4 ms·

> You would have to stretch credulity to interpret this as an enthusiastic call for literal violence. Is it reasonable to assume that violent metaphors are mea

> You would have to stretch credulity to interpret this as an enthusiastic call for literal violence. Is it reasonable to assume that violent metaphors are meant to be taken 100% figuratively and not imply actual violence, given that China has been more than happy to employ actual violence against its own citizens before? It feels like nitpicking to say that it's malicious to assume violent intent at all, just because the wording doesn't literally, explicitly call for violence.

flag23147 7y ago
Yes, it is very common to use exaggerations in Chinese and when a certain exaggeration is widely accepted, its figurative meaning took over its literal character-by-character meaning. So when the idiom is used, the four characters are interpreted as one word that describes its figurative meaning. Let me give you an example: in ancient Chinese it is a standard greeting to wish the emperor to live ten thousand years, literally. But everyone understands that it just means very long life.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > Yes, it is very common to use exaggerations in Chinese and when a certain exaggeration is widely accepted, its figurative meaning took over its literal character-by-character meaning. All that is also true in English, of course. But one does want to take context and history into account. If an office worker says "I'm gonna kick his ass" when a coworker makes a stupid mistake, you assume he's being figurative and is just going to reprimand the coworker. If a drunk guy with a history of violence says the same thing, a reasonable person assumes they intend actual violence. Given that China has a rich and recent history of using violence to suppress dissent, including in the specific situation we're discussing, Hong Kong, it seems pretty disingenuous to claim that their intentions here are purely peaceful.
dirtyid 7y ago
Violence is always implied when it comes to redline separatism concerns. Beijing has consistently stated that all options are on the table for HK. The question is whether the idiom should be interpreted as an alarmist "warning" for the possibility of immediate action on the ground. It shouldn't, otherwise hundreds of millions of Chinese nationalist on Weibo eager for HK to burn would be creaming their pants. >more than happy to employ actual violence against its own citizens before Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article. As if 6/4 didn't literally put the country on the brink of a civil war. No one was happy at what was done. Also I think it should be recognized that the imagery of Chinese violence in western audience mind is going to be tied to Tianamen, especially with the crushing idiom. This is an outdated heuristic, China spends more money on (non-lethal) domestic security than (lethal) military, no small part due to reverberations from 6/4. There are thousands of Chinese protests every week, the state is very good containing public disorder non-lethally now. There won't be tanks on the ground but sometimes it feels like many western observers perversely hope it would happen to validate their biases. Compare 1967 Detriot Riot where the National Guard was called with modern riot protocols or the Dakota Pipeline Protests. China is either going to wait this out, or contain the problem with non-lethal methods.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article. You've just been chiding me for taking figures of speech too literally. Obviously I don't think anyone was cheering and handing out champagne as they gave the order.

flag23147 7y ago

Yes, it is very common to use exaggerations in Chinese and when a certain exaggeration is widely accepted, its figurative meaning took over its literal character-by-character meaning. So when the idiom is used, the four characters are interpreted as one word that describes its figurative meaning. Let me give you an example: in ancient Chinese it is a standard greeting to wish the emperor to live ten thousand years, literally. But everyone understands that it just means very long life.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> Yes, it is very common to use exaggerations in Chinese and when a certain exaggeration is widely accepted, its figurative meaning took over its literal character-by-character meaning. All that is also true in English, of course. But one does want to take context and history into account. If an office worker says "I'm gonna kick his ass" when a coworker makes a stupid mistake, you assume he's being figurative and is just going to reprimand the coworker. If a drunk guy with a history of violence says the same thing, a reasonable person assumes they intend actual violence. Given that China has a rich and recent history of using violence to suppress dissent, including in the specific situation we're discussing, Hong Kong, it seems pretty disingenuous to claim that their intentions here are purely peaceful.

dirtyid 7y ago

Violence is always implied when it comes to redline separatism concerns. Beijing has consistently stated that all options are on the table for HK. The question is whether the idiom should be interpreted as an alarmist "warning" for the possibility of immediate action on the ground. It shouldn't, otherwise hundreds of millions of Chinese nationalist on Weibo eager for HK to burn would be creaming their pants. >more than happy to employ actual violence against its own citizens before Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article. As if 6/4 didn't literally put the country on the brink of a civil war. No one was happy at what was done. Also I think it should be recognized that the imagery of Chinese violence in western audience mind is going to be tied to Tianamen, especially with the crushing idiom. This is an outdated heuristic, China spends more money on (non-lethal) domestic security than (lethal) military, no small part due to reverberations from 6/4. There are thousands of Chinese protests every week, the state is very good containing public disorder non-lethally now. There won't be tanks on the ground but sometimes it feels like many western observers perversely hope it would happen to validate their biases. Compare 1967 Detriot Riot where the National Guard was called with modern riot protocols or the Dakota Pipeline Protests. China is either going to wait this out, or contain the problem with non-lethal methods.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> Implying China is "happy" to employ violence is the kind of absurd, sensationalist characterization seen in this BBC article. You've just been chiding me for taking figures of speech too literally. Obviously I don't think anyone was cheering and handing out champagne as they gave the order.