5 ms·

Stating examples where China did not previously oppress and now do oppress demonstrate China's continued streak of repressive dystopia. You seem pretty aware on

Stating examples where China did not previously oppress and now do oppress demonstrate China's continued streak of repressive dystopia. You seem pretty aware on the facts of China's oppression but willfully deny their depiction of a repressive dystopia. Apparently you know that oppression of Uighurs is ongoing and horrific but somehow the possibility that they're not the first group they've oppressed could be...promising? I don't know what to make of this logic. China hasn't stopped oppressing Tibetans, so this (relatively) new repression of Uighurs is literally more oppression than they've done before. And you're well aware of the benighted takeover of Hong Kong, but once again willing to overlook it as an example of repressive dystopia because it's now the same as the rest of China...which is also currently oppressed and lacks basic freedom. I don't even know what "a net lessening of repression in China" is supposed to mean; Hong Kong used to have plenty of freedom that it now lacks, while the rest of China hasn't gained freedom from entrance of Hong Kong. The most charitable interpretation of this logic is that you meant to say an "average lessening of repression", except that doesn't mean there's less repression at all, the borders of China have just been redefined to change the average. Then you ask "So is the Great Firewall an example of increasing repression, or slowly opening up to outside information and influences, but just not all at once?", a twisted question that pretends as if "slowly opening up to outside information and influences" is somehow not a repressive dystopia, as if it's not a horrifically totalitarian action that assumes the state can justify controlling what outside information & influence is allowed to be seen by citizens, the very foundation and core of a repressive dystopia. If the US did the same thing, would you not say that it's a repressive dystopia? Without government intervention, the public would have widespread access to independent information. And then of course China has only tightened its grip on media & press in the last 3 years [1]. I'll grant that "military expansion" is not repressive in itself but simply denotes the fact that China's repressive dystopia is becoming more powerful. I'm at least relieved that you know the horrific facts of what's going on, but it seems to me that you're just turning a blind eye to the depiction of repression that they represent. I am curious though what you're referring to when you say "other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising". [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-parliament-media/china-tightens-grip-on-media-with-regulator-reshuffle-idUSKBN1GX0JG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-parliament-media/ch...

kbenson 5y ago
> Stating examples where China did not previously oppress and now do oppress demonstrate China's continued streak of repressive dystopia. No, it shows it in a small subset. You would have to look at it in context and overall. Adding one method of oppression but stopping or loosening two others might be a net reduction. That's my point. Throwing out specific instances because they get a lot of coverage is not evidence I'm willing to let decide this by itself. > You seem pretty aware on the facts of China's oppression but willfully deny their depiction of a repressive dystopia. I don't think that's an accurate depiction of my position. > Apparently you know that oppression of Uighurs is ongoing and horrific but somehow the possibility that they're not the first group they've oppressed could be...promising? If their oppression is less harsh than other peoples China has oppressed in the past? Maybe. > And you're well aware of the benighted takeover of Hong Kong, but once again willing to overlook it as an example of repressive dystopia because it's now the same as the rest of China Not what I said, not an accurate depiction of my position. > I don't even know what "a net lessening of repression in China" is supposed to mean I thought it was fairly self explanatory. If the situation in Hong Kong proceeds with China the victor but also results in some lessening of restrictions in China generally because of the conflict or negotiation or whatever happens in the end, that might be a net benefit. Hong Kong has less than 10 million people. Their lives would get worse. China has 1.4 billion people. What if their lives get a little better? > The most charitable interpretation of this logic is that you meant to say an "average lessening of repression", except that doesn't mean there's less repression at all, the borders of China have just been redefined to change the average. Right on the first part, wrong on the second, with regard to my point, which I explained again above. > a twisted question that pretends as if "slowly opening up to outside information and influences" is somehow not a repressive dystopia No, I made no claim that it's not not repressive. I do make a claim that it may points toward a lessening of repression, which is my point, as that may indicate the eventual place China ends up in is not a repressive dystopia (relatively. Some people would classify the U.S. as a repressive dystopia, but I'm not interested in arguing that). > If the US did the same thing, would you not say that it's a repressive dystopia? If the U.S. went from zero or few restrictions to some or more restrictions, I would say it's tending towards repression or having more repression. I would classify a reduction or elimination of those as tending towards less repression. I think the fact the internet is allowed at all in China is likely a step towards less repression than what existed before for the majority of their citizens. > And then of course China has only tightened its grip on media & press in the last 3 years Thank you. Actual evidence. I'm fully willing to see and consider actual evidence as to one thing or another, and if you pay careful attention this entire thread has been me asking people to justify their position with evidence. I'm fully willing to admit China if someone provides evidence, or at this point provides actual reasoning for the things I've had to outline myself because nobody else would, as they were stated without explanation or context as if they were self evident (which I think I've at least shown they shouldn't necessarily be taken as such). > I'm at least relieved that you know the horrific facts of what's going on, but it seems to me that you're just turning a blind eye to the depiction of repression that they represent. I'm not. But we're not talking about the existence of those, we're talking about whether they are at a stable, increasing or lessening level of occurrence and intensity. > I am curious though what you're referring to when you say "other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising". The Chinese population is becoming more educated, affluent and connected. These are people that have more resources and capability to impart change, and more desire to impart change when they feel empowered and encounter something they feel is wrong. China has opened up their economy quite a bit. They have encouraged a lot out outside influence and involvement compared to the past, not just economically. Overall, they are bigger actors on the national stage and with a lot more bidirectional influence with countries and companies. I think all of that leads to China actually caring more and responding more positively to outside calls for change with regard to negative policies. I see these as positives when taking a long view of China.

