have been quelled peacefully in China in this way, over the years.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    The problem is when the local official is clearly implementing policy from the central government, such as the case now with Lam implementing an extradition treaty with the PRC. If you replace Lam and try again, the same protests would appear again because Hong Kong’s issue is not with the Legislative Council per se, it’s about this treaty from the CCP. And, the CCP has a very hard time convincing the people of Hong Kong they won’t be prosecuted for dissenting speech after the Causeway book sellers were kidnapped. Their release valve has hit a bit of a snag here. Democracy is tried and true though, maybe they could give it a try in Hong Kong?
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> the CCP is coldly rational A cold, rational CCP wouldn't have gotten itself into this mess. Hong Kong was popularly pro-China before the extradition bill. Re-integration in a few decades would have gone smoothly. But someone got impatient and jumped the gun.
- loyukfai 7y ago
  > Hong Kong was popularly pro-China before the extradition bill. Depends. For economic co-operation or dependency, probably yes. But Hong Kong people has very little faith in the Chinese legal system, most of us know it's a facade, from the grass-root to the super-rich. That's why, by pushing for the extradition law amendment, which, if passed, would allow the Chinese government to extradite "criminals" from HK based on their laws, the HK government has kicked the hornet's nest.
- jeswin 7y ago
  > Re-integration in a few decades would have gone smoothly. You over-simplify the integration of a region which has its own strong identity, liberal rules and culture. One can't tell which measures will lead to strong resentment and which will get accepted - among the many that will eventually be needed. It's probably gonna get worse unless China itself opens up. But in any case, it seems fairly evident that Hong Kong will have to fight this fight alone and the rest of the world will merely watch.
  - hker 7y ago
    > You over-simplify the integration of a region which has its own strong identity, liberal rules and culture. > It's probably gonna get worse unless China itself opens up. Agreed with both points. > One can't tell which measures will lead to strong resentment and which will get accepted - among the many that will eventually be needed. In fact the public opinion was clearly against the extradition bill, but the government has a record of passing bills against strong public opposition (e.g. the High Speed Rail and its Juxtaposed controls). > But in any case, it seems fairly evident that Hong Kong will have to fight this fight alone and the rest of the world will merely watch. Not quite. In this fight, Hong Kong has got support from Britain [1], Europe [2], the United States [3], among others. The most powerful one is the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019” [3], a bipartisan bill introduced by US Representative Jim McGovern and Senator Marco Rubio. The bill would put real pressure on China (and pro-Beijing officials) to choose between worse financial access and democracy for Hong Kong. [1]: https://www.theepochtimes.com/outgoing-uk-prime-minister-theresa-may-reiterates-commitment-to-sino-uk-joint-declaration_3007182.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/outgoing-uk-prime-minister-the... [2]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/18/european-parliament-debate-enacting-export-controls-tech-used-violate-basic-rights-hong-kong/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/18/european-parliament-de... [3]: https://time.com/5607043/hong-kong-human-rights-democracy-act/ https://time.com/5607043/hong-kong-human-rights-democracy-ac...
my_username_is_ 7y ago
Military response would draw a lot of negative responses from the international community, and would be a clear rebuke of the "one country, two systems" that Hong Kong is supposed to be operating under. This could put HK's special economic status in jeopardy, which would be both damaging to Beijing as well as the HK business elite. It's better for the CCP if they can have the city suppress the protests using their own police force. After all, Western countries use the police to control protests all the time.

by bllguo 7y ago

komali2 7y ago

They're at least as cartoonishly villainesque as early Nazi Germany given that they have reeducation camps for minorities they don't like.

logicchains 7y ago
There's a key difference in that the camps are actually about reeducation/brainwashing (or at least forced conversion away from Islam), as opposed to systematic slaughter of said minorities.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > as opposed to systematic slaughter of said minorities. By "early Nazis"? No. And the purpose isn't restricted to the people in them, it goes way beyond murder. > While the separation of inmates into categories was merely a tactical-organisatory measure for the the purpose of administration of the camps, the arbitrariness of committal demonstrates the essential principle of the institution as such. The existance of a political opposition is just a pretext for the concentration camp system, and its purpose is not achieved when the population more or less voluntarily conforms as consequence of the most monstrous deterrence, that is, to give up its political rights. The arbitrariness has the purpose to deprive those under the totalitarian regime of all their rights as citizens, which finally become as outlawed [vogelfrei] in their own country as otherwise only the stateless and homeless. The deprivation of humans of their rights, the killing of the juridical person in them is just a precondition of their being totally controlled, for which even voluntary agreement is a hindrance. -- Hannah Arendt That was true in China even before those camps, and that people with a cartoon understanding of history, concentration camps, Nazism, just about anything related to this, roll their eyes at "making" someone a "villain" is as predictable as it's their own fault.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- OscarCunningham 7y ago
  If you read the reports from the camps you see that there is a very high death rate. For example this woman (https://www.apnews.com/61cdf7f5dfc34575aa643523b3c6b3fe https://www.apnews.com/61cdf7f5dfc34575aa643523b3c6b3fe) claims that 9 of the 60 women in her cell died over the course of three months. Extrapolate that over 2000000 people being held and it's clear that this is genocide.
Sojuwa 7y ago
Do NOT compare this to the holocaust. The Jewish are the most persecuted people on earth. Meanwhile Islam is the fastest spreading all while having an ideology that literally tells them to lie/cheat/kill/lie low, as needed, to convert everyone on earth.

