9 ms·

Anybody living and working in China and writing about it has to conform to certain viewpoints, or they'll be unable to continue as they are. This letter is int

by beloch 5y ago

Anybody living and working in China and writing about it has to conform to certain viewpoints, or they'll be unable to continue as they are. This letter is interesting in several ways, but you'd be wise to approach it from the angle of it having been approved by the government. Anything remotely negative has to be balanced by big positives (or negatives about Hong Kong).

vehemenz 5y ago
Exactly. Any Chinese citizen writing on the same topics would need a high degree of formal education outside of China, English proficiency, and the ability to publish anonymously on the real Internet. It's a high bar.
pphysch 5y ago
> This letter is interesting in several ways, but you'd be wise to approach it from the angle of it having been approved by the government. Which government? Beijing would absolutely not allow the publication of a piece that uncritically regurgitates Washington's narrative about "mass detention of minorities". It's Saddam-has-WMDs-and-is-allied-with-al-Qaeda all over again. Fool me once. It's best read as a letter for Western/liberal audiences. That is clearly the intended audience.
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  >"mass detention of minorities". It's Saddam-has-WMDs-and-is-allied-with-al-Qaeda These aren't equivalent. We have plenty of evidence of the Uyghur genocide from 3rd party journalists and satellite imagery. The only evidence for WMDs came directly from a new government agency (named "Office of Special Plans") created by Dick Cheney and not independently verified by any 3rd parties.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    > We have plenty of evidence of the Uyghur genocide from 3rd party journalists and satellite imagery. No, we don't. The vast majority of primary "evidence" comes out of the ETIM lobby (WUC, Adrian Zenz, et al.) and war lobby (ASPI, etc). All of it massively signal-boosted by the mainstream corporate media. Both sources have a very, very clear (conflict of) interest in manufacturing anti-China sentiment. Grainy satellite imagery of ordinary schools and prisons is only admissible as "concentration camps" if you're a shameless propagandist. It's quite literally the same playbook as "Saddam's WMDs", with similarly cynical goals. Because it worked. And it's been similarly effective at duping the average media consumer.
    - chillage 5y ago
      Not to throw the book at you but here is a pretty hugely detailed article with near 500 sources from very diverse media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Linking a heavily manipulated Wikipedia article is the definition of fallacious book-throwing. Do you have any primary evidence that isn't blatant hearsay, Google Earth speculation, or bad-faith mistranslations? In my extensive research, virtually 100% of "the evidence" falls into these 3 easily manipulated categories. The year is 2022. There should be convincing photo and video evidence of the supposed atrocities. Western intelligence community has high-resolution aerial cameras. China has a billion people on social media, some using VPNs. There would certainly be whistleblowers. Smoking guns of this alleged Holocaust should be everywhere, on a daily basis. But they're suspiciously absent. WMDs all over again.
        chillage 5y ago
        I mean no, I don't have a list with more than 500 sources for you, so if this one is insufficiently exhaustive then I guess we are at an impasse
        pphysch 5y ago
        If you are acting in good faith, it should be easy for you to produce an example of primary evidence I requested from your Wikipedia page.
        chillage 5y ago
        If you are genuinely interested you can look through that page yourself to see if you can find evidence matching your stringent criteria :) I am not able to read your mind to guess what you’ll find convincing and am sure you can do your own research provided the starting point. In any case, have a wonderful day!
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  You can't compare the two. There is tons of irrefutable evidence of an ethnic genocide and internment of minimally thousands and thousands, likely millions over the course of time.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    There is indeed lots of "evidence" -- extremely dubious or easily refutable "evidence" that was clearly manufactured or mispresented. There is also irrefutable evidence of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by Washington and various SIGs that have a vested interest in destroying the PRC. For example, the Countering Chinese Influence Fund signed into law which provides $300,000,000 per annum exclusively for the production of anti-China propaganda. Connect the dots. Use your brain. Stop regurgitating headlines.
    - alsetmusic 5y ago
      You’re clearly not arguing in good faith. The US government is full of snakes, but the media brought this issue to bear whereas with Iraq the government was running the narrative. But I’ll only point this out once as I can see your agenda plainly.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Believe the massively consolidated corporate media to be free of "snakes" at your own peril.
not2b 5y ago
I am sure that the author, given that he is living in China, has to be careful about what he says. But there's a lot of criticism of the Chinese government in this piece, more than I was expecting, particularly about the negative effects of the ideological crackdown, along with the praise for things that are going well. Perhaps he knows that to get away with it, he has to include lots of praise. But both the praise and the criticism seem authentic. It's a valuable piece, I learned a good deal from it.

