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

191–200 of 347 posts

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#191

Post by sudosysgen »

yongjik wrote: post #67
boomskats wrote: post #42

I am not trying to defend China or the CCP in any way here, the situation is not defensible. However, I'm surprised that more comparisons haven't been made to the way the West has erased Julian Assange, and how easily he disappeared from our collective consciousness.

Because that's not comparable..? If someone tried to disseminate classified Chinese military documents depicting war crimes, and got caught by CCP, chances are that nobody will ever see them or hear of them ever again. A much more comparable incident is something like this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct... ), where nobody was "disappeared" - on the contrary, for several months, the med…

Assange isn't American. Is it true that an Australian reporting on Chinese warcrimes would not see freedom for 9 years? That doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#192

Post by clove »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #133
afavour wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being essentially harmless in the west. Is their aim to be harmful in the west? My impression has always been that they’re pretty ambivalent about that, they’re more concerned with the internal effect. I don’t know that people even do think Chinese propaganda is clever! In my mind their skill is overarching control over communication. It’s dumb and brute force but it seems to work.

They aren't aiming to be harmful. But I've seen plenty of people paint everybody who have a non-mainstream opinion on China, as paid undercover propagandists.

You don't have a non-mainstream opinion on China; you hold every Chinese (domestic) mainstream opinion and parrot them on this Western forum. One only needs to look at your post history to see that all you do here is post CCP propaganda.

Who would do that but a paid shill?

HN is one of the few places online that both allows free speech and isn't riddled with bots/spammers/shills. I'd like to keep it that way, meaning you should fuck off. No one is buying your shit, anyway, as you might have found from the replies your posts get. It's a lost cause.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#193

Post by hogFeast »

pphysch wrote: post #171
hogFeast wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly bizarre to me that someone who is taking a very pro-CCP stance will justify this with reference to propaganda that other nations create...it is really something. Every nation creates propaganda, every nation does not have media controlled by the state, every nation does not have massive propaganda departments that are present at all levels of society...they aren't equivalent, the only reason to draw the e…

It is truly bizarre when people trick themselves into the paradox of "I don't trust Government 1 but I trust everything they or their crony media says about Government 2"

Again, the doublethink is amazing.

My point is precisely that people in democracies are not forced to trust the govt. They don't have to trust the media, they are totally free. The only context in which your logic makes sense is one in which you believe the govt controls truth. You are living in a mental prison that you created.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#194

Post by dnautics »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #149
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Didn't know context of joke here" Why are people referring to it as a joke? He may have said it in a jocular tone-of-voice, but I don't think it was a joke at all: it's a reasoned statement to make and furthermore it's a statement I agree with: given US blue-chip companies' propensity to entrench themselves and the CCP's reversion back to authoritarianism (which history has made abundantly clear: rarely ends-well fo…

There is a view of history where the thousands of years of Chinese rule-by-bureaucracy is uninterrupted. My grandfather grew up there and was fond of saying "you have to remember the Chinese did not pray to God. The average Chinese person is not important enough for that. They prayed to the third under-secretary to God's chamberlain. What they really worship is bureaucracy". I don't know China well enough to comment…

What is this thousands of years of uninterrupted rule thing? If nothing else there was a period where china's rule was very much interrupted by the mongols, not to mention warring states era, etc.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#195

Post by pphysch »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #162
FooBarWidget wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sinocism is the approximately the same level of quality as Jansen, Dumbrill, etc. That it caters to a particular crowd of liberal "China watchers", which you may be party to, does not make it higher quality.

Axios is also known for producing outright disinformation on China via zealots like Allen-Ebrahimian.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#196

Post by mr_toad »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #126
__s wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't know context of joke here, so looked it up: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/jamie-dimon-quickly-... The quotation seems to be garbled in that link, https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/jamie-dimon-jokes-jpmorgan... has one that makes more sense > The Communist Party is celebrating its 100th year. So is JPMorgan. And I’ll make you a bet we last longer. Tho second link isn't a citation for: > I can’t say th…

"Didn't know context of joke here" Why are people referring to it as a joke? He may have said it in a jocular tone-of-voice, but I don't think it was a joke at all: it's a reasoned statement to make and furthermore it's a statement I agree with: given US blue-chip companies' propensity to entrench themselves and the CCP's reversion back to authoritarianism (which history has made abundantly clear: rarely ends-well fo…

> I don't think it was a joke at all: it's a reasoned statement

It’s funny ‘cause it’s true.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#197

Post by pphysch »

ginko wrote: post #114
pphysch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food for thought: when has any action of the Chinese government been cast in a good light by Western media? We start from the conclusion "China bad" and search for evidence to confirm it, while ignoring contrary evidence.

I'm European. The news I read about the US aren't exactly feel good stories either. That's generally not what people are interested in. There are occasional short articles about some funny internet sensation or what have you but you do read about those from China as well. Like for instance when that elephant herd moved through Southern China earlier this year.

You don't have to lie to paint the USA in an bad light. Socioeconomic conditions here have been in decline for half a century, and greatly accelerated in the last 13 years. Foreign policy has been failure after failure.

PRC however has been on the opposite trajectory, a meteoric rise in the living conditions of the average person over just a few generations. So you do have to lie/omit to paint China in a uniformly negative light, which is what the Western media virtually always does in the past 5 years.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#198

Post by pphysch »

hogFeast wrote: post #193
pphysch wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is truly bizarre when people trick themselves into the paradox of "I don't trust Government 1 but I trust everything they or their crony media says about Government 2"

Again, the doublethink is amazing. My point is precisely that people in democracies are not forced to trust the govt. They don't have to trust the media, they are totally free. The only context in which your logic makes sense is one in which you believe the govt controls truth. You are living in a mental prison that you created.

Where is the "doublethink" in pointing out the paradox in distrusting your government yet trusting everything they say about a foreign government?

You do realize that "trusted" "unbiased" media outlets like the Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo literally have State Department/Pentagon censors filtering any material that could be deemed sensitive to "national security"?

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#199

Post by guscost »

pphysch wrote: post #82
guscost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, do you have any recommendations for uh, China analysis YouTubers?

Sure. What topics/sectors are you interested in?

Asking this question pretty much reveals what you’re going to recommend. Obviously, I’m looking for opinions about: “CCP good, or CCP bad?”
Post reply on HN