Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 347 posts

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#161

Post by [deleted] »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #147
tomatofarmer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#162

Post by coupdejarnac »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #134
coupdejarnac wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to be satire. Anyone looking to be informed about China would be better served by reading the Axios Sinocism newsletter.

I don't believe that Axios is a better source. Maybe let people check both out and decide for themselves.

Have you even read Sinocism? Your recommendations are very, very low quality.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#164

Post by petre »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #107
msoad wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why a comment like this is posted here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344355

(Part 1) Here's where the original translation becomes relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344036 Specifically, there are doubts on whether it's a rape charge at all. See the translation discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244 One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings. Her social media ac…

> One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.

Why would she put herself and her family in danger to do that? She's basically at the age of retirement in her career. What do you think she'll do after she retires, with the CCP denying her further career prospects?

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#165

Post by duud »

outside1234 wrote: post #137
alkonaut wrote: post #94

I wish another org would follow suit ahead of the Winter Olympics. A brilliant move would be if the ice hockey tournament would be moved to Taiwan, much like the world championships were pulled from Belarus recently. Who would lose? Sponsors would be happy, players would be happy.

Or the whole thing to Taiwan. It's China after all (according to China alone).

It might be a bit warm in Taiwan for the Winter Olympics. And it's barely China alone who see it as China.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Taiwan#Climate

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#166

Post by mongol »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #139
legutierr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. What specifically has been lacking?

It's fine if you don't think it's relevant. I am posting for those who do think it's relevant.

Thanks for posting it. I found it relevant.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#167

Post by mytailorisrich »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #146
mytailorisrich wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has someone actually disappeared in this case? Is there any suggestion that she was detained in a secret location? Or is it just that she was effectively removed from all the media and public functions? It's not clear to me.

She disappeared for some time, and has since only appeared in tightly controlled situations after public complaints by the WTA led to immense international pressure on the PRC to account for her.

Again, this is 'disappearance' from public life and the media, and 're-appearance' in the media.

But did she actually disappear? This means taken from her home with no-one including her family knowing where she was.

Here [1] the report is that she "vanished from public view". Here [2] that she "she did not communicate on social media" and that noone at WTA "had been able to reach her directly". And here [3] there is no mention of that at all, just people outside of China wondering about her because her presence online was censored.

Based on this I personally do not know whether she actually 'disappeared' at any time, and my guess is that no-one in Western organisations and media know, either. The only thing mentioned in these articles is that people outside of China could not reach her, which is quite different, and led to various speculations.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2021/nov/25/the-disap...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peng_Shuai

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59338205

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#168

Post by twojacobtwo »

tomatofarmer wrote: post #125
FooBarWidget wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because censorship doesn't work the way you think it works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344676

It works exactly how I think it works. As long as no one takes notice, I am free to say whatever I want. You should reflect on how much effort you spend defending such a regime all over this website, twitter, and elsewhere.

> 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.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#169

Post by Pyramus »

hintymad wrote: post #103
chongli wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is remarkable but it shouldn’t be surprising. As the article says, the WTA is a women’s sports association and arguably the most successful one in the world. If the WTA caved to pressure from China then they would rightly be vilified in the west for betraying women. There is no way they could ever do that and get away with it!

It's also great that WTA does not depend on Chinese market, so they won't sustain too much of loss by antagonizing Chinese authority. On the other hand, look at NBA. The righteous American conscience, the one and the only King James, kisses up to China to no end.

> It's also great that WTA does not depend on Chinese market

Due to Covid several tournaments in China were cancelled, which seems to have helped.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#170

Post by [deleted] »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #168
tomatofarmer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works exactly how I think it works. As long as no one takes notice, I am free to say whatever I want. You should reflect on how much effort you spend defending such a regime all over this website, twitter, and elsewhere.

> 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN