Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit • Hacker News Board

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#251

Post by k4renio » Tue, Sep 08, 2015, 6:05 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #250

k4renio wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is censored ship but it goes beyond banned interviews, they filter all information. I think the most effective tool is selective teaching in school. Whole blocks of history are being ignored or re-written. The history teaching emphasise on how China has been bullied by the whole world in order to seed patriotism, while numerous TV shows and movies make sure to keep those memories fresh.

Gotcha. In defense of their government, which I will almost never ever do, I don't know whether China historically got a fair shake or not. The Japanese, for example, never did say sorry for WW II and Nanjing. At least China didn't lose ! I imagine things haven't been completely fair for China, but that's life and everyone's pretty much in the same boat. I'm sure you will agree that teaching your citizens to distrust…

China indeed went through tough time, but hopefully things will settle down with the new generations.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#252

Post by hirsin » Tue, Sep 08, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

nicklaf wrote: post #32

hirsin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Mao created the notion of the Three Worlds, he included China in the Third World [1]. It was (ostensibly) unaligned, whereas Europe (and to an extent Japan) was aligned, making it Second World. He (via Deng) specifically called out the Third World as underdeveloped. [1] “Speech by Chairman of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of China, Teng Hsiao-Ping, at the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly: A…

I was unaware of Mao's Three World theory. I had assumed that kelukelugames meant the phrase in the European sense of the term, coined in 1952 by Alfred Sauvy (according to Wikipedia).

Quite correct - I took Kissinger at his word [1] when he said Mao coined it. Kissinger tends to gloss over smaller details at times though, he's an excellent student of historiography.

[1] On China

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#253

Post by maerF0x0 » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #202

maerF0x0 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its crazy to me that California requires so little coverage, on the order of 30k. If you wipe out the sole bread winner of a household, they can expect to make something like 1yr or less of replaced income. In other countries, say canada, insurance minimum can be 1M .

The fact that you don't have a lot of insurance doesn't mean you're not liable for damages. If you hit someone with $30k insurance in CA and the court awards them $1M, you still owe $970,000.

Would bankruptcy absolve you of that though? Or is it one of those long term things where they'll garnish your wages as much as they can? In Canada if you get in a bad accident w/o insurance the government fronts the money and then uses its power to garnish wages/make your life hell to collect as much as it can.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#254

Post by shard » Wed, Sep 09, 2015, 9:14 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #245

malkia wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! Yes, I believe this was the original article, but I've never bothered to read the book. Maybe I should! Edit: From the last comment found this article - which goes a bit against Malcolm Gladwell's findings - interesting read indeed - http://askakorean.blogspot.kr/2013/07/culturalism-gladwell-a...

Gladwell is definitely hand-wavy. I think this article's most compelling point is that Gladwell apparently did not ask a person of Korean culture to interpret the copilot's speech. In particular, one wonders, were the copilot's warning of adverse weather put lightly? Or did Gladwell misinterpret this man's usage of English language + Korean culture which, while seemingly more polite, may have different signals for ur…

There's exaggeration on both Gladwell and Ask A Korean's side. I have been living and working in Korean for the past 5 years, and have been married to my Korean wife for 6 years. Based on the transcript that Ask A Korea posted, it's very clear that that first officer is acting deferentially to the pilot. Specifically, the first officer uses polite speech with the pilot, and the pilot uses familiar speech with the first officer. In my company, neither my manager nor my manager's manager uses familiar speech with me, I'd have to go up 3 levels for that to start happening. Also, when I described what Gladwell mentioned in his book about hierarchy to my wife, she didn't think it was exaggerated. There's likely a large grain of truth to Gladwell's representation of what happened. Also, Ask A Korean is usually fairly nationalistic in his posts, which is a common trait amongst Koreans that I have interacted with.

Re: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit

#255

Post by tsotha » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 12:46 AM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #253

tsotha wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you don't have a lot of insurance doesn't mean you're not liable for damages. If you hit someone with $30k insurance in CA and the court awards them $1M, you still owe $970,000.

Would bankruptcy absolve you of that though? Or is it one of those long term things where they'll garnish your wages as much as they can? In Canada if you get in a bad accident w/o insurance the government fronts the money and then uses its power to garnish wages/make your life hell to collect as much as it can.

Bankruptcy doesn't erase a court judgement, though it might make it easier if you stiff your other creditors. The state doesn't front the money, and the court will garnish your wages and any assets you may acquire until your dying day. And after, come to think of it.