5 ms·

Because China doesn't believe in individualism. You are defined by your party affiliation, friends, family, race (Han vs non-Han), and skin color (brown/"dirty"

Because China doesn't believe in individualism. You are defined by your party affiliation, friends, family, race (Han vs non-Han), and skin color (brown/"dirty"脏 Asian vs white Asian).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vankingd 7y ago
This is underrated comment. Mainlanders firmly believe in collectivism; whereas, western audiences in individuality. Therefore, Chinese people believe it is okay to kill a person to save the group. Whereas, other countries do not. Mainlanders think that is being selfish.
- kelnos 7y ago
  This isn't killing sometime to save a group, though. This is guilt by association. And it isn't even that (that's just the dishonest justification), it's just a shady hope that by detaining this fraudster's incident offspring, they can lure him back to China to arrest him. It's disgusting and reprehensible.
  - shard972 7y ago
    Again you have your individualist lens on and you are judging the situation purely based on that moral framework.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I don't think I am. The idea of prioritizing collective good means that it's ok to sacrifice one (or more) people if even more people will benefit from that action by a certain threshold amount. This... isn't that. Arresting this guy won't help or save a bunch of people. The government just wants revenge for his financial crimes, and they're unethically using his kids to try to get it.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    I don't think the government thinks the kids are guilty, I think the parent is implying something even worse: that they'd be willing to essentially throw these innocent kids under a bus to arrest the parents.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      No, I definitely got that (and apparently mistyped "innocent" as "incident"). The issue isn't that I object to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I think that is appropriate in some situations. But this doesn't feel like that; arresting this guy won't go and help or save a bunch of people. It's just revenge, and they're throwing the likely-innocent kids under the bus to get it.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  Actually, it's more of a conformist than collectivist society. The misconception comes from studies done in China regarding collectivism vs individualism in the 80s and 90s, that were 'Margaret Mead'ed: sitting people down in a formal classroom to take a test being administered by scientists with government permission didn't have the same effect in China and the western countries it was being compared to. Collectivism is commonly seen as a valuable presentation in conformism-driven social environments. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561.5342&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561...
- 044326throw 7y ago
  Other countries will make up terms like “collateral damage” when they drone strike a wedding just to kill one target.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Mainlanders believe that progress requires unity and sometimes it's okay that progress or unity costs lives.

Because China doesn't believe in individualism. You are defined by your party affiliation, friends, family, race (Han vs non-Han), and skin color (brown/"dirty"脏 Asian vs white Asian).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vankingd 7y ago

This is underrated comment. Mainlanders firmly believe in collectivism; whereas, western audiences in individuality. Therefore, Chinese people believe it is okay to kill a person to save the group. Whereas, other countries do not. Mainlanders think that is being selfish.

kelnos 7y ago
This isn't killing sometime to save a group, though. This is guilt by association. And it isn't even that (that's just the dishonest justification), it's just a shady hope that by detaining this fraudster's incident offspring, they can lure him back to China to arrest him. It's disgusting and reprehensible.
- shard972 7y ago
  Again you have your individualist lens on and you are judging the situation purely based on that moral framework.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I don't think I am. The idea of prioritizing collective good means that it's ok to sacrifice one (or more) people if even more people will benefit from that action by a certain threshold amount. This... isn't that. Arresting this guy won't help or save a bunch of people. The government just wants revenge for his financial crimes, and they're unethically using his kids to try to get it.
- chillacy 7y ago
  I don't think the government thinks the kids are guilty, I think the parent is implying something even worse: that they'd be willing to essentially throw these innocent kids under a bus to arrest the parents.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    No, I definitely got that (and apparently mistyped "innocent" as "incident"). The issue isn't that I object to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I think that is appropriate in some situations. But this doesn't feel like that; arresting this guy won't go and help or save a bunch of people. It's just revenge, and they're throwing the likely-innocent kids under the bus to get it.
WalterSear 7y ago
Actually, it's more of a conformist than collectivist society. The misconception comes from studies done in China regarding collectivism vs individualism in the 80s and 90s, that were 'Margaret Mead'ed: sitting people down in a formal classroom to take a test being administered by scientists with government permission didn't have the same effect in China and the western countries it was being compared to. Collectivism is commonly seen as a valuable presentation in conformism-driven social environments. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561.5342&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561...
044326throw 7y ago
Other countries will make up terms like “collateral damage” when they drone strike a wedding just to kill one target.
friendlybus 7y ago
Mainlanders believe that progress requires unity and sometimes it's okay that progress or unity costs lives.