10 ms·
Looks similar to what happens in the UK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF_rvhsGjBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF_rvhsGjBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?
by jimclegg 7y ago
Looks similar to what happens in the UK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF_rvhsGjBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF_rvhsGjBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Xr4nfKsWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Xr4nfKsWk
Wonder what she typed.
- jdm2212 7y agoOne is a country with rule of law enforcing its laws. The other is an autocracy enforcing the whims of the current ruler.
- threwawasy1228 7y agoThis is such a ridiculous framing, so in your opinion by this logic, if Xi was democratically elected by a free and fair election, and then proceeded to ban memes via a legislative branch that would be perfectly fine? I think what the UK is doing is equally shameful. This kind of "its ok when the west does it" type of narrative is why when I talk to Chinese students about censorship issues they can consistently point to Western censorship of topics with smugness. "Oh but those things we ban here are anti-PC, so we are offended by them", sounds eerily similar to, "Oh but those things we ban here are anti-CCP, so we are offended by them".
- jdm2212 7y agoThere are two separate issues with China banning memes: 1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances 2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot.
- jimclegg 7y ago>A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot. China has mechanisms to change laws but they have to be routed through the proper channels. From what I understand, individuals can complain all they want, as long as they don't organize outside of these designated channels. This definitely pisses off the % of western governments that use "grassroots" movements as an attack vector to undermine unfavorable foreign governments.
- stickfigure 7y ago"Individuals can complain all they want, as long as it is in their own homes, with no more than two individuals present, and they must be blood-related."
- jdm2212 7y agoThe only effective way to change laws is to organize. "you can change laws, but you can't organize to do so" is in effect saying you cannot change the laws. And that's by design -- China is an autocracy.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoTo paraphrase Yakov Smirnoff: "USA and Soviet Union have same freedom. In USA I can I can drive to White House and complain about Reagan; in Soviet Russia I can also drive to Kremlin and complain about Reagan."
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoComplaining about Reagan didn’t do much to protect us anyway, we gave our power away willingly.
- munk-a 7y agoThe US is hardly perfect... 1. The US has long operated offshore prisons where human rights are routinely abused (though harvesting organs is never a thing I've heard of happening in them) 2. The US routinely silences comedians when they're reported to say something impolite or against the grain - remember Kathy Griffin?
- disease 7y agoWhat is your source on the United States government taking action against Kathy Griffin?
- munk-a 7y agoThe US Government publicly shamed her over her post - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/869874798087819264 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/86987479808781926... this lead to hardships for her[1] that I believe aren't debated? As per statements by the white house[2] and other branches[3] that twitter account is an official channel of US Government policy, I think this is reasonable and generally accepted[4]. 1. https://ew.com/news/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-broke-me/ https://ew.com/news/2017/06/02/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-br... 2. https://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-statements/ https://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-st... 3. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-trump-tweets-are-official-statements-of/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-... 4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/07/11/trump-violates-first-amendment-with-every-twitter-user-he-blocks-lawsuit-contends/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/07/11/tru...
- PKop 7y agoBoth points are perfectly encapsulated in UK hate speech laws. They subvert free speech with the heckler's veto, and there's nothing anyone can do about them, "democratic" or not.
- jdm2212 7y agoPeople in the UK can vote out the government and change the laws that way. People in China can't.
- gamblor956 7y agoThis is such a ridiculous framing, so in your opinion by this logic, if Xi was democratically elected by a free and fair election, and then proceeded to ban memes via a legislative branch that would be perfectly fine? You've just described India under Modi...
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoRule of law is used by all states regardless of quality. What makes China autocratic but, say, national security letters non-autocratic?
- freeopinion 7y agoSo if the lady in China went down to the police station, called a lawyer, and got released 6 hours later, everything's ok? If the folks in UK got released 2 months later, everything's ok?
- jdm2212 7y agoRule of law is not about whether the outcome in a particular case is good or bad, or whether a particular law is good or bad. It's about whether the outcome is arbitrary, and whether you have recourse when the outcome does not align with the law as written. When the state can arrest people and imprison them (or release them) arbitrarily, you don't have rule of law.
- philipov 7y agoDoes that mean if the law says the police have arbitrary discretion to decide who to imprison, then the outcomes align with the law as written and you still have rule of law? How about if the law is written so strictly that everything is an offense, such that it's impossible to enforce on everyone, and you choose to not enforce it against people you like? Any case where it is enforced, you can still point to the law and say the outcome aligned with it. And what if the law unequivocally says a certain group of people are slaves, is this justified simply because the outcome is not arbitrary and there is a codified rule of law? Whether the law is right or wrong does matter.
- jdm2212 7y agoThe relevant metric is whether you can reliably predict the outcome of almost any interaction with the government. If government actors are constrained by the law, you can reasonably predict what they will do. If the law is just a fig leaf, you won't be able to predict their behavior. No society is entirely autocratic or entirely governed by the rule of law, but they tend to cluster at one end or the other.
- philipov 7y ago
- munk-a 7y agoI agree it's a bad idea to crush the will of the people under our feet and force them to bend to our will - which is why I completely disagree with your statement. I dislike China's government but I feel like America, with it's track record, really shouldn't start talking about how nice regime change would be. For the time being, while the government may be autocratic, it is enforcing it's law and you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world where the rule of law rules harder.
- SllX 7y agoAn autocratic government is inherently antithetical to the Rule of Law. They are mutually exclusive.
- munk-a 7y agoPlease expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoIt is more about having a divided government. Many democratic societies have a separation between at least two, sometimes three branches of government, allowing for one to check the other. In the USA’s case, the judicial branch interprets law. China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the official don’t want to enforce (see China’s constitution that with freedom of speech, assembly, and so on...). By definition, this concentration of power is authoritarian, so these things go hand in hand.
- munk-a 7y agoBut within the US we observed that the judiciary was hijacked by the congress with their failure to appoint a justice in a timely manner and lately the congress has been acquiescing to the executive - going against prior initiatives and momentum to stay in good political graces owing to the intense cult of personality over the executive. I think from country to country the amount by which different branches check one another will vary - and I agree that stronger checks leads to a stronger government - I just disagree that this is a black and white issue rather than a grey one.
- journalctl 7y agoAh, there it is. “What about the UK? What about the US? Hmmm?” We’re talking about China. The state being able to disappear people is not okay anyway, which includes China, where it seems to happen a lot more frequently than other countries.
- 99_00 7y agoWhataboutism Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Why does most of the Chinese use "whataboutism" to defend their country? https://www.quora.com/Why-does-most-of-the-Chinese-use-whataboutism-to-defend-their-country https://www.quora.com/Why-does-most-of-the-Chinese-use-whata...