China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes • Hacker News Board

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#451

Post by saxonww » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:30 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #437

saxonww wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you need to be killing people to call it genocide No, you don't. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... See Article 2.

So the “-cide” root of the word which means “kill” no longer means that?

It's never meant only that, but that's not the argument. We decided that a long time ago.

Genocide refers to a People (race, kind, tribe, family, etc.), not individual people. The group is a concept, and 'killing' it doesn't have to involve the biological death of the group members. That's part of what the linked resolution is trying to say.

For example, you could go sterilize every member of an ethnic group, without killing - causing the biological death of - any of them. None of them will be able to have children, and as they die of old age, the group disappears. That's genocide.

Another example would be to forcibly separate all the members of the group and prevent them from engaging in the lifestyle associated with membership in the group (e.g. style of dress, music, food, language, worship, etc.). Over time, perhaps generations, the people basically give up trying to do any of these things if they even remember what they were. They have no group cohesion, so the group has essentially disappeared. No need to directly cause any biological death. The argument is that if this is done intentionally, it is also genocide.

Genocide as a concept is about ending the group, not specifically the individual members. It's definitely true that you can end a group by killing all its members, though.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#452

Post by mmooss » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #355

mmooss wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment is valuable and insightful, but > China is demanding more. I have yet to see evidence of that beyond propaganda. Naming someone who reportedly gets a harsh sentence is not evidence.

> Naming someone who reportedly gets a harsh sentence is not evidence. And if I show you official statistics you will say statistics out of China can’t be trusted. Folks like yourself will only realise when it’s too late

So you have no evidence.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#453

Post by mmooss » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

nixon_why69 wrote: post #349

mmooss wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, I have yet to see evidence. That's a bunch of words, but if we didn't know before LLMs and before the Internet, we know now: words are cheap and valueless without other properties. What distinguishes those words from propaganda? Why should someone believe it's true? Throwing insults at people who disagree or question you makes it less likely there is substance to the words.

That comment threw no insults and made a bunch of easily verifiable claims.

"lazy Americans"

> easily verifiable claims.

I disagree that they are verifiable, not being factual statements. But if you think so, then verify them. I'm not going around HN verifying the claims in everyone else's comments.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#454

Post by isr » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #363

isr wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the guy who responded to you, but “only western people have morals, everyone else just cares about how it looks” is pretty much what you tried to imply. And before you start on me, yes - I'm able to "think", and no, I'm not a "troll" If its not what you wanted to imply, then perhaps you'd be better served at owning up & clarifying, rather than insulting others who merely pointed out what you originally wrote.…

> pretty much what you tried to imply Ahhh, the propagandist's classic tactic - when unable to muster even the feeblest possible response to an argument, just make up things and pretend that the other party said them. Fact: I said nothing of the sort. You are lying. > owning up I have nothing to own up to because I said nothing of the sort, and anyone with basic reading skills can see that. > clarifying I was exactly…

Hmm, so I am "evil" and a "propagandist"? I think you need to go into a dark room & quietly contemplate for a while.

Have fun. Over and out.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#455

Post by throw10920 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

isr wrote: post #454

throw10920 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pretty much what you tried to imply Ahhh, the propagandist's classic tactic - when unable to muster even the feeblest possible response to an argument, just make up things and pretend that the other party said them. Fact: I said nothing of the sort. You are lying. > owning up I have nothing to own up to because I said nothing of the sort, and anyone with basic reading skills can see that. > clarifying I was exactly…

Hmm, so I am "evil" and a "propagandist"? I think you need to go into a dark room & quietly contemplate for a while. Have fun. Over and out.

You are straight-up lying about my own words. Yes, you are both, and thank you for conclusively discrediting your own position instead of responding with something that'd actually require effort to dispute (such as a logical argument based on facts).

