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

301–310 of 347 posts

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#301

Post by pphysch »

bardan wrote: post #240
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"

Something funny and illustrative about the PRC for me was getting into shortwave radio. Let me explain. Sometimes certain people will tell you that the CCP isn't so censorious, that it's all Western hyperbole and propaganda, that most other governments are equivalent. But then you spin your dial through the shortwave broadcast bands and, no exaggeration, every 6 broadcasts or so will be the CCP jamming another broadc…

"America built a border wall preventing their people from escaping. Look how much contempt they have!"

"America banned citizens from owning heavy weaponry. Look how much contempt they have!"

"American banned citizens from smoking meth! Look how much contempt they have!"

Ridiculous.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#302

Post by mthoms »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #238
mthoms wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I respect your interpretation What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.

Why do you keep pushing for that? I just want to highlight data and different opinions and let people make up their own minds. No need for me to impose my views. Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.

YOU happily gave YOUR opinion that there was no sexual assault involved:

>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..] The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.

Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.

And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.

Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#303

Post by clove »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #237
clove wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am glad that the world has a diverse set of governance systems. Except when it comes to Taiwan, right?

I am in favor of Taiwan keeping its governance system. So...

How do you feel about allowing Taiwan into WHO?

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#304

Post by legutierr »

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.

When I asked "how is the content of her post relevant here?" I meant: how is the content of the post relevant with regards to your assertion that the media's reporting has been incomplete?

I also asked you what specifically has been lacking in those media reports.

You are not just posting this information to share it. You are making a claim that the media's reporting has been incomplete, which claim you have not substantiated.

So, I ask again, what specific relevant information has been lacking from media reports?

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#305

Post by legutierr »

burntbridge wrote: post #187
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?

I heard about her disappearance from social media for a time. Can you link information about her kidnapping please.

Here is a general overview of events:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/tennis/peng-shuai-china-expla...

Relevant quotes:

> For almost three weeks following the accusation, Peng was not seen in public and her whereabouts were not publicly disclosed.

> WTA chief Simon told CNN he had been in conversation with counterparts at the Chinese Tennis Association, who had provided assurances Peng was unharmed in Beijing. However, attempts to reach Peng directly had proved unsuccessful, he said.

After her initial disappearance (not just from social media, but also from public) she has only been seen in stage-managed circumstances, only accompanied by state officials:

> New video clips of the tennis star were tweeted by members of Chinese state media on November 20 and 21.

> One clip appears to show Peng sitting with China Open tournament co-director Zhang Junhui and two women around a table in a restaurant in Beijing. The clips appear to deliberately emphasize specific dates. Throughout the video, Zhang is speaking to Peng, but she doesn't say anything.

> Then later on Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced its President Thomas Bach held a video phone call with Peng. The two were accompanied on the call by a Chinese sports official, Li Lingwei, as well as the Chair of the Athletes' Commission, Emma Terho.

The evidence points to her having been physically seized by state officials, who seem to be attempting to mitigate the PR crisis created by her accusations by controlling her physical person. Of course, this is only my opinion and personal interpretation of reported events.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#306

Post by clove »

theaussiestew wrote: post #287
clove wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually he’s convinced me. He does have a non-mainstream opinion on China. The boots on the ground, lived reality and perspective of Chinese domestic experience is literally a non-mainstream opinion on China. You’re being extremely rude here, accusing people of being shills and telling them to literally “fuck off”. If anything goes against the HN ethos and rules, it’s terrible behaviour and bad faith behaviour like…

Fuck off, "veteran."

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#307

Post by throw10920 »

pphysch wrote: post #220
hogFeast wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am baffled how this makes sense to you. You are complaining about the State Department censoring news but imply that the CCP which literally controls all information isn't as bad? Again, you realise that the US being as bad as China doesn't make China good? And, again, the doublethink is being unable to understand that the question of whether you have to trust government makes no sense in the US. You don't have to…

Both Chinese and Americans are more or less equally propagandized, the difference is that the Americans don't know it. In China you know that whatever is getting media traction has been de facto approved by the Party. In America you have virtually no idea which special interest group is currently lying to you through the media, and they will never be held accountable.

> Both Chinese and Americans are more or less equally propagandized

This implies that the US government has total control over all domestic news outlets, a great firewall that censors the national internet and helps to find and remove references to embarrassing government incidents, policy that requires all companies to hand over all user data to the state unencrypted without a warrant, and a social credit system that can prevent you from getting a job if you make negative comments about the government's policies.

I very much would like to see proof of these things, given that I can do internet searches for atrocities like the Tuskegee Experiment, I've never gotten in any sort of trouble for making negative comments about the government, and I can find many news sources that run extremely conspiratorial articles about the same.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#308

Post by throw10920 »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #269
bardan wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that you are a good-natured member of this community. Hacker News tends to have a higher grade of participant. I also note that I gave no indication about my opinion of you personally, despite your suggestion. Since that is cleared up, and since you seem to take an alternate viewpoint than mine, I will repeat my initial question: Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have inter…

To the best of my knowledge, this is what's going on: - In China, censorship is common for any kind of controversy, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-government. It's common for people to be silent during a controversy regardless of what it was about. Furthermore, censorship is not related to whether someone will be caught/jailed/kidnapped or not. See my writeups here for details: https://news.ycombinator.c…

> My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west.

> China is different rather than universally evil.

I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.

I've seen very few comments on HN (or even in real life) that criticize the people or the culture - everything is about the CCP and its policies, which are authoritarian-for-your-own-good at best.

Every piece of evidence that I've seen points to the CCP being a very evil organization that has hijacked the legacy of a great and old empire and convinced its subjects that its merely the latest figurehead of it.

I'm an American, acutely aware of the many faults and malicious actors at work in my government, yet I'm capable of separating that from the ideals of my country.

Don't confuse criticism of your government with criticism of your people, history, culture, or national ideals. They're completely separate.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#309

Post by throw10920 »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #129
zozbot234 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She clearly says that she was in tears and panicking when he pressured her for sex the second time. There's very little ambiguity there: this is a serious allegation of lack of true consent, not just emotional venting.

I respect your interpretation. I am just saying that there are indeed people out there who don't agree. Of course you are free to disagree with them. Being pro-democratic, we respect each others' differences in opinion.

If someone claims that WW2 was an elaborate hoax (to pick something uncontroversial), and you present them evidence, and they say "that's just your interpretation" - what would you think of that person?

Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.

Re: What Peng Shuai reveals about one-party rule

#310

Post by pphysch »

throw10920 wrote: post #307
pphysch wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Chinese and Americans are more or less equally propagandized, the difference is that the Americans don't know it. In China you know that whatever is getting media traction has been de facto approved by the Party. In America you have virtually no idea which special interest group is currently lying to you through the media, and they will never be held accountable.

> Both Chinese and Americans are more or less equally propagandized This implies that the US government has total control over all domestic news outlets, a great firewall that censors the national internet and helps to find and remove references to embarrassing government incidents, policy that requires all companies to hand over all user data to the state unencrypted without a warrant, and a social credit system tha…

> This implies...

No, it doesn't. Americans are more or less equally propagandized, but in different (and less transparent) ways.

Post reply on HN