Live data from Hacker News

I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

nobelprize.org

181–190 of 234 posts

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#181
FYI, there's an interesting commentator machine operating in China for public manipulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

I'm not ruling out genuine believer of their opinions but there's also this possibility.

They're getting pretty sophisticated and sometimes instead of supporting the government, their goal would be disinformation, induce hatred (i.e. troll) to divide and conquer.

If you're interested in the perspective of some HongKongness (myself included) I'd recommend this film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Years_(2015_film)

It's so touching to me because it's dystopian but really just exaggeration what I perceive in real life that how the changes are creeping in during recent years, continual development of public swaying psyops is just one of them.

Not that I like Britain nor UN either as they both dropped the ball of enforcing the Sino-British Joint Declaration or giving HongKong a chance to decide its own fate as other post-colony.

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#182

FYI, there's an interesting commentator machine operating in China for public manipulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party I'm not ruling out genuine believer of their opinions but there's also this possibility. They're getting pretty sophisticated and sometimes instead of supporting the government, their goal would be disinformation, induce hatred (i.e. troll) to divide and conquer. If you're interested…

This thread has nothing relate to Hong Kong. Could you please stop introducing such completely off-topic stuff? Thank you.

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weakness is democracy. The Norwegian governing party - whoever it is - now knows that China's default position to perceived outside interference is disproportionate economic punishment, leading to pressure on the living standards of the voters they depend on. Autocratic states have discovered a critical weakness in the representative democracy and there's little we can currently do about it

Actually, that's "not a bug it's a feature (#wontfix)" of democracy. But also democracy's weakness. Democracies can't take deterministic stances for the long term good of their people and because any clear deterministic stance about the future can be ridiculed and criticised, and thus a democracy can't execute an effective long term plan for rapid progress and development, and naturally wallows in stagnation. The peo…

> democracy is simply an effective means for social control to maintain a status quo

Occasionally, democracies elect a party that promises change and then actually delivers on it. That the status quo is mostly maintained has more to do with the fact that one high-stakes mistake can obliterate a party's reputation and completely ruin their chance at reelection, so representatives end up being more careful. It is essentially the "autocrat suppressing a revolution by populism" dynamic, except revolutions are regularly scheduled and less bloody.

> A technocratic-governed advanced society like China, can afford to make long term bets and bold moves for the good of its people, and thus in my view better deserves the mantle of caring for its citizens wellbeing.

I think caring for the wellbeing of citizens and making bold moves are mostly orthogonal, since you can make bold moves that completely ignore your citizens, but you can also care about them and not make a bold move when the risk isn't worth the benefit.

I do agree that that an autocracy can make longer-term plans and execute them more efficiently than a democracy, but if those plans turn out to be wrong, people tend to lose their lives. If you bet big, you lose big. China's 5 year plans may have lead to seventy years of economic growth, but occasionally there was widespread famine due to planning failure.

I very much doubt that China would be able to forge ahead at its current speed even after reaching a distribution of purchasing power similar to the West. Productivity gains only get you so far until there are diminishing returns. China's current growth mostly comes from taking established solutions and applying them at humongous scale. I'm not trying to imply that Chinese are only capable of copying, just that it's a hellishly effective method to further economic growth, and that growth will drop to Western levels as soon as all low-hanging fruit has been picked and copying doesn't cut it anymore.

I also don't think abusing "harmony" as an excuse to keep the population complacent is much of a Western thing. I have seen enough Chinese propaganda banners of a similar tone to believe that it is used pretty much universally to discourage dissenting opinions. You mention it yourself as a motivation for propaganda and mass deception, but phrase it as if it was a good thing.

I don't believe much of that propaganda actually ends up benefiting the people (although the daily reminder to brush your teeth might ;) ). I don't doubt that some of the people involved have good intentions, but the higher up in the party hierarchy you go, the more officials will care about securing their rank, and attempt to gain more influence. (This holds true of most social hierarchies.)

