121–130 of 150 posts
Is censorship even effective? I'd love to see an academic treatment of the reality of censorship minus the obvious moral qualms. I suppose it's probably an impossible thing to measure.
http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf?m=14...
https://citizenlab.ca/2016/11/wechat-china-censorship-one-ap...
Some interesting answers on Quora:
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-a-lot-of-Chinese-people...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Athiests (the community) are known for being outspoken about the damage that certian religions have caused and are causing, but they're also known for supporting the free exchange of ideas including those that they think are harmful. Atheists (the definition) aren't known for anything because atheism doesn't demand any specific behaviors.
I wonder if there have been any explicitly Athiest regimes? That is, governments based on an ideology that explicitly denies the existence of God and devalues all religions? If only we had historical examples of such regimes, perhaps we could see if they were benign or murderous. Oh what a pity we don't have such examples.
Some, but not all, regimes in the Leninist (and Stalinist, etc., derivatives) tradition were/are, and early the French Revolutionary regime briefly was during the period of the establishment of the Cult of Reason (which, while called a “cult” with good was, was atheistic and thus not a religion in the theistic sense), but that was soon replaced by the Cult of the Supreme Being (which was deistic, but not atheistic) during the Terror.
A friend of mine has a theory that as China grows in power, it will eventually push its own alternative calendar as an ideological statement, as the calendar we currently use is based on the birth of Jesus Christ, something the Chinese government does not particularly care about.
It would be logistically easier to keep the same calendar and ban the idea that it's based on Jesus Christ.
Is censorship even effective? I'd love to see an academic treatment of the reality of censorship minus the obvious moral qualms. I suppose it's probably an impossible thing to measure.
Some interesting research on this topic: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf?m=14... https://citizenlab.ca/2016/11/wechat-china-censorship-one-ap... Some interesting answers on Quora: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-a-lot-of-Chinese-people...
A friend of mine has a theory that as China grows in power, it will eventually push its own alternative calendar as an ideological statement, as the calendar we currently use is based on the birth of Jesus Christ, something the Chinese government does not particularly care about.
Have you and your friend never heard of Chinese new year? China already has its own very popular calendar that predates the Gregorian.
This is part of the period in china known as the Century of Humiliation (1839-1949)... which includes the invasions of western powers, opium wars, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm disrespectful of many things, that doesn't mean I want to ban them. Even if they're as dangerous as Christianity.
I agree that we shouldn't ban something just because we dislike/disrespect it; instead I meant that, unfortunately, many people (on both sides) don't see things that way. Sorry if that's not what it sounded like I was saying in my original post.
Its worth noting the absolutely insane impact that cargo cult Christianity had on China which arguably caused the Chinese civil war. That might be some context as to why Christianity has been singled out? EDIT: why would you downvote this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Heavenly_Kingdom From the source: > A self-proclaimed convert to Christianity, Hong Xiuquan ... [claimed] ... that he was the second son of Go…
Not really... That is a symptom, not the cause of the Chinese civil war(s). The arrival and the dominance of the Western powers eroded the strength and faith people had in the Qing Dynasty. The Taiping rebellion was a reaction to that but just one event in a long series of the fracturing of China as the Qing declined. Christianity isn't being singled out. Islam is also a target. They oppress the hell out of the Uighu…
to be fair its the mistake that most autocrats make in not seizing control of religion. Religion is often the one available source of dissent. As the Shah learned in Iran; its a terrible mistake to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Christians have been persecuted by polytheists, atheists, Muslims, and many others. Ancient Rome sent many Christians to the lions. The USSR had official state atheism, for example, and persecuted Christians. Certainly Christians have persecuted other Christians, but I think there's little evidence that Christians have been the dominant ones. Much more info is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christ…
That page simply ignores the Christian-on-Christian violence. Where's the Thirty Years' War, "one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in human history"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only a small and bitterly disputed slice of Ireland is part of the UK.
Good point, I should have written 'Northern Ireland', apologies.
Northern Ireland remains in the UK because of the Protestants. Is the Anglican (or any other protestant church) powerful there?
And if the Catholic Church (and the Catholics) were actually powerful in Northern Ireland, would it remain part of the UK?
Another sign (among many) that China is preparing for significant social unrest and probably global instability. I suspect the CCP has concluded that a rebalancing of its economy is inevitable, close at hand, and will be painful for most Chinese. The scale of China's challenge, maintaining order in a nation of its size, guarantees there will be overreach. I thought we might see mesh-networking emerge in Iran as a mea…
This isn't about Bibles, the Bibles are just one aspect of a tightening grasp on society that's been going on for a while now. You could just as easily focus on their attacks on feminism or homosexuality, with a completely different attendant set of armchair socio-historical theories.
The economic explanation is the only one I've heard that makes sense to me: at present, civic peace is largely predicated on continuing economic growth. The main reason the populace tolerates the current regime is that it has provided steadily-increasing prosperity. If the government anticipates a bump in that process, it makes a lot of sense that they would now be battening down the hatches.