How is the specific content of her Weibo post relevant at all here?
The issue is that the woman was kidnapped by the Chinese government because simple because she spoke out publicly, and it seems to me that the media’s reporting has been very complete in that regard.
Thank you sir. It is always better to read the source. Though in this case, the most of the discussion is about how party protect its members against scandals and law. Poor woman.
When I asked "how is the content of her post relevant here?" I meant: how is the content of the post relevant with regards to your assertion that the media's reporting has been incomplete?
I also asked you what specifically has been lacking in those media reports.
You are not just posting this information to share it. You are making a claim that the media's reporting has been incomplete, which claim you have not substantiated.
So, I ask again, what specific relevant information has been lacking from media reports?
I’m sorry, but what aspect of the context has been missing from the reporting? There was nothing in the post that you shared that I haven’t read about elsewhere in western media, with regards to the facts.
That is, except perhaps for the emotional anguish that the poor woman was feeling, which can only really be discerned from her writing. The pain that led her to write this simply cannot be expressed accurately except through her own words.
Is that what you meant? That the western media has not painted a sympathetic enough picture of Peng Shuai? That the media has been too deferential to the Chinese government in not giving her voice a platform?
Whether that means that the media was or wasn't sympathetic enough, isn't my point. It also doesn't matter whether I think the media was/wasn't sympathetic enough.
Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation. It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
> If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
This sentence is rather condescending, and I believe it reveals something of your true intention here that you refuse to admit.
There is something about Peng Suai’s post that you believe exonerates Chinese officials or the Chinese government in some way, but you are unwilling to explain what it is for some reason.
> It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
Humor me. What is the alternate interpretation of these events that you believe is missing from western media reports? What are the different interpretations that people may arrive at other than “the media’s interpretation” as you put it?
> Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation.
You seem not to agree with the “media’s interpretation”. Why not? Why in your opinion would anyone disagree with the media’s interpretation of events after reading Peng Shuai’s post?
This "condescension" is wholly your reading. I meant literally what I said: if you agree with the media then great, I won't bother you and I'm happy for you. But here you go taking a sign of good faith and then interpreting it as an attack. It seems you are the one hiding something here. You are looking for "wrong thoughts" in others. All this is wholly abhorrent, shameful behavior and I condemn you for it.
Look others have already said they found the extra information helpful. Respect the fact that others may find this information useful instead of going on a witch hunt, ok? You seem extremely angry at the possibility that others may think differently than you. You don't get to police of dictate others' thoughts.
Hmm. This is quite an overreaction to what I wrote. You “condemn me” for these comments I’ve posted on hacker news? Seriously?
All I am asking for is an articulation of the alternative interpretation of events that you have said is lacking in media reports.
I can only think of one reason why you would believe that my questions somehow show me to be “extremely angry” (when I am not) or that I want to “dictate others’ thoughts” (which I don’t) or that I am somehow on a “witch hunt” just because I am being persistent in responding to your comments (this is a two-way street). It is the same reason that you cannot articulate any other interpretation than the one found in media reports:
In your own heart you know that there is only one reasonable interpretation of these events and of Peng Shuai’s writings. This poor woman was abused—certainly emotionally and possibly physically—by a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, and officials of the Chinese government have taken extraordinary steps to cover it up.
If there were any other reasonable interpretation you would say what it is!
See also @honglilai on Twitter ("Hongli Lai") for more exclusively pro-China commentary. I'm afraid that engaging him in honest debate is an exercise in futility.
(Note: I'm not attempting to dox the user, his Twitter handle/name can be found in his HN profile)
Exclusively pro-China commentary... such as "discriminations of Africans in Guangzhou is wrong"[1] and non-political commentary such as "healthcare workers in Shenzheng are getting 1 free meal a day, this is good progress in society"[2]?
Come on man, aren't we supposed to be "only against the CCP and for the Chinese people"?