To summarize my point, I don't think China is as good as you claim it to be, nor is the West as bad, all the while not being as black-and-white as what you seem to be arguing against.

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#184
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that's "not a bug it's a feature (#wontfix)" of democracy. But also democracy's weakness. Democracies can't take deterministic stances for the long term good of their people and because any clear deterministic stance about the future can be ridiculed and criticised, and thus a democracy can't execute an effective long term plan for rapid progress and development, and naturally wallows in stagnation. The peo…

I can understand some of your critiques of democracy and its current Western implementation. What makes me wonder is the assumption that the Chinese government acts for well-being of Chinese people in general, and not the prosperity of the relatively narrow upper ruling layer. It's not based on any evidence; if anything, Chinese history is full of examples of the contrary. To play an honest neo-reactionary, you shoul…

it's okay. nine_k and i are on "different sides" in view of this. I know nine_k does not want to see it differently. we shall not agree.

but for anyone else who comes across this and is still working out how they feel about this here's a thought experiment:

okay, so you've heard that China is led by selfish autocrats who are evil. now imagine the PRC ruling elite actually does act in the best interests of the Chinese people. just for the sake of the experience, try it on. conceive of the possibility.

next imagine a state that doesn't do that. there's plenty of examples of selfish failed dynastic dictators to pick from. philippines, north korea. we're not even touching on africa. the trajectory is clear. pillaged prosperity.

now look at China's trajectory since Mao kicked the nationalists out. compare to examples of failed single party states.

which type of leadership matches more closely the trajectory of China?

i get if you want to stick to the "evil elite" story. it's easier to dismiss China if you think their leaders are selfish and evil. if you don't live in China, it's more comfortable to deal with envy of their rise by paying yourself off by pretending they're worse in some ways. and if your view is correct, no foul, probably. there probably wasn't anything to learn there anyway, since you were "right" and they were "wrong". you can safely ignore China. but...what if that view wasn't correct? What if they were doing it right? doesn't being blind to that forfeit a chance to be inspired by their achievements and learn from them?

would you entertain the possibility you were mistaken about the leaders? what if you were? what if China is led by people who act in the interests of the Chinese and seek the revival of China? what if they were successful doing it?

maybe you think, well, who cares, it actually it doesn't matter what their motivations are, as long as they deliver. and they sure have delivered growth, prosperity and harmony.

but what if it does matter what their motivations are? what if their motivations their ultimate goal, the cherishing of the Chinese people, is key to their success? I fully understand the painful resistance to anything that is like self-confidence, national pride, or englightened nationalism in a country that is very publicly going through a "dark night of the soul", exposing its self-doubts and self-hatred, equivocation and division for all the world to see. "please don't remind us of anything that looks like shining nationalism that works. don't remind us what we lost!" but, if you really understood the chinese people you'd see that their unity of pride in who they are is really key to who they are becoming, and to their success in this transition.

americans used to be proud of themselves as well. now they're going through their adolescent "low confidence" "self doubt" and "conflict" stage. it's messy. it's not helping their country in obvious ways. but surely the tumult is helping the long term. i'm sure there is a future they can get to where their self confidence and pride in who they are guides them again. but that's probably a very very long way off.

you've got to make up your own mind about what you see about china. i hope my enthusiasm or openness to other points of view has helped you see a bigger picture than the mainstream self-soothing anti-China propaganda, that obscures the truth and doesn't really help anyone -- except to console, for a little while.

but who needs consolation when you get results?

success is a far better consolation than pretending the other side are "bad".

ok, so on to other stuff now. i shall not continue this thread. :);p xx

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weakness is democracy. The Norwegian governing party - whoever it is - now knows that China's default position to perceived outside interference is disproportionate economic punishment, leading to pressure on the living standards of the voters they depend on. Autocratic states have discovered a critical weakness in the representative democracy and there's little we can currently do about it

Actually, that's "not a bug it's a feature (#wontfix)" of democracy. But also democracy's weakness. Democracies can't take deterministic stances for the long term good of their people and because any clear deterministic stance about the future can be ridiculed and criticised, and thus a democracy can't execute an effective long term plan for rapid progress and development, and naturally wallows in stagnation. The peo…

ha. downvotes. a product of a Western liberal republic that doesn't tolerate criticism or dissent, and pretends downvotes are for noise only. i got it.

but truly, this "unpopular" view ought to be upvoted for the good of the West. you learn less from what you insist on telling yourself is stupid or evil.

