7 ms·

Every time there is a story that criticizes China's Communist Party there is a flood of troll-like comments here in Hacker News. Lot of "What about X" comments

by msoad 5y ago

Every time there is a story that criticizes China's Communist Party there is a flood of troll-like comments here in Hacker News. Lot of "What about X" comments and just general trolling and uncivil behavior. As a non-Chinese I never could understand the relationship of CCP, Chinese nationals and Chinese immigrants in the US and West. To me, it seems very hyocritcal to live in the Western societies and be very pro-CCP. I have interacted with many Chinese immigrants that defend CCP at any cost. I'm very confused about it.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
Ah yes fellow Chinese are bad at explaining to westerners. As a more westernized Chinese who started researching west-vs-China differences a few years ago, I could help you better understand -- if you are open minded enough and willing to change some of your views. Are you in? If so ask me anything, either here or in private.
- msoad 5y ago
  Please go ahead and explain. I'm genuinely curious. The best defend I've heard is "my parents generation were farmers but now living in a nice apartment thanks to CCP so we are thankful for what they did..."
  - FooBarWidget 5y ago
    Ok what do you want to start with? It's a big topic.
    - msoad 5y ago
      Can you explain why a comment like this is posted here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344355
      - altern2 5y ago
        I posted that and I'm 0% Chinese. What do you think is unreasonable about the comment? Isn't it true that nothing done to prove that she is fine has been accepted?
      - FooBarWidget 5y ago
        (Part 1) Here's where the original translation becomes relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344036 Specifically, there are doubts on whether it's a rape charge at all. See the translation discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244 One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings. Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead. The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows: 1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... 2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM 3. Chinese have high trust in their government, between 93% and 98%. These are not fake government numbers: they're measured by Harvard and York University through thousands of participants and anonymous surveys. See https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pandemic-shake-chinese-citizens-trust-their-government/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pande... 4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you for a short while after which the bubble bursts. Restructure your company and make sure it actually works for the benefit of the people". I'm not sure in which instance there was a gag order and in which instance the people involved voluntarily decided to lie low. But voluntarily lying low is not at all an uncommon practice during a major scandal involving a celebrity. In all these cases, after their reappearance (and a public announcement of the punishment), the situation is considered solved. Jack Ma is now vacationing in Europe and Fan Bingbing is making movies again. Given these points, Chinese people at large don't believe at all that she's "disappeared" in the Soviet/Mao-era sense. They don't believe that she's ever been in danger. My relatives don't even believe that she's silenced. "What, why would they silence or catch her? She didn't do anything illegal. If she wants to file a rape charge, the police will help her." Anti-corruption is a thing in China nowadays. Even though western media frames anti-corruption purely as an excuse to purge political opponents, Chinese don't believe so. They have faith in it because it has actually produced results. Thus, Chinese have high trust in their police w.r.t. catching corrupt officials. People trust that if Zhang is truly guilty, then he will be convicted, even if he has a lot of power. It isn't the first time that a corrupt but powerful high official was convicted, and it won't be the last time. Why Chinese wife is like, "why do westerners think that the Chinese government is a monster? westerners are so weird" Some other posters noted patriotism. While this indeed plays a role, it's not the whole story. I think my above points are much more important. What patriotism contributes, is the sense that western criticism is often hypocritical and full of ulterior motives (which they often are). There is indeed no evidence that any of her friends or family have reported her as missing. Western reports are purely based on the reasoning "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared". Hence "Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place?" Okay this post has been very long and I'm about to hit the text limit. And it's late, so I'll continue tomorrow with part 2. Feel free to ask questions in the mean time. [1] I'm just going to assume good faith on part of WTA here. There are those who doubt its good faith because it's not the first time that an organization is or has been turned into a front for US regime change operations. This probably sounds conspiracy theoristy if you've never heard of this concept, but you really should research what the NED does and how the US weaponizes human rights.
burntbridge 5y ago
I think the problem here is people in the West see things in the following way: Chinese system inherently evil. Western system inherently good. When a bad thing happens in the West; we condemn it but don't see it as the overall system being evil. When a bad thing happens in China; we condemn it and see it as further evidence of the fundamental evil of the system. I think the Chinese basically have faith in their Government in spite of its short comings.
- jjcc 5y ago
  Let's go deeper. Not many people know why human invented the concept of evil. Most animals especially mammals evolved by the arm race between the predators and the preys to perfect their power,agility and intelligence. The algorithm is called GAN. There are few extreme instances that GAN between predators and preys is not enough. Human is among the few primates that often kill their own species. Competition and cooperation are 2 parts of evolution. The extreme competition is war among human tribes. We have the nature of fighting and killing other human even the society become civilized. The concept of "evil" emerged as a reason to justify the killing of our same species. You can get that from a lot of Hollywood movies. There's a spiritual need for evil to exist. That's why NATO can bomb the oppressive regimes all over the world everywhere. Because they are collectively supported by the people of NATO countries. When something's wrong they collectively blame wrong information. What I mean is: "Weapons of Massive Destruction was caused by intelligence failure" is a bigger lie than WMD itself. It's also cannot be blamed on a few politicians who are democratically elected by people. The real reason is there was a spiritual need for evil so the people were easily fooled. Even today after millions of people's life were ruined and there are massive waves of immigration people in NATO countries still don't connect the cause end effects, never realize that it was their own arrogant belief that they own democracy and human rights, along with they have superior weapons to liberate the people from oppressive regimes, cause the chaos world today. Will they wake up? not likely. The retreat from Afghanistan was because of running out of resource but not because realize it was fundamentally wrong.
robbedpeter 5y ago
HN is weird. Articles, stories, and conversations show up here before getting to content aggregators or social media, and it's ahead of the curve by hours. Focusing a/b tests here gives you a strategic edge in controlling a narrative further downstream, and can give you a sample of what arguments can close down a discussion, or exactly how to script your sock puppets so that people feel their opinion is represented within a discussion. I'm pretty sure this happens because people in ycombinator circles use HN as a high quality content pipeline, and because of dang's impeccable curation, front page HN content gets greenlit for immediate display. If you see something on HN, it'll almost inevitably show up on Slashdot, Reddit, Facebook, and a slew of other smaller sites and forums, often unchanged from its presentation here. HN also has the bonus that many silicon valley movers and shakers frequent the site and join the discussions. China's troll generals would be foolish not to capitalize on that. As far as immigrants defending ccp that's usually because they have family back in China and would like to see them again some day. Their family's social standing could take a hit if they are insufficiently "patriotic," even in the US. China's got social influence inside the US, and extensive networks of casual spies that report problematic behaviors, ranging from local cultural clubs and groups to college and campus outreach organizations. It's very (darkly) sophisticated.