I don't believe at all that you are being honest in saying that "all your are asking for is an articulation". You're trying to doxx me; i.e. a witch hunt, for possibly having wrong thoughts, where even not having an opinion is reason to suspect someone for having wrong thoughts.
> For almost three weeks following the accusation, Peng was not seen in public and her whereabouts were not publicly disclosed.
> WTA chief Simon told CNN he had been in conversation with counterparts at the Chinese Tennis Association, who had provided assurances Peng was unharmed in Beijing. However, attempts to reach Peng directly had proved unsuccessful, he said.
After her initial disappearance (not just from social media, but also from public) she has only been seen in stage-managed circumstances, only accompanied by state officials:
> New video clips of the tennis star were tweeted by members of Chinese state media on November 20 and 21.
> One clip appears to show Peng sitting with China Open tournament co-director Zhang Junhui and two women around a table in a restaurant in Beijing. The clips appear to deliberately emphasize specific dates. Throughout the video, Zhang is speaking to Peng, but she doesn't say anything.
> Then later on Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced its President Thomas Bach held a video phone call with Peng. The two were accompanied on the call by a Chinese sports official, Li Lingwei, as well as the Chair of the Athletes' Commission, Emma Terho.
The evidence points to her having been physically seized by state officials, who seem to be attempting to mitigate the PR crisis created by her accusations by controlling her physical person. Of course, this is only my opinion and personal interpretation of reported events.
It attempts to highlight a few cultural nuances missing from the original translation. However it hasn't had any native speakers weigh in on it on r/tennis.
It's commendable that he tried adding more notes but on the whole I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with:
I disagree with note 4, claiming that that paragraph is her evidence for non-consensual relationship. My reading of that paragraph (about 10 years ago, the previous time she had an affair) is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken at him for having broken up 10 years ago.
The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous. It could be something like "my parents forced me to become doctor" (they didn't literally force, they nagged until you agree).
There is no doubt that Zhao is a manipulative jerk and that he engaged in unacceptable questionable acts. But given the ambiguity of this phrase, plus the fact that the rest of the text is not focused on that single even, makes some wonder whether this is even a rape allegation at all. The rest of the text say things like "I reopened my love for you", "we are so compatible", "we could talk endlessly". Some believe that this is more like her venting that he played with her feelings and then dumped her.
She clearly says that she was in tears and panicking when he pressured her for sex the second time. There's very little ambiguity there: this is a serious allegation of lack of true consent, not just emotional venting.
I respect your interpretation. I am just saying that there are indeed people out there who don't agree. Of course you are free to disagree with them. Being pro-democratic, we respect each others' differences in opinion.
What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.
Why do you keep pushing for that? I just want to highlight data and different opinions and let people make up their own minds. No need for me to impose my views.
Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.
YOU happily gave YOUR opinion that there was no sexual assault involved:
>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..]
The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.
Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.
And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.
Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
That's just your imagination and your over-eagerness to pick up a pitchfork. Of course sexual assault should be punished, nobody disagrees with that. I find you jumping to conclusions so quickly and your tendency to identify me as a bad guy so quickly, to be absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
Look, it's really, really simple. Just answer a very basic question:
Whats your interpretation of her social media post when taking into account the panicked crying? Does it change your opinion of her claim being ambiguous? Yes, or no?
The fact that you have repeatedly dodged that question is what will cause myself and other readers to jump to conclusions. Nothing else.
If someone claims that WW2 was an elaborate hoax (to pick something uncontroversial), and you present them evidence, and they say "that's just your interpretation" - what would you think of that person?
Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.
No man, not every report needs to have a personal opinion. Journalists are expected to be objective and neutral and only present facts and different views. Why can't I do the same?
I didn't say "that's just your interpretation" (implying I am downplaying that opinion), I said "whatever interpretation you hold is fine, it's not up to me to decide" (implying respect). That's something totally different.
>No man, not every report needs to have a personal opinion. Journalists are expected to be objective and neutral and only present facts and different views. Why can't I do the same?
