3 ms·

Xi Broke the Social Contract That Helped China Prosper

2 points by Jun8 4y ago

incomingpain 4y ago
Sometimes NYtimes makes fun of themselves so badly. Can only shake your head at them. >The protests in China against the government’s draconian Covid controls have been compared to those in 1989, when students demonstrated for political reforms and democracy. Sure. Mind you, the people in China don't actually know about 1989 and the end of communism. What sparked this problem was they literally welded an apartment building shut so the tenants couldn't leave; because covid. It caught fire and firefighters were prevented from putting out the fire. People died. Not to mention people are fed up being treated like cattle. So protests were inevitable. Couple days ago, Xi said something along the lines of 'the chinese people have organized and going against them won't go well.' Few hours ago: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1598169863968935937 https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1598169863968935937 Basically they have announced the end of restrictions and have listened to the protests. They are addressing their grievances. This is what a smart government does. In any government you will have people with grievances. The first step is filling in forms and paperwork to request the fix. If denied, you move onto talking to representatives. If they don't move you end up in a non-violent protest. If large enough the government must respond regardless of how repressive said government is or how ridiculous the protest seems to be. Exactly what they are doing in China. Xi is seemingly extremely intelligent. He knows sending the military in to kill his own citizens won't end up well. He knows not addressing the protest or trying to end the protest will only result in the next step when protest isnt allowed. Violent revolution is the next step. >Politically, Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, has violated a time-tested technique his predecessors used to defuse social tensions: divide and conquer. After 1989, most of the Chinese protests were localized and issue-specific. And this is a bad thing according to NYTimes? Now compare this to Canada. A protest showed up in Ottawa with the same complaints. Our government refused to talk to them. The government and media smeared the protestors greatly. It went on for weeks and then the government for the first time in history announced a national emergency to seize the protestor's bank accounts and arrest them. Holding some of them for months without charge or bail. So we have China who responded properly, and Canada who violated civil rights. How absolutely embarrassing; but it's worse. Now that protesting the government has been made illegal. The next time a protest forms, peaceful protest isn't allowed. Violent revolution is all which is left.

2 points by Jun8 4y ago

Sometimes NYtimes makes fun of themselves so badly. Can only shake your head at them. >The protests in China against the government’s draconian Covid controls have been compared to those in 1989, when students demonstrated for political reforms and democracy. Sure. Mind you, the people in China don't actually know about 1989 and the end of communism. What sparked this problem was they literally welded an apartment building shut so the tenants couldn't leave; because covid. It caught fire and firefighters were prevented from putting out the fire. People died. Not to mention people are fed up being treated like cattle. So protests were inevitable. Couple days ago, Xi said something along the lines of 'the chinese people have organized and going against them won't go well.' Few hours ago: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1598169863968935937 https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1598169863968935937 Basically they have announced the end of restrictions and have listened to the protests. They are addressing their grievances. This is what a smart government does. In any government you will have people with grievances. The first step is filling in forms and paperwork to request the fix. If denied, you move onto talking to representatives. If they don't move you end up in a non-violent protest. If large enough the government must respond regardless of how repressive said government is or how ridiculous the protest seems to be. Exactly what they are doing in China. Xi is seemingly extremely intelligent. He knows sending the military in to kill his own citizens won't end up well. He knows not addressing the protest or trying to end the protest will only result in the next step when protest isnt allowed. Violent revolution is the next step. >Politically, Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, has violated a time-tested technique his predecessors used to defuse social tensions: divide and conquer. After 1989, most of the Chinese protests were localized and issue-specific. And this is a bad thing according to NYTimes? Now compare this to Canada. A protest showed up in Ottawa with the same complaints. Our government refused to talk to them. The government and media smeared the protestors greatly. It went on for weeks and then the government for the first time in history announced a national emergency to seize the protestor's bank accounts and arrest them. Holding some of them for months without charge or bail. So we have China who responded properly, and Canada who violated civil rights. How absolutely embarrassing; but it's worse. Now that protesting the government has been made illegal. The next time a protest forms, peaceful protest isn't allowed. Violent revolution is all which is left.