stevefan1999 7y ago

Because of the Chinese threat theory/yellow peril, period.

Sojuwa 7y ago
It's highly anti-semetic to accuse major news outlets of this.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  I like the idea that making the argument "the major media are corruptly harking back to the Yellow Peril", phrased in those terms, is "highly anti-semitic", while making the argument "the Jews control all the major media" is also "highly anti-semitic". If the first claim is anti-semitic, on what grounds can you dispute the second?
- deehouie 7y ago
  You didn't even get the word right. It's "anti-semitic". And also pls explain and elaborate how is a piece of news about Hong Kong related to the Jews? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitic

inlined 7y ago

I agree that some stereotyping might be happening, though there are several cases of aggression that fuel it. 1. Tiananmen Square was a brutal massacre that gives a visceral reaction 2. The hunting of the Falun Gong practitioners seems insane. I had a friend in the US whose family members were disappearing and were being harassed in the US. They were getting phone calls with recordings of their wiretaps. 3. China is holding ethnocidal camps for the Uyghurs 4. China threatens war quite often, whether it be about disputed islands in the South China Sea or even whether China should get to artificially set currency exchange rates. (I understand that the US is practically speaking much more belligerent, though many US citizens may be blind to their own behaviors)

clouddrover 7y ago

What logical reason is there to imprison 1 million Uyghurs in detention camps and to restricting travel and to separate husbands from wives and to separate young children from their parents. Where is the logic in doing what can only further alienate the Uyghur population? Where is the value in it? That sure looks like cartoonish villainy to me.

FakeComments 7y ago
Multiculturalism doesn’t seemed to have gone well in the Western world, India, or SE Asia. Have you considered China is responding to facts that are uncomfortable for your ideology?
logicchains 7y ago
You can read the government's formal justification at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c34ef4ae.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9033f0a3106c65c... . Their argument is basically that foreign influence is trying to make Uyghurs more extreme in their religious beliefs, causing them to commit acts of terrorism. They argue that if they can completely prevent this foreign influence, and brainwash everybody who's inclined to extreme beliefs into avoiding those beliefs, they'll eliminate terrorism and keep Xinjiang safe for the majority who are not religious or not extremists. Essentially their argument is that if you can stamp out non-mild Islam, you stamp out Islamic extremism, which is a logically consistent argument (although of course whether their approach could actually stamp out extreme Islam, as opposed to just breeding more resistance, is a matter of debate). In this context their justification for preventing travel and separating families is preventing the spread of extremism and preventing communication between extremist groups. Another way to look at it. Imagine you're an amoral government bureaucrat ruling Xinjiang, and you're getting pressure from above about the terrorist attacks there (especially when Xinjiang residents are committing terrorist attacks in other provinces). Your KPI is to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to zero, and you have near unlimited funding. What's the simplest approach? Lock up anybody who has even the tiniest possibility of committing a terrorist attack, and institute the maximum amount of surveillance and monitoring that's technologically possible to identify any planned attacks. Also prevent your residents from going to other provinces, so even if they do manage to conduct a terrorist attack, it won't piss off anybody important (other province governors). That's the logic behind it.

inlined 7y ago

The “one China” philosophy is a pretty core government tenet. If Hong Kong exercises its independence it could exacerbate other territories/provinces that want independence like Tibet and Taiwan (whose residents seem to pretty explicitly consider themselves a different country) One the other hand, military action could plausibly cause long-lasting international upset. I don’t envy Xi Jinping’s position.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Taiwan is effectively a different country. Tibet used to be in a different country until China invaded in the 1950s.
petre 7y ago
Taiwan is de facto independent. It's just that China is sabotaging recognition of its independence through the one China policy. But that could change if a country like the US would openly challenge this.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  The One China policy states that there is one China, either under the PRC or the ROC. The PRC claims that Taiwan is a Special Administrative Region of the PRC while the ROC claims de jure sovereignty over all of China. There are significant political parties within Taiwan itself (the Pan-Blue Coalition parties) that support the One China policy. If there isn't even internal consensus regarding independence in Taiwan, I think it's fair to say that the issue is a little more complicated than "China is sabotaging recognition of Taiwan's independence".
  - loyukfai 7y ago
    Indeed, and what's happening in Hong Kong is already affecting Taiwan, giving additional support to the pro-independent camp. BTW, the ruling party of ROC was pretty authoritarian back then too. IMO, the contrasting political development of the ROC and PRC in the last few decades is worthy of further evaluation and consideration.