Oh, come on. You offered your opinion. You presented yourself as an authority (which is somewhat fair, given you are a native speaker). But, your opinion can only be seen as biased if you won't even respond to a well-intentioned, well-reasoned, and completely factual counterpoint.
Any idiot reading this can see what you're doing. It won't work. It's so obvious that you are engaging honestly.
The "'rape allegation' narrative" is your imagination. Most news reports did not use the word "rape". "sexual assault" is commonly used in reporting this case. The Economist does not use rape either. "coercive sexual relationship" appeared in the first sentence. Stop making strawman attack.
> You should reflect on how much effort you spend defending such a regime all over this website (...)
Wow, you're right about that. I thought you might have been saying it as an offhand comment, but I just looked through the 4 most recent pages of FooBarWidget's comments and only 2 comments of those listed were not directly defending or espousing CCP talking points.
Potential shill?
edit:
Their earlier comments have a higher 'normal' to shill-esque ratio, but the greater majority of their comments that I have seen are shill-like.
That's perfectly normal. If you're going to be accused of being a shill you might as well silo your accounts into one for serious matter and one everyone is going to adhominem into extinction.
He may not be a paid shill, but he is not arguing from a position of sincerity. FooBarWidget is far too intelligent to actually believe half of what he's saying, especially his claim that 98% of Chinese citizens are happy with their government. That number is absurdly high.
For reference, trust in government is 84% in Switzerland (highest in the OECD), 65% in Germany, 46% in the US, 42% in Japan, 35% in the UK.
Even if the source of the claim is the WaPo, such an outlier deserves extreme scrutiny.
Do you know why I am angry and pushed to speak up so much about China lately? Because the reality on the ground turns out to be really different from mainsteam media depiction. For 25 years I have heard tropes like "Chinese people are oppressed" but when I did deeper research I found a very different picture. It's like watching my father (the west) defame my mother (China) for 25 years and then finding out that 90% of the accusations are distorted.
You don't have to agree with me but please don't claim that I am being insincere. It's up to me to decide whether I am sincere or not.
It isn't really a question of agreement or disagreement. In the PRC people are jailed for complaining too much, or complaining about the wrong thing. You can't have an accurate picture of what people think about the state in those circumstances, especially when this information is distributed solely by government-sanctioned and/or actively censored outlets. Like that joke Zizek tells sometimes:
"A German worker gets a job in Siberia; aware of how all mail will be read by censors, he tells his friends: “Let’s establish a code: if a letter you will get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter, written in blue ink: “Everything is wonderful here: stores are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, movie theaters show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair—the only thing unavailable is red ink.”"
And I'm trying to say that "In the PRC people are jailed for complaining too much, or complaining about the wrong thing" is a mischaracterization at best, a complete falsehood at worst. I've found this to be the case after research.
But again, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Just don't claim I am insincere.
> And I'm trying to say that "In the PRC people are jailed for complaining too much, or complaining about the wrong thing" is a mischaracterization at best, a complete falsehood at worst. I've found this to be the case after research.
I had an apologist describe it to be once like "if you want to suggest improvements in local government, or you want to make a request, as long as you do it respectfully, then there is no problem at all", as if that is what free people mean when they talk of complaint.
We've all had a nice refresher about what happens in China if you complain, about a sexual assault for example. For the sake of "social stability", of course.
I agree that 98% is too high, but 90% is not unreasonable. There is no country in the world off the top of my head where the quality of life has improved more than in China.
Additionally the Chinese government has a very skillful tactic where they make the local government much more accountable via the central government but charges it of all the unpopular things. That way it gets credit for the good while the local government is blamed for the bad. It's quite smart actually.
The data comes from in-person interviews. One may think that they were scared of saying bad things but plenty of negative feedback was received, they just reported that most issues were solved and were happy with the progress.
I the conclusion of dishonesty was much too quick.
