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

201–210 of 347 posts

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#201

Post by barney54 »

pphysch wrote: post #197
ginko wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

What numbers are you looking at to say the US has been in socioeconomic decline?

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#202

Post by barney54 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #140
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.

That's true. There was a meme not long ago showing headlines that admonished China for doing something, and then for doing the opposite. There is an element of a hermetic dogma that whatever China does is bad. That being said, the whole Peng Shuai situation is quite shady. On the whole the only really bad thing is that the post was censored, and it's reasonable to infer negative things from that.

No. It was also really bad that people outside China couldn’t have any contact with her for a while. That’s pretty bad too.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#203

Post by xwolfi »

chongli wrote: post #62
rectang wrote: post #6

> With the Winter Olympics opening in Beijing in February, the IOC and corporate sponsors have multi-billion-dollar reasons to help China make the Peng Shuai story go away. Therein lies a bleak lesson. The WTA has been brave in challenging China, given that it has organised lucrative tournaments there. But as a women’s sports association, it depends on retaining the confidence of women players. Sometimes there are in…

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!

And honestly, I d be the party, I d embrace it and move with it. If the Church can take it, so can the party, fix it and get on with it.

The fact one dude has a mistress he raped then followed on, doesnt need to reflect on the political model, the party legitimity, or China's success.

Just look at Trump and the republicans in the US, they rolled with it, Toad dick or not.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#204

Post by coupdejarnac »

pphysch wrote: post #195
coupdejarnac wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is laughable. Do you post to r/sino?

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#205

Post by mthoms »

yeetman21 wrote: post #172
mthoms wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. Can you provide any examples where praise of the government (CCP) was "censored"?

When the CIA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Chinese people were mad and going around in pro government/ anti-US riots and tried to storm the embassy/ consulates in Beijing and other cities. The government shutdown the subways and public transportation and enacted some degree of censorship in the state controlled news. (This was in '99 before widespread adoption of the internet)

You mean this incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C... ?

Quote:

>Large demonstrations erupted at consular offices of the United States and other NATO countries in China in reaction to news of the bombing. On May 9, 1999, then-Vice President Hu Jintao delivered a national televised speech calling the act both "criminal" and "barbaric" and that it "has greatly infuriated the Chinese people." He said the unauthorized demonstrations in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Shenyang reflected the anger and patriotism of the Chinese people, and which the Chinese government fully supported, but urged against extreme and illegal conduct.

>The protests continued for several days, during which tens of thousands of rock-throwing protesters kept U.S. Ambassador James Sasser and other staff trapped in the Beijing embassy.

There's zero evidence that the CCP censors pro- and anti- government information equally here. None. Only that, after first inflaming the rioters.... they eventually owned up to their internationally recognized responsibility to protect embassy staff.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#206

Post by coredog64 »

dnautics wrote: post #194
marcus_holmes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Imperial China period from 200-something BC to 1912 had pretty solid control over a fair chunk of what we think of as modern China.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#207

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

He didn't say "China", though. He said "the CCP". They don't have any claim on those thousands of years.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#208

Post by Tostino »

sudosysgen wrote: post #182
twojacobtwo wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

I know it's not kosher here to accuse others of shilling, but you are acting like it doesn't happen. It absolutely does, all the time.

Less on HN than other social media, maybe, but this place is far from immune.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#209

Post by sudosysgen »

barney54 wrote: post #202
sudosysgen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true. There was a meme not long ago showing headlines that admonished China for doing something, and then for doing the opposite. There is an element of a hermetic dogma that whatever China does is bad. That being said, the whole Peng Shuai situation is quite shady. On the whole the only really bad thing is that the post was censored, and it's reasonable to infer negative things from that.

No. It was also really bad that people outside China couldn’t have any contact with her for a while. That’s pretty bad too.

Yes, that is true.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#210

Post by burntbridge »

msoad wrote: post #52

Every time there is a story that criticizes China's Communist Party there is a flood of troll-like comments here in Hacker News. Lot of "What about X" comments and just general trolling and uncivil behavior. As a non-Chinese I never could understand the relationship of CCP, Chinese nationals and Chinese immigrants in the US and West. To me, it seems very hyocritcal to live in the Western societies and be very pro-CCP…

I think the problem here is people in the West see things in the following way:

Chinese system inherently evil.

Western system inherently good.

When a bad thing happens in the West; we condemn it but don't see it as the overall system being evil. When a bad thing happens in China; we condemn it and see it as further evidence of the fundamental evil of the system.

I think the Chinese basically have faith in their Government in spite of its short comings.

Post reply on HN