lacampbell 7y ago

what logical reason is there for violence and bloodshed? Democracies tend to be more stable than dictatorships because there's a relief valve for massive public dissent - ie elections. Dictatorships often meet their end suddenly, because a revolution is the only mechanism they have to change things. It's therefore better to quell a rebellion violently and cover it up later, than risk the spread of discontentment. The reason it's not being put down bloodily (as is typically the case) is because it's an issue confined to Hong Kong with a low chance of spreading. If it dud spread over the border, things would be different.

tepidandroid 7y ago
I understand the point you are trying to get at, and it definitely applies to other countries/dictatorships. Present-day China, however, actually has a very efficient mechanism (relief valve) for dealing with massive public dissent, which is their largely hierarchical governance model (township -> county -> prefecture -> province -> central government). When citizens have grievances, it's often against policies perceived to be imposed by local government officials. If the unrest becomes serious enough, many times these grievances are actually brought to the attention of the central government who then have an opportunity to step in to save the day and fire/replace all of the local officials involved (to the satisfaction of the mob). A surprising number of mass protests have been quelled peacefully in China in this way, over the years.
- pimmen 7y ago
  The problem is when the local official is clearly implementing policy from the central government, such as the case now with Lam implementing an extradition treaty with the PRC. If you replace Lam and try again, the same protests would appear again because Hong Kong’s issue is not with the Legislative Council per se, it’s about this treaty from the CCP. And, the CCP has a very hard time convincing the people of Hong Kong they won’t be prosecuted for dissenting speech after the Causeway book sellers were kidnapped. Their release valve has hit a bit of a snag here. Democracy is tried and true though, maybe they could give it a try in Hong Kong?

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> the CCP is coldly rational A cold, rational CCP wouldn't have gotten itself into this mess. Hong Kong was popularly pro-China before the extradition bill. Re-integration in a few decades would have gone smoothly. But someone got impatient and jumped the gun.

loyukfai 7y ago
> Hong Kong was popularly pro-China before the extradition bill. Depends. For economic co-operation or dependency, probably yes. But Hong Kong people has very little faith in the Chinese legal system, most of us know it's a facade, from the grass-root to the super-rich. That's why, by pushing for the extradition law amendment, which, if passed, would allow the Chinese government to extradite "criminals" from HK based on their laws, the HK government has kicked the hornet's nest.
jeswin 7y ago
> Re-integration in a few decades would have gone smoothly. You over-simplify the integration of a region which has its own strong identity, liberal rules and culture. One can't tell which measures will lead to strong resentment and which will get accepted - among the many that will eventually be needed. It's probably gonna get worse unless China itself opens up. But in any case, it seems fairly evident that Hong Kong will have to fight this fight alone and the rest of the world will merely watch.
- hker 7y ago
  > You over-simplify the integration of a region which has its own strong identity, liberal rules and culture. > It's probably gonna get worse unless China itself opens up. Agreed with both points. > One can't tell which measures will lead to strong resentment and which will get accepted - among the many that will eventually be needed. In fact the public opinion was clearly against the extradition bill, but the government has a record of passing bills against strong public opposition (e.g. the High Speed Rail and its Juxtaposed controls). > But in any case, it seems fairly evident that Hong Kong will have to fight this fight alone and the rest of the world will merely watch. Not quite. In this fight, Hong Kong has got support from Britain [1], Europe [2], the United States [3], among others. The most powerful one is the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019” [3], a bipartisan bill introduced by US Representative Jim McGovern and Senator Marco Rubio. The bill would put real pressure on China (and pro-Beijing officials) to choose between worse financial access and democracy for Hong Kong. [1]: https://www.theepochtimes.com/outgoing-uk-prime-minister-theresa-may-reiterates-commitment-to-sino-uk-joint-declaration_3007182.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/outgoing-uk-prime-minister-the... [2]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/18/european-parliament-debate-enacting-export-controls-tech-used-violate-basic-rights-hong-kong/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/18/european-parliament-de... [3]: https://time.com/5607043/hong-kong-human-rights-democracy-act/ https://time.com/5607043/hong-kong-human-rights-democracy-ac...

my_username_is_ 7y ago

Military response would draw a lot of negative responses from the international community, and would be a clear rebuke of the "one country, two systems" that Hong Kong is supposed to be operating under. This could put HK's special economic status in jeopardy, which would be both damaging to Beijing as well as the HK business elite. It's better for the CCP if they can have the city suppress the protests using their own police force. After all, Western countries use the police to control protests all the time.