Obviously older, but Japan and South Korea have probably improved even more if we look since the end of WW2. I hadn't known until recently that South and North Korea were both similarly poor at the end of the Korean War.
Nah. Japan was well on its way to industry in WW2. SK improved a lot yes but still not as much as China and unlike China prospects are dim for a lot of people and politics is somehow even more of a mess. I think the average Chinese citizen is a lot happier with their government than a Korean one. Having a prime minister puppetted by a cult doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
I have personally noted a large quantity of CCP propaganda turning up on other social media. Voted up unusually high, unusually early, and by accounts that regularly wind up banned by the admins. As a normal user it can be hard to differentiate real shill accounts from motivated nationalists and/or supremacists, but it's absurd to say this sort of thing isn't likely going on, certainly not to claim any absolute knowledge of the subject.
I am using my one and only account. I made a concious decision to that so people can verify my identify and 20-year long Internet history so that they can't just call me a "paid shill".
You don't have to agree with me but please don't paint me as being insincere.
Yes I am speaking about China a lot lately. Because I am Chinese, I care about the subject a lot, and the whole Cold War and all the media lies have made me angry and pushed me to speak up.
You don't have to agree with me. But please don't say silly things like that I am a paid shill or that I don't belive what I say. I will remind you that I have a job.
If you are not open to my arguments then don't listen to me. No need to defame me.
Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have international broadcasts in China been dropping out when her case is mentioned? Why did the CCP deny any knowledge of her situation, only to later say "she will be making a public appearance soon"?
First I want to know whether you genuinely want to know my opinion, or whether these are some sort of rethorical questions.
After all, I see that you are worried about "shills" and "propaganda". If you are not open to alternative perspectives then there's no need to talk to me. We can agree to disagree and still respect each other.
I assume that you are a good-natured member of this community. Hacker News tends to have a higher grade of participant. I also note that I gave no indication about my opinion of you personally, despite your suggestion. Since that is cleared up, and since you seem to take an alternate viewpoint than mine, I will repeat my initial question:
Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have international broadcasts in China been dropping out when her case is mentioned? Why did the CCP deny any knowledge of her situation, only to later say "she will be making a public appearance soon"?
To the best of my knowledge, this is what's going on:
- In China, censorship is common for any kind of controversy, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-government. It's common for people to be silent during a controversy regardless of what it was about. Furthermore, censorship is not related to whether someone will be caught/jailed/kidnapped or not. See my writeups here for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344676 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
- When you say "CCP deny knowledge of her situation", you need to understand that neither the CCP nor the Chinese government (there is a distinction, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume they're the same) are a monolith. The people who were asked are responsible for foreign relations. They don't know every single domestic issue right away, especially not if China didn't consider that issue to be a diplomatic issue. It's like asking the US ambassador "where is Britney Spears, her Facebook is blocked!"
The censorship apparatus operates independently from the foreign relations apparatus, and even from the law enforcement apparatus. Censorship is more like super-moderation rather than a police force. Furthermore, censorship is decentralized. The censorship authority provides guidelines on what sort of content to censor, and then Internet companies do the censoring themselves. It's not so that the censorship authority directly monitors every post at all times.
The western public kept pushing for "Chinese government, produce her". So they did.
- The Chinese public largely does not believe that she is or has ever been in danger. Some Chinese criticized the fact that she's censored, but even they don't believe she's in danger. They don't believe she's forced to give a false statement. Chinese have high trust in government and police, and they trust that if Zhao is indeed a corrupt official then he will be dealt with.
- The Chinese view censorship and information control in a more nuanced manner than westerners. Where censorship is a deadly sin in the west, Chinese view censorship as sometimes good sometimes bad. They believe that sometimes censorship is necessary for the greater good.
I will note that my writeups are not so much about endorsing them. My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west. You don't have to agree with their practices, but I do think it's important for people to understand what the Chinese public thinks, and how Chinese values are different from western values. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west, and the western way would work disastrously in China. China is different rather than universally evil. To each their own.
