4 ms·

I am really disappointed in BBC's reporting here. They chose to interpret a idiom in a literal way just to make a maximally controversial headline. Even in wux

I am really disappointed in BBC's reporting here. They chose to interpret a idiom in a literal way just to make a maximally controversial headline. Even in wuxia novels where I see this phrase used the most, the phrase is never used literally (And in those fictional universes turning people into powder is actually possible). If you choose to translate chinese literally you can make anyone sound insane. Focus on the intent. He is very much saying he will destroy those people. But not necessarily by crushing bones.

sachdevap 7y ago
Ah, I see. That makes it so much better. I am glad he'll only destroy them without crushing their bones.
- throwaway_bad 7y ago
  I am not a native english speaker so I don't know if you're trying to take my words literally too. It's just conveying an intensity, not any specific action. Just like how "wiping the floor" with someone doesn't mean you're going to beat someone unconscious and use their body as a literal mop. That would warrant immediately calling the police or justifiable homicide in self-defense. That's obviously an insane way to interpret that phrase but that's what I am seeing here. It's still a menacing threat but no chinese person is interpreting it as tanks being imminent (like how many english speakers would interpret the threat of literal crushed bones). If tanks do roll in, it is an escalation of the current situation but it's nowhere close to what is being said here.
  - shard972 7y ago
    He's using sarcasm to point out destruction is still destruction, whether or not bones are broken.
- ohnidoertous 7y ago
  Imaging someone translating “United we stand, divided we fall” into “If we don’t work togeter, he’s going to split you into pieces.”
Aperocky 7y ago
He’s not (directly) referring to HK though, the sentence he said was ‘Any attempt to separate a part of China will be met with $IDIOM’. Now, protester were explicitly refraining from mentioning separatism in their demands, so take that into consideration.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
My understanding is that the remark was made in general terms, though of course it may be interpreted as aimed at HK. The BBC chose to make it specifically about Hongkong from the very first words of their article's title.
- dmix 7y ago
  Which is interesting because he was in a region next to Tibet when he said it which also has a long history of independence. They didn’t mention that once.
dmurray 7y ago
It's reminiscent of the "quote" from Ahmedinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map". It's as if the journalists, or those who feed them, look for the most incendiary and provocative free translation that can be justified by a dictionary or thesaurus.
- azinman2 7y ago
  Yet they’re undergoing a shadow war. What was incorrect in reporting his sentiment?
  - dmurray 7y ago
    He obviously doesn't like Israel, and expresses negative sentiments about Israel. But there's a range of free translations from "Palestinians should have sovereignty over Jerusalem" to "All Jews should be exterminated". Reporting Ahmedinejad's words as being closer to the latter is a way to paint him as a monster, stoke anti-Iran sentiment in the West, and soften up Western populations so that they will favour an eventual USA-Iran war.
    - azinman2 7y ago
      According to this that isn’t correct either, but worth noting that the Iranians started putting up build boards with the English text even if incorrectly translated originally: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a...
nyxtom 7y ago
This is actually very helpful way to understand the utility of news organizations to maximize emotional appeals in order to garner attention by directly (or perhaps unintentionally) misinterpreting/misusing the intent of the speaker. As a general practice, the intent of the speaker isn't necessarily well known unless you have seen the evidence of its use in practice. Fascinating take on the misuse (or in this case likely purposeful misuse) of language.
- dmix 7y ago
  Except when it’s selectively done with an agenda. Which seems to happen far too often. There’s enough real bad stuff going on in the world. Inventing or purposefully twisting it only creates opportunities to completely dismiss the paper’s original point. There’s a good reason trust in the media is super low and it’s not just because some influential people claim “fake news” at every chance. There’s plenty of real examples on a daily basis if you spend the time to look into what is being said. The media is often their own worst enemy when it comes to holding bad guys accountable.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
I see a lot of comments that amount to "he's not literally threatening violence, he's only using an idiom that, historically and culturally, heavily implies violence." Which...I guess is a little better, arguably.

sachdevap 7y ago

Ah, I see. That makes it so much better. I am glad he'll only destroy them without crushing their bones.

throwaway_bad 7y ago
I am not a native english speaker so I don't know if you're trying to take my words literally too. It's just conveying an intensity, not any specific action. Just like how "wiping the floor" with someone doesn't mean you're going to beat someone unconscious and use their body as a literal mop. That would warrant immediately calling the police or justifiable homicide in self-defense. That's obviously an insane way to interpret that phrase but that's what I am seeing here. It's still a menacing threat but no chinese person is interpreting it as tanks being imminent (like how many english speakers would interpret the threat of literal crushed bones). If tanks do roll in, it is an escalation of the current situation but it's nowhere close to what is being said here.
- shard972 7y ago
  He's using sarcasm to point out destruction is still destruction, whether or not bones are broken.
ohnidoertous 7y ago
Imaging someone translating “United we stand, divided we fall” into “If we don’t work togeter, he’s going to split you into pieces.”

Aperocky 7y ago

He’s not (directly) referring to HK though, the sentence he said was ‘Any attempt to separate a part of China will be met with $IDIOM’. Now, protester were explicitly refraining from mentioning separatism in their demands, so take that into consideration.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

My understanding is that the remark was made in general terms, though of course it may be interpreted as aimed at HK. The BBC chose to make it specifically about Hongkong from the very first words of their article's title.

dmix 7y ago
Which is interesting because he was in a region next to Tibet when he said it which also has a long history of independence. They didn’t mention that once.

dmurray 7y ago

It's reminiscent of the "quote" from Ahmedinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map". It's as if the journalists, or those who feed them, look for the most incendiary and provocative free translation that can be justified by a dictionary or thesaurus.

azinman2 7y ago
Yet they’re undergoing a shadow war. What was incorrect in reporting his sentiment?
- dmurray 7y ago
  He obviously doesn't like Israel, and expresses negative sentiments about Israel. But there's a range of free translations from "Palestinians should have sovereignty over Jerusalem" to "All Jews should be exterminated". Reporting Ahmedinejad's words as being closer to the latter is a way to paint him as a monster, stoke anti-Iran sentiment in the West, and soften up Western populations so that they will favour an eventual USA-Iran war.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    According to this that isn’t correct either, but worth noting that the Iranians started putting up build boards with the English text even if incorrectly translated originally: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a...

nyxtom 7y ago

This is actually very helpful way to understand the utility of news organizations to maximize emotional appeals in order to garner attention by directly (or perhaps unintentionally) misinterpreting/misusing the intent of the speaker. As a general practice, the intent of the speaker isn't necessarily well known unless you have seen the evidence of its use in practice. Fascinating take on the misuse (or in this case likely purposeful misuse) of language.

dmix 7y ago
Except when it’s selectively done with an agenda. Which seems to happen far too often. There’s enough real bad stuff going on in the world. Inventing or purposefully twisting it only creates opportunities to completely dismiss the paper’s original point. There’s a good reason trust in the media is super low and it’s not just because some influential people claim “fake news” at every chance. There’s plenty of real examples on a daily basis if you spend the time to look into what is being said. The media is often their own worst enemy when it comes to holding bad guys accountable.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

I see a lot of comments that amount to "he's not literally threatening violence, he's only using an idiom that, historically and culturally, heavily implies violence." Which...I guess is a little better, arguably.