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#456

Post by grvbck » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #297

grvbck wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that perspective to some degree, but imagine a hypothetical country with say, two parties in power, where prosecutors only crack down on white collar criminals if they are supporters of one party and not the other. We would call that system corrupt, and probably not celebrate that at least some of the criminals face justice. Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessari…

again, you're approaching it from perspective "both sides get caught" being a possibility when in actuality the choice is between "both sides steal" or "one side steals" and allowing both sides to steal is in no way better --- the main way desired "both sides get caught" state becomes a thing is after "one side" splits in two - still being close in horizontal connections to stabilize, but with developed instruments f…

No, I tried to be pretty clear that "at least one side got caught" is not always better than "nobody got caught" if corruption dictates who gets caught.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#457

Post by throw10920 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

saimiam wrote: post #417

throw10920 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a society that values appearances and will do a lot to protect face Read my comment again, carefully, and you'll understand that your response is unrelated to my point. Also: all of these things exist in large, industrialized Eastern nations too. You've clearly never lived in any of those places or even had tangential exposure to their culture. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - just understand that you a…

What, in your estimation, is the difference between saving face in China versus keeping-up-with-the-Joneses in America?

There's no "in my estimation" - this is a well-researched topic and the vast majority of sociologists agree that there is a major cultural difference between the two, starting with the fact that "keeping up with the Joneses" is an individual act of pride vs "saving face" in China not only involves individual pride of an objectively greater magnitude, but also a collective pride that is rare in Western cultures and almost unheard of in highly individualistic cultures like the United States.

For understanding this better - you can try to read the Wikipedia page on the concept of face ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept) ), but part of my point is that academic/intellectual understanding is a really poor substitute for experience in this domain, and reading a page allows for intellectual disagreement that is literally inconsistent with reality - experience forces you to directly confront that reality.

I'd suggest watching a few hundred hours of media from several different Eastern cultures (I personally like a mix between Japanese, Korean, and Chinese television shows - they each have their own memetics and charm and can be highly enjoyable - but most forms of media should give you the same experience as long as it's diverse enough).

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#458

Post by throw10920 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #411

throw10920 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...no? Not that the answer to that question is even relevant to the comment I actually wrote.

I am pointing out the whole ‘losing face’ thing exists in the west too. If you cause certain people to lose face, you will get China-like response. In fact it’s a core conservative value and you can observe it in interactions with police - if a victim embarrasses the police they will prosecute the victim instead of the perpetrator

> I am pointing out the whole ‘losing face’ thing exists in the west too.

Yes, in the sense that a bicycle and a Formula F1 are both wheeled modes of transportation.

I never said that western cultures don't have the concept of pride - just that it's categorically different in eastern cultures.

This is both extremely well academically supported[1] and immediately obvious to anyone who has nontrivial exposure to most eastern cultures (including, specifically, Chinese culture).

Furthermore, the punishment of Chelsea manning is clearly irrelevant for multiple different reasons:

1. Specific instances are not reflective of a general pattern

2. Manning and Assange were instances of leakers of classified information, which is a separate category from merely "losing face"

3. There's a consistent pattern of the US government prosecuting leakers of classified information[2] even when there's zero media exposure, which conclusively disproves the "its just saving face" theory

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)#Re...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/news/press-releases?search_api_fullt...

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#459

Post by throw10920 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

nixon_why69 wrote: post #335

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I given that it wasn’t a spy balloon in the end, perhaps they had a point

I mean, the entire concept of "spy balloon over the continental US in the 21st century" could be considered a litmus test for critical thinking. A country with satellites is running a Wile E. Coyote tier balloon plot?

Yes, and if you think it's not feasible, you failed the critical thinking test. Balloons have the ability to observe signals that satellites do not. It's that simple.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#460

Post by jfyi » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

nixon_why69 wrote: post #450

jfyi wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Gregory Stanton has had the US listed as problematic for awhile now and he's considered a top authority on the topic. Of course his reports are based on the definition from the UN Genocide Convention which you don't seem to hold in high regard. https://www.genocidewatch.com/country-pages/united-states-of... I would suggest that the strict etymology of a word doesn't really matter much in geopolitics, at l…

I mean, I wouldn't consider him a top authority. It's an overly lawyerly approach to US treatment of groups that are clearly not actually being genocided (presently, native americans were). So I disagree on the same grounds as China, you need some mass casualties at minimum before getting into the legal nitty gritty. Maybe mass sterilization could also suffice. I actually restrained myself from pointing out that the…

I agree that scale is often overlooked in these discussions. The real value of current legal definitions isn't just in identifying the industrialized murder of a population, but in recognizing the warning behaviors that precede it. It's crucial to identify when a situation starts moving in that direction.