I can't say you have answered my questions satisfactorily. Broadcasts from international news sources that mentioned Peng Shuai were censored - this is not just some procedural or algorithmic issue. And what business does the CCP have, if Peng Shuai is free from the kind of imprisonment it is assumed she is under, telling the public when she will be making a public statement? As for the Chinese public not believing she is in danger, well why would they? Again, information about her, including in international broadcasts, have been censored in China, online and on TV.
I edited my comment slightly and added more info. Not sure whether you've seen them.
> Broadcasts from international news sources that mentioned Peng Shuai were censored
I do not know about this specific issue. What I suspect is that now it has become a foreign relations issue, they are pushing for unity in messaging. Unity in messaging is a core principle in Chinese foreign relations practice.
> And what business does the CCP have, if Peng Shuai is free from the kind of imprisonment it is assumed she is under, telling the public when she will be making a public statement?
This is a matter of values. Westerners believe that government should interfere as little as possible in citizen matters. That's fine.
The Chinese don't tend to see the government in an adversarial manner. In general, they prefer a strong, centralized government that actively meddles in citizen matters as long as it is for the public benefit. They see the government as a partner (though, depending on times and context, "necessary evil" may sometimes be more appropriate) in building a better society rather than an enemy of a better society.
Furthermore, the CCP and the government aren't just a top-down imposition. They are the very fabric of society. They are everywhere. Every neighborhood has a neighborhood commitee who are party members. They help the neighborhood and perform important community management tasks. If you have a complaint about the neighborhood, you go to them. They regularly come ask you whether everything is fine, whether you need something. During Wuhan's COVID-19 lockdown they were the ones on the front lines, ensuring that health workers stay supplied and ensuring that food gets delivered to every household. The CCP has 90 million members, or about 5% of the population. Everybody has some relative that's a party member.
The Chinese public does not view the issue as "the govt is telling her to make a public statement". Rather, they view it as "the foreign public is making so much fuss about her, the government and the media are helping her voice get heard by foreign public". That her social media account remains blocked for now is seen as a completely separate matter, related to domestic social stability, which has got nothing to do with foreign relations.
Regarding the future of her censorship: that will be lifted once things have calmed down. See my case studies on Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
With regards to the value judgement, it depends on whether you can accept that western values are not universal. I propose the thesis that they are not, because many other Asian and African countries have also criticized the western "our values are the only right ones" attitude.
Like I said in another response to you, it's a wonderful coincidence for a totalitarian government to be ruling over people who are so naturally deferential. There is no evidence of innate deference to totalitarian governments in Chinese people. Given environments out of control of the CCP, like Hong Kong or Taiwan, Chinese people eagerly engage in democratic processes.
If you think that it's impossible for Chinese (or other countries in general) to have a different attitude towards government then you should watch some videos by Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat. For example https://youtu.be/zBpmm5hdbFQ
Furthermore, the characterization of China being "totalitarian" is wrong because China is in no way comparable to the likes of North Korea or Saudi Arabia. You should check out the works of political science professor Daniel A. Bell: https://youtu.be/ckt94_JWHPs
This isn't a "coincidence". The Chinese government has evolved to its current form because of Chinese values. The CCP won the civil war because it had support of the majority of the population.
This is what totalitarian governments always claim. "We are the deterministic result of the people organizing themselves", generally a single ethnic group. Conveniently this also means an attack on the party is an attack on the ethnic group. The CCP was formed in the chaos of the early 20th century, buoyed by the Soviets, and maintained its power in part by astonishing acts of brutality on the Chinese people. If the "Chinese peoples values" you're referring to includes a significant streak of sadomasochism you can fill me in.
What? An attack on the party is not seen as an attack on Han man. You can't just conveniently draw false comparisons between western paradigms and China. You keep saying unsubstantiated stereotypes while I keep posting sources.