by msoad 5y ago

FooBarWidget 5y ago

Ah yes fellow Chinese are bad at explaining to westerners. As a more westernized Chinese who started researching west-vs-China differences a few years ago, I could help you better understand -- if you are open minded enough and willing to change some of your views. Are you in? If so ask me anything, either here or in private.

msoad 5y ago
Please go ahead and explain. I'm genuinely curious. The best defend I've heard is "my parents generation were farmers but now living in a nice apartment thanks to CCP so we are thankful for what they did..."
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  Ok what do you want to start with? It's a big topic.
  - msoad 5y ago
    Can you explain why a comment like this is posted here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344355
    - altern2 5y ago
      I posted that and I'm 0% Chinese. What do you think is unreasonable about the comment? Isn't it true that nothing done to prove that she is fine has been accepted?
    - FooBarWidget 5y ago
      (Part 1) Here's where the original translation becomes relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344036 Specifically, there are doubts on whether it's a rape charge at all. See the translation discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244 One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings. Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead. The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows: 1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... 2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM 3. Chinese have high trust in their government, between 93% and 98%. These are not fake government numbers: they're measured by Harvard and York University through thousands of participants and anonymous surveys. See https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pandemic-shake-chinese-citizens-trust-their-government/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pande... 4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you for a short while after which the bubble bursts. Restructure your company and make sure it actually works for the benefit of the people". I'm not sure in which instance there was a gag order and in which instance the people involved voluntarily decided to lie low. But voluntarily lying low is not at all an uncommon practice during a major scandal involving a celebrity. In all these cases, after their reappearance (and a public announcement of the punishment), the situation is considered solved. Jack Ma is now vacationing in Europe and Fan Bingbing is making movies again. Given these points, Chinese people at large don't believe at all that she's "disappeared" in the Soviet/Mao-era sense. They don't believe that she's ever been in danger. My relatives don't even believe that she's silenced. "What, why would they silence or catch her? She didn't do anything illegal. If she wants to file a rape charge, the police will help her." Anti-corruption is a thing in China nowadays. Even though western media frames anti-corruption purely as an excuse to purge political opponents, Chinese don't believe so. They have faith in it because it has actually produced results. Thus, Chinese have high trust in their police w.r.t. catching corrupt officials. People trust that if Zhang is truly guilty, then he will be convicted, even if he has a lot of power. It isn't the first time that a corrupt but powerful high official was convicted, and it won't be the last time. Why Chinese wife is like, "why do westerners think that the Chinese government is a monster? westerners are so weird" Some other posters noted patriotism. While this indeed plays a role, it's not the whole story. I think my above points are much more important. What patriotism contributes, is the sense that western criticism is often hypocritical and full of ulterior motives (which they often are). There is indeed no evidence that any of her friends or family have reported her as missing. Western reports are purely based on the reasoning "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared". Hence "Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place?" Okay this post has been very long and I'm about to hit the text limit. And it's late, so I'll continue tomorrow with part 2. Feel free to ask questions in the mean time. [1] I'm just going to assume good faith on part of WTA here. There are those who doubt its good faith because it's not the first time that an organization is or has been turned into a front for US regime change operations. This probably sounds conspiracy theoristy if you've never heard of this concept, but you really should research what the NED does and how the US weaponizes human rights.