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#186

FYI, there's an interesting commentator machine operating in China for public manipulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party I'm not ruling out genuine believer of their opinions but there's also this possibility. They're getting pretty sophisticated and sometimes instead of supporting the government, their goal would be disinformation, induce hatred (i.e. troll) to divide and conquer. If you're interested…

This thread has nothing relate to Hong Kong. Could you please stop introducing such completely off-topic stuff? Thank you.

Well there's comparison of cultural and citizen quality between HongKong an China in some heated debates here.

Or do you think my comment should be censored?

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#187
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that's "not a bug it's a feature (#wontfix)" of democracy. But also democracy's weakness. Democracies can't take deterministic stances for the long term good of their people and because any clear deterministic stance about the future can be ridiculed and criticised, and thus a democracy can't execute an effective long term plan for rapid progress and development, and naturally wallows in stagnation. The peo…

> democracy is simply an effective means for social control to maintain a status quo Occasionally, democracies elect a party that promises change and then actually delivers on it. That the status quo is mostly maintained has more to do with the fact that one high-stakes mistake can obliterate a party's reputation and completely ruin their chance at reelection, so representatives end up being more careful. It is essen…

you want to engage, but I'm not going to right now. thanks anyway. for serious consideration etc.

i realize my comment is a little too extreme even for my own view. i criticize the West very strongly here, and while i don't walk back from any of it -- this comment doesn't express any of the deep love I have for the US.

anyway, this thread is not about me, so I won't bother spilling what the full spectrum of my views are. i'm fine to misrepresent myself to make an important point as I have done: there's so much anti-China propos that Westerners are blind to what they could learn, so a strong pro China stance is required to counter all the anti-China rubbish, also even those "pro China sinophiles" are often blind to the absolute illusory fantasy scale of Western liberal democracy, and so I wanted to combine those two things together in one mega punch hit. :p :) xx

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#188
post #74

As an aside, even though the Norwegian government has nothing to do with the prize, China quickly ended lots of relations with Norway, losing Norwegian companies billions. Now, the government is too afraid to publicly speak about Liu, to not sour what they have spent years trying to fix. Weak.

China also quickly reestablished relations with Norway when it needed a foothold in Europe against incumbent Trump.

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#189
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly curious to know if you feel that his treatment by the Chinese authorities was just (i.e. in proportion to the perceived crime).

There are a lot of problems with Chinese authorities. There are a lot of things I cannot agree on with them, and I am one of the Chinese people that are trying hard to fix them by doing real work. Moreover, China != Chinese government. I, personally, hate the opinion that Chinese people who has a "traditional" view is inferior. Yes, they might be "washed" by todays "Chinese system" or education, and you disagree with…

In other words, if I understand you, imprisoning someone for advocating white supremacy, say, is wrong. On the other hand, advocating white supremacy is not good even if it would be wrong to imprison someone for it.

Re: I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement (2009)

#190

If aren't sure who Liu Xiaobo is or want to learn more, this essay by China expert Perry Link is excellent: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/07/13/the-passion-of-liu-x...

What is not mentioned in Perry's writing is that Liu's claim that China needs to be colonized for 300 years (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/10/li...) has put him as a shameful character in Chinese history. He might have thousands of supporters in China, of course, it's a country with 1.3b people. It doesn't matter, most people see him as a pitiful puppet of western government, and he is, by accepting numerous funds from NED, and probably CIA as well (http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/Liu-Xiaobo_NED_CIA.htm...).

Yea he is not a hero, I don't care if he won Nobel prize, he is a trash with a bone, that's all he is.

Post reply on HN