Han supremacism — while it exists — is largely not a thing and certainly not state policy. State policy is that minorities receive extra benefits that Han do not enjoy, and that the provincial government heads of minority provinces must be of those ethnicities.
Please go to China and tell a Chaoxianzu he's not Chinese. He'll tell you to fuck off.
Please go to China and tell people that the KMT should have won the civil war and see how people react.
> My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west.
> China is different rather than universally evil.
I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.
I've seen very few comments on HN (or even in real life) that criticize the people or the culture - everything is about the CCP and its policies, which are authoritarian-for-your-own-good at best.
Every piece of evidence that I've seen points to the CCP being a very evil organization that has hijacked the legacy of a great and old empire and convinced its subjects that its merely the latest figurehead of it.
I'm an American, acutely aware of the many faults and malicious actors at work in my government, yet I'm capable of separating that from the ideals of my country.
Don't confuse criticism of your government with criticism of your people, history, culture, or national ideals. They're completely separate.
> I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.
This is something I have heard many times before, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For one, I have debated with a lot of people. The majority of them say something along this line, but then a few messages later they post things like "Chinese people can't innovate, only copy" or "they are brainwashed". A lot of people hide blatant racism, sinophobia or plain prejudice behind "we are only against the CCP, not the people". This is no criticism to you or the other poster specifically, but is a criticism against the general public.
Furthermore, even among the more honest people, what I have noticed is that most of even them are not so much "against the CCP and not the people", but rather "against the CCP and don't care about the people". They will happily suggest actions (sanctions, revolutions, overthrow of government, war, etc) that will result in Chinese people suffering. But they consider that fine, because they are just "standing up to the CCP". In other words, they don't care whether Chinese people become cannon fodder and collateral damage in their fight of justice against the Chinese government.
Why would Chinese people want this? We just got out of 120 years of war, revolution and famine. We've tried many things. Many different governing and social organization forms failed, and now when things are finally going well foreigners want us to start over again just because they think our government is bad? Can't we have a say in this too? Can't we say, look the government is not perfect but it's not as bad as you think, they also do a lot of good things and things are still improving (and they have improved), so we don't want another revolution and we certainly don't want you to encourage one for us?
Anti-China sentiment (or anti-CCP sentiment, as you'd prefer to call it) isn't just about logic and debate, it's a gateway drug into a war against China. The US military industrial complex is literally pouring millions of dollars in anti-China propaganda and the prop-up of "the China threat", with the aim of manufacturing consent for a war against China.
The more people jump on the China-evil (or the CCP-evil) bandwagon, the more you enlarge the echo chamber and the more willingness there is for a war. It doesn't matter whether the bandwagon is "China is evil" or "the Chinese government (but not its people) is evil" — the potential outcomes are equally disastrous. You can already see this on the streets: anti-Asian violence has spiked in the US thanks to all the anti-China reporting. Thugs on the streets don't care whether a person is Vietnamese or Taiwanese or anti-CCP Chinese or whatever, they are all Chinese to them. Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat, recently visited New York, reporting that the mood in New York is very dark: people see the Chinese state as "the enemy".
As someone who thinks about many things rationally, what I find stupid about this bandwagon is that half of the reasons people cite for declaring the Chinese government as bad, are based non-understanding of Chinese context and values, an inflated sense of "the China threat", the idea that the western perspective is the only legitimate one, or just plain biased reporting. Yet most people refuse to critically examine whether their attitude against China/CCP is even correct and based on the right facts and the right perspectives. Most people start with the final conclusion that China/CCP is evil and then they find arguments to fit that conclusion, while sticking to the notion that the western perspective is the only perspective that could possibly be right. This attitude perfectly aligns with the goal of manufacturing a consent for war.
TLDR: focussing on the people-government separation is akin to sleepwalking into a war.
TLDR 2: Attacks on the CCP are attacks on the Chinese people. But not because I see it as such, but because the western public makes it into such, as measured by potential practical outcomes.