burntbridge 5y ago

I think the problem here is people in the West see things in the following way: Chinese system inherently evil. Western system inherently good. When a bad thing happens in the West; we condemn it but don't see it as the overall system being evil. When a bad thing happens in China; we condemn it and see it as further evidence of the fundamental evil of the system. I think the Chinese basically have faith in their Government in spite of its short comings.

jjcc 5y ago
Let's go deeper. Not many people know why human invented the concept of evil. Most animals especially mammals evolved by the arm race between the predators and the preys to perfect their power,agility and intelligence. The algorithm is called GAN. There are few extreme instances that GAN between predators and preys is not enough. Human is among the few primates that often kill their own species. Competition and cooperation are 2 parts of evolution. The extreme competition is war among human tribes. We have the nature of fighting and killing other human even the society become civilized. The concept of "evil" emerged as a reason to justify the killing of our same species. You can get that from a lot of Hollywood movies. There's a spiritual need for evil to exist. That's why NATO can bomb the oppressive regimes all over the world everywhere. Because they are collectively supported by the people of NATO countries. When something's wrong they collectively blame wrong information. What I mean is: "Weapons of Massive Destruction was caused by intelligence failure" is a bigger lie than WMD itself. It's also cannot be blamed on a few politicians who are democratically elected by people. The real reason is there was a spiritual need for evil so the people were easily fooled. Even today after millions of people's life were ruined and there are massive waves of immigration people in NATO countries still don't connect the cause end effects, never realize that it was their own arrogant belief that they own democracy and human rights, along with they have superior weapons to liberate the people from oppressive regimes, cause the chaos world today. Will they wake up? not likely. The retreat from Afghanistan was because of running out of resource but not because realize it was fundamentally wrong.

robbedpeter 5y ago

HN is weird. Articles, stories, and conversations show up here before getting to content aggregators or social media, and it's ahead of the curve by hours. Focusing a/b tests here gives you a strategic edge in controlling a narrative further downstream, and can give you a sample of what arguments can close down a discussion, or exactly how to script your sock puppets so that people feel their opinion is represented within a discussion. I'm pretty sure this happens because people in ycombinator circles use HN as a high quality content pipeline, and because of dang's impeccable curation, front page HN content gets greenlit for immediate display. If you see something on HN, it'll almost inevitably show up on Slashdot, Reddit, Facebook, and a slew of other smaller sites and forums, often unchanged from its presentation here. HN also has the bonus that many silicon valley movers and shakers frequent the site and join the discussions. China's troll generals would be foolish not to capitalize on that. As far as immigrants defending ccp that's usually because they have family back in China and would like to see them again some day. Their family's social standing could take a hit if they are insufficiently "patriotic," even in the US. China's got social influence inside the US, and extensive networks of casual spies that report problematic behaviors, ranging from local cultural clubs and groups to college and campus outreach organizations. It's very (darkly) sophisticated.