kbenson 5y ago

> Stating examples where China did not previously oppress and now do oppress demonstrate China's continued streak of repressive dystopia. No, it shows it in a small subset. You would have to look at it in context and overall. Adding one method of oppression but stopping or loosening two others might be a net reduction. That's my point. Throwing out specific instances because they get a lot of coverage is not evidence I'm willing to let decide this by itself. > You seem pretty aware on the facts of China's oppression but willfully deny their depiction of a repressive dystopia. I don't think that's an accurate depiction of my position. > Apparently you know that oppression of Uighurs is ongoing and horrific but somehow the possibility that they're not the first group they've oppressed could be...promising? If their oppression is less harsh than other peoples China has oppressed in the past? Maybe. > And you're well aware of the benighted takeover of Hong Kong, but once again willing to overlook it as an example of repressive dystopia because it's now the same as the rest of China Not what I said, not an accurate depiction of my position. > I don't even know what "a net lessening of repression in China" is supposed to mean I thought it was fairly self explanatory. If the situation in Hong Kong proceeds with China the victor but also results in some lessening of restrictions in China generally because of the conflict or negotiation or whatever happens in the end, that might be a net benefit. Hong Kong has less than 10 million people. Their lives would get worse. China has 1.4 billion people. What if their lives get a little better? > The most charitable interpretation of this logic is that you meant to say an "average lessening of repression", except that doesn't mean there's less repression at all, the borders of China have just been redefined to change the average. Right on the first part, wrong on the second, with regard to my point, which I explained again above. > a twisted question that pretends as if "slowly opening up to outside information and influences" is somehow not a repressive dystopia No, I made no claim that it's not not repressive. I do make a claim that it may points toward a lessening of repression, which is my point, as that may indicate the eventual place China ends up in is not a repressive dystopia (relatively. Some people would classify the U.S. as a repressive dystopia, but I'm not interested in arguing that). > If the US did the same thing, would you not say that it's a repressive dystopia? If the U.S. went from zero or few restrictions to some or more restrictions, I would say it's tending towards repression or having more repression. I would classify a reduction or elimination of those as tending towards less repression. I think the fact the internet is allowed at all in China is likely a step towards less repression than what existed before for the majority of their citizens. > And then of course China has only tightened its grip on media & press in the last 3 years Thank you. Actual evidence. I'm fully willing to see and consider actual evidence as to one thing or another, and if you pay careful attention this entire thread has been me asking people to justify their position with evidence. I'm fully willing to admit China if someone provides evidence, or at this point provides actual reasoning for the things I've had to outline myself because nobody else would, as they were stated without explanation or context as if they were self evident (which I think I've at least shown they shouldn't necessarily be taken as such). > I'm at least relieved that you know the horrific facts of what's going on, but it seems to me that you're just turning a blind eye to the depiction of repression that they represent. I'm not. But we're not talking about the existence of those, we're talking about whether they are at a stable, increasing or lessening level of occurrence and intensity. > I am curious though what you're referring to when you say "other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising". The Chinese population is becoming more educated, affluent and connected. These are people that have more resources and capability to impart change, and more desire to impart change when they feel empowered and encounter something they feel is wrong. China has opened up their economy quite a bit. They have encouraged a lot out outside influence and involvement compared to the past, not just economically. Overall, they are bigger actors on the national stage and with a lot more bidirectional influence with countries and companies. I think all of that leads to China actually caring more and responding more positively to outside calls for change with regard to negative policies. I see these as positives when taking a long view of China.