I probably don't need to remind you that a war with China can escalate into WW3, in which lights all over the planet will go out.
Well you're ignoring the fact that the Chinese government is very open to criticisms and actually regularly change policies based on criticism, despite the counter-intuitive act of simultaneously censoring some critics.
I have reflected and I disagree with you. Explaining how China works and presenting alternative views is not "defending [an evil] regime", thank you very much.
I am not ignoring that such a thing might happen. The regime must be able to doublespeak. Allowing a small amount of safe criticism and changing policies allows those in power to deflect and convince people who aren't paying attention.
Any criticism that is a legitimate threat is met with blanket censorship - as in the case of Peng Shuai - or deadly violence as in the case of Tiananmen.
You are free to disagree and I am free to disagree with you. But I am sure glad that 98% of Chinese people are happy and feel that the country is heading in the right direction, and I am glad that the world has a diverse set of governance systems.
How do you know 98% Chinese people are happy if there is no credible, independent study? Surely any study saying Chinese are unhappy would be censored.
This one actually made me belly laugh, thanks for that.
It's not independent, a study, or by York University, it was a ccp sponsored poll performed in China, by party members, with data collated and compiled by party members.
It's rare to see propaganda crumble to so delicate an interrogation, that's some primo stuff.
Looking at your posts on HN (this topic and others) you clearly and plainly defend CCP (chinese gov) on many of it's policies (even if being atrocities), while trying to evade questions and whitewash topics. You did try defend CCP Taiwan stance.
You either lie, either are (in my opinion) delusional, because your writing here 'CCP is open to criticism', on this very thread about Peng. This is nuts. Literally 30 minutes after publication of her _personal_ post, remind you she is a China citizen, the post is removed (no trial! pure force gov action) and discussion is actively blocked in China. It is a very simple cognitive task in reasoning and critical thinking, to conclude what does it mean for CCP and China in general, if there are _personal_ things not allowed to be aired there.
If you can't grasp it, do a simple exercise: on your next trip to China (or ask your china based family) do a post about Peng, asking for answers, reposting her post etc -> you will be healed quickly and promptly by the very CCP.
p.s. I'm just a guy, my opinion is mine, I may be wrong. Yet I observed your karma on this thread, literally hundreds of people dont agree with you on HN. I would start thinking about me if that many HN people tell me I'm wrong.
You are making very big assumptions. Re Taiwan (or any other matter), I am anti-war and pro-peace. Let's make a wager: I dare you to dig up a message in which I support military invasion of Taiwan. If you can do so within 3 days I will pay you $1000 USD. Otherwise you pay me $1000 USD. Do you dare to take this challenge?
Saying "you clearly and plainly defend CCP" is unnuanced at best, a complete misrepresentation at worst. Explaining how the Chinese government works and explaining that many Chinese people view things differently, is not at all the same as "defending the CCP", and even further from "defending the CCP blindly" as you seem to be implying. One can say "this is how it works, and the population there don't see it as much of a problem as here" without personally agreeing with everything.
You are also being very reductive about this matter. It's perfectly possible to have complex thoughts and complex stances. My stance is "the CCP has many problems but it is unfair to ignore the good aspects, and one should recognize that some issues depend very much on one's perspective, and the Chinese perspective differs from western perspective". That is not at all the same as "the CCP great".
---
You are confusing censorship with kidnapping. Unlike what people think, they are not related: censorship is a kind of super-moderation.[1] You and I dislike censorship on an ideological level, but that is besides the point I'm making. People getting censored is not an indication of people getting kidnapped. In fact, it happens regularly that people are censored for their criticism, and that the government responds to that criticism.
This, along with "CCP is open to criticism", isn't "delusional", it's fact supported by research papers[2][3][4], Asian media[5], independent accounts by foreigners who have lived in China[6] and street interviews[7]. None of these facts are well-known by popular western understanding of China, and indeed they seem so ludicrous that your first impression is that I am delusional, but they remain facts nevertheless. Please, go read my hard evidence before you declare me as delusional (or even lying).
