4 ms·

Read the top comment that started this whole conversation. It's foundational to the whole thread. There is no thread without that claim.

by PakG1 14y ago

magicalist 14y ago
If you read my comments above, you can see that I did indeed read the top comment. All that is provided is the assertion that all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China, which explains why the Chinese government would make this move. What I was asking for any specific evidence that would preclude the much more obvious explanation that the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking for the sources of that information (which is what the New York Times themselves are claiming). Without specific information, all we're left with is that "the Chinese government does not like dissent", and the Arab spring narrative is merely sophistry.
- j_s 14y ago
  False dichotomy perhaps? Consider this specific instance as a subset: > the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the > Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking > for the sources of that information of: > all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are > apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China
- mturmon 14y ago
  @magicalist: I agree with you (i.e., that in this case the obvious explanation is operative, and furthermore that the Chinese government is capable of discriminating between the actions of the US government and those of the NYT) but there's no sense arguing the point. To me, this back-and-forth is reminiscent of "lefter-than-thou" debates I have witnessed before, and they all end up right where they started. One caveat: it's quite possible that there are US government sponsored probes of Chinese sites, that we are not aware of, and that may be quite extensive and outrageous (to the Chinese government). So this skirmish with the NYT may be part of that larger cold war. This is not the same as saying (as the original comment did) that the Chinese government sees the NYT as a proxy of the US government.

Read the top comment that started this whole conversation. It's foundational to the whole thread. There is no thread without that claim.

by PakG1 14y ago

Read the top comment that started this whole conversation. It's foundational to the whole thread. There is no thread without that claim.

magicalist 14y ago

If you read my comments above, you can see that I did indeed read the top comment. All that is provided is the assertion that all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China, which explains why the Chinese government would make this move. What I was asking for any specific evidence that would preclude the much more obvious explanation that the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking for the sources of that information (which is what the New York Times themselves are claiming). Without specific information, all we're left with is that "the Chinese government does not like dissent", and the Arab spring narrative is merely sophistry.

j_s 14y ago
False dichotomy perhaps? Consider this specific instance as a subset: > the New York Times wrote a story exposing corruption surrounding the > Chinese Premier, and the people infiltrating the system were looking > for the sources of that information of: > all (american?) organizations questioning the Chinese government are > apparently seen as arms of the United States's campaign against China
mturmon 14y ago
@magicalist: I agree with you (i.e., that in this case the obvious explanation is operative, and furthermore that the Chinese government is capable of discriminating between the actions of the US government and those of the NYT) but there's no sense arguing the point. To me, this back-and-forth is reminiscent of "lefter-than-thou" debates I have witnessed before, and they all end up right where they started. One caveat: it's quite possible that there are US government sponsored probes of Chinese sites, that we are not aware of, and that may be quite extensive and outrageous (to the Chinese government). So this skirmish with the NYT may be part of that larger cold war. This is not the same as saying (as the original comment did) that the Chinese government sees the NYT as a proxy of the US government.