by beloch 5y ago

vehemenz 5y ago

Exactly. Any Chinese citizen writing on the same topics would need a high degree of formal education outside of China, English proficiency, and the ability to publish anonymously on the real Internet. It's a high bar.

pphysch 5y ago

> This letter is interesting in several ways, but you'd be wise to approach it from the angle of it having been approved by the government. Which government? Beijing would absolutely not allow the publication of a piece that uncritically regurgitates Washington's narrative about "mass detention of minorities". It's Saddam-has-WMDs-and-is-allied-with-al-Qaeda all over again. Fool me once. It's best read as a letter for Western/liberal audiences. That is clearly the intended audience.

WoahNoun 5y ago
>"mass detention of minorities". It's Saddam-has-WMDs-and-is-allied-with-al-Qaeda These aren't equivalent. We have plenty of evidence of the Uyghur genocide from 3rd party journalists and satellite imagery. The only evidence for WMDs came directly from a new government agency (named "Office of Special Plans") created by Dick Cheney and not independently verified by any 3rd parties.
- pphysch 5y ago
  > We have plenty of evidence of the Uyghur genocide from 3rd party journalists and satellite imagery. No, we don't. The vast majority of primary "evidence" comes out of the ETIM lobby (WUC, Adrian Zenz, et al.) and war lobby (ASPI, etc). All of it massively signal-boosted by the mainstream corporate media. Both sources have a very, very clear (conflict of) interest in manufacturing anti-China sentiment. Grainy satellite imagery of ordinary schools and prisons is only admissible as "concentration camps" if you're a shameless propagandist. It's quite literally the same playbook as "Saddam's WMDs", with similarly cynical goals. Because it worked. And it's been similarly effective at duping the average media consumer.
  - chillage 5y ago
    Not to throw the book at you but here is a pretty hugely detailed article with near 500 sources from very diverse media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Linking a heavily manipulated Wikipedia article is the definition of fallacious book-throwing. Do you have any primary evidence that isn't blatant hearsay, Google Earth speculation, or bad-faith mistranslations? In my extensive research, virtually 100% of "the evidence" falls into these 3 easily manipulated categories. The year is 2022. There should be convincing photo and video evidence of the supposed atrocities. Western intelligence community has high-resolution aerial cameras. China has a billion people on social media, some using VPNs. There would certainly be whistleblowers. Smoking guns of this alleged Holocaust should be everywhere, on a daily basis. But they're suspiciously absent. WMDs all over again.
      - chillage 5y ago
        I mean no, I don't have a list with more than 500 sources for you, so if this one is insufficiently exhaustive then I guess we are at an impasse
        pphysch 5y ago
        If you are acting in good faith, it should be easy for you to produce an example of primary evidence I requested from your Wikipedia page.
        chillage 5y ago
        If you are genuinely interested you can look through that page yourself to see if you can find evidence matching your stringent criteria :) I am not able to read your mind to guess what you’ll find convincing and am sure you can do your own research provided the starting point. In any case, have a wonderful day!
dillondoyle 5y ago
You can't compare the two. There is tons of irrefutable evidence of an ethnic genocide and internment of minimally thousands and thousands, likely millions over the course of time.
- pphysch 5y ago
  There is indeed lots of "evidence" -- extremely dubious or easily refutable "evidence" that was clearly manufactured or mispresented. There is also irrefutable evidence of a propaganda campaign orchestrated by Washington and various SIGs that have a vested interest in destroying the PRC. For example, the Countering Chinese Influence Fund signed into law which provides $300,000,000 per annum exclusively for the production of anti-China propaganda. Connect the dots. Use your brain. Stop regurgitating headlines.
  - alsetmusic 5y ago
    You’re clearly not arguing in good faith. The US government is full of snakes, but the media brought this issue to bear whereas with Iraq the government was running the narrative. But I’ll only point this out once as I can see your agenda plainly.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Believe the massively consolidated corporate media to be free of "snakes" at your own peril.

not2b 5y ago

I am sure that the author, given that he is living in China, has to be careful about what he says. But there's a lot of criticism of the Chinese government in this piece, more than I was expecting, particularly about the negative effects of the ideological crackdown, along with the praise for things that are going well. Perhaps he knows that to get away with it, he has to include lots of praise. But both the praise and the criticism seem authentic. It's a valuable piece, I learned a good deal from it.