My point isn't "censorship is fine and I defend it", it's "censorship is misunderstood, censorship works differently and its role is different than what westerners typically imagine, plus the Chinese themselves have complex and nuanced opinions about censorship, viewing them as both good and bad". That's not "defending the CCP", that's showing complex, nuanced reality and alternative perspectives.
If you say that I am delusional, then what about my Chinese family? Are we all delusional then? My father in law told me this: that "censoring Peng Shuai is not necessarily bad, because it protects her privacy and protects her from angry mobs that will socially ostracize her for admitting to having been a mistress". This is a very typical example of nuanced Chinese thought on censorship. They're way less ideologically rigid. Disagree as we two may on censorship, who are we to tell a Chinese citizen what he should think about it?
He also said "Why would they arrest her? She didn't do anything illegal. Her social media will be restored once the controversy cools down". I'm pretty sure that, having lived in China for decades, he knows China better than you do.
Regarding your simple exercise: that exercise has already been done by others, so I will show you directly. The French embassy posted a message on Weibo on which they voice concern about Peng Shuai's safety. This message is not censored, you can read it here: https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4706377967338593
What's more, it attracted hordes of angry comments from Chinese people. Nobody believes that Peng Shuai has ever been in danger — because that's not the kind of place China is. People tell the French embassy to go mind their own business.
What may even be more incredible is that there are even messages in that thread criticizing the fact that Peng Shuai is censored. Here is an account by Dutch Sinologist Manya Koetse: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1463074733042380802
These criticisms have not been censored. What's notable about these criticisms is that they're not criticizing censorship wholesale: they're criticizing censorship for having added fuel to the fire. Even these criticizers don't believe that criticizing means that Peng Shuai has been kidnapped!
---
You say many people disagree with me. Yes no doubt. But do you know why I hold these opinions regardless? Because we are at the dawn of a new Cold War which could erupt into a hot war at any time. China is the flashpoint, and anti-China sentiment is being abused by the US military industrial complex to manufacture a consent for war. To you, it's just "criticizing the CCP for atrocities". To me, it's contributing to an environment in which anti-Asian crimes become socially acceptable, and contributing to an atmosphere in which a war with China would be a good idea. The maddening thing about this phenomenon is that half of these "anti-CCP" criticisms are based on facts for which one can verify that they've been misrepresented, if only people dig deeper than biased mainstream media reports.
I am taking a risk here to voice these unpopular opinions because I don't want nuclear warheads to fly all over the world. And for that to happen, people need to get rid of their unnuanced, reductionist ideas of China being an evil place.
I can turn the argument around: people see a Chinese person — who has obviously done a lot of research, seeing the number of sources I post — holding a controversial opinion, one that would even seem to harm that person's interests ("why would you support an oppressive government that murders your own people?"). Why do these people hold on to the notion that they are right, instead of wondering why I hold the opinions I do? Could it be that their assumptions are wrong? Why do so many people lack self-reflection?
Now it's my turn to give you an exercise. Go to a local university, find 20 mainland Chinese students and tell them they're being oppressed by the government and that you support their overthrow of the CCP. Watch their reactions. See whether you can still claim that I am being delusional.
While I agree with your (general) point, I'm not so sure about the last paragraph.
I mean, I would answer "yes" to your "being oppressed by the government" part. And, to some extent, everyone who lives in mainland China and reads HN should feel so, as HN is censored by GFW.
Overthrowing CCP idk, I am not seeing how this could be practically done without making my life significantly worse. So that's the trade-off I made.
That is fair. I too have met Chinese that are anti-govt/anti-CCP (though nowadays they seem to be a minority). And yes I also recognize that there are still many problems that need solving.
I've checked this translation and I agree with most of it.