Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#41

Post by khuey »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #23
felipemnoa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Good point, no one ever criticizes that. But it's a good point to bring up when someone plays the moral relativism card. Imagine if our government sent armed thugs after anyone who posts or even mentions the famous photo of the students at Kent State. Not even Nixon would have tried that, but it's business as usual in China.

Er, the reason we rarely talk about Kent State anymore is because nobody defends that. What's the point in "criticizing" something when everyone agrees with the critics?

Nobody criticizes the geocentric model of the solar system these days either.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#42

Post by GhostVII »

eternalban wrote: post #36
dmix wrote: post #5

I wonder who asked the Tiananmen question to the minister from the audience in Singapore. That guy has some backbone, I like it. They should be challenged on the topic of their political repression more. And not just the typical American channels which Beijing finds easy to dismiss as western propaganda. It's a pretty simple equation. Why would any state have to spend so much explicit effort on making no one mention…

The question and answer are likely planned. CCP wanted that answer out. It will reach its intended audience: upcoming generation of party leadership; young and affluent non-CCP Chinese; nationalist Chinese; law and order Chinese. I think that substantial and important subset will be satisfied with the answer. The rest are busy chasing virtual butterflies glued to their "smart assistant" (a feature, not a bug) just li…

> You mean like two modern skyscraper crumbling into dust in a handful of seconds which one must not mention in respectable society unless repeating the "party line"?

Are you suggesting that the US government suppresses discussion of 9/11, similar to China and Tiananmen? That's a strange opinion, I've heard lots of discussion about 9/11, there is even a museum about it.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#43

Post by smacke »

peisistratos wrote: post #9

It sounds like the US government ministers who defended the 1992 crackdown in Los Angeles at the Republican National Convention and elsewhere. The US army marched in to quell the upset, and dozens were killed. Although we do not hear much about that in the US other than praise of the army. Just endless rehashes of Beijing events before LA happened, in the middle of Trump's trade and South China sea war with China.

Hi, you are probably being down voted because your post is being interpreted as "whataboutism", although perhaps that was not your intention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#44

Post by dionian »

peisistratos wrote: post #39
peisistratos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said Los Angeles, not Houston. It was defended at the 1992 RNC as I said - https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan199... In fact the Republicans have this speaker saying an almost word for word echo of what the Chinese minister said.

The two replies are completely puzzled about what I mean by the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992, with dozens dead in the wake. It makes me think of people who are "shocked" that Chinese college students don't know about Beijing in 1989, and they say how the Chinese elite have suppressed events. But I talk about the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992 and dozens dead in the wake, and it is a complete m…

I mean, it's like 0.0001 tiananmens. the US government never ran over hundreds of peaceful pro-democracy protesters with motherfucking tanks.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#45

Post by scotty79 »

DFHippie wrote: post #25
scotty79 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like Orwell vs. Huxley difference. In the end thing is mostly forgotten in both cases.

Here is the difference: in one case it is forgotten because the government is actively imprisoning people who mention it; in the other, because people are apathetic and easily distracted and perhaps disagree that this is an event of similar import. It seems a rather important difference to me.

It is a difference but when I read what you wrote I have trouble deciding which is worse.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#46

Post by openasocket »

peisistratos wrote: post #39
peisistratos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said Los Angeles, not Houston. It was defended at the 1992 RNC as I said - https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan199... In fact the Republicans have this speaker saying an almost word for word echo of what the Chinese minister said.

The two replies are completely puzzled about what I mean by the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992, with dozens dead in the wake. It makes me think of people who are "shocked" that Chinese college students don't know about Beijing in 1989, and they say how the Chinese elite have suppressed events. But I talk about the US army marching into Los Angeles in 1992 and dozens dead in the wake, and it is a complete m…

People probably don't know what you're talking about because of the way you phrased it. Generally people don't recognize "the 1992 LA Riots" but they do recognize "the Rodney King Riots", which I'm pretty sure is what you are referring to?

Also, saying that the military and police killed "dozens" is a bit disingenuous. While 53 people were killed during the riots, of those 8 were killed by police and 2 by national guardsmen.

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#49

Post by Rebelgecko »

peisistratos wrote: post #33
Rebelgecko wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1992 Republican National Convention was in Houston and AFAIK no one died

I said Los Angeles, not Houston. It was defended at the 1992 RNC as I said - https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/patrickbuchanan199... In fact the Republicans have this speaker saying an almost word for word echo of what the Chinese minister said.

Gotcha. The post was written in an ambiguous way that made me thing was an event that you were referring to. I think the main differences with the LA riots are:

Relatively few people were killed by the government, and most of them were self defense or unintentional. While perhaps some of the deaths in Tienanmen square were self defense (e.g. the soldier that was lynched and hanged from a burnt out bus), most of them weren't. Most of the people killed in Tienanmen were unarmed.

The US is pretty open about the LA riots. I can Google it and get useful results, I can see pictures of bodies and soldiers on Google images, I can watch documentaries about it on Netflix, if I go to my local library (operated by the government of Los Angeles) I can get books about the riots. Some of the books are even written by soldiers who were there, and the authors use their own names because they aren't afraid of reprisals for talking about what happened. The rules of engagement for soldiers were much more restrictive than they had experienced while deployed to Vietnam or the middle east. (https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/28/learned-civil-unrest-lo...)

Re: Tiananmen Square: China minister defends 1989 crackdown

#50

Post by ncmncm »

khuey wrote: post #41
CamperBob2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, no one ever criticizes that. But it's a good point to bring up when someone plays the moral relativism card. Imagine if our government sent armed thugs after anyone who posts or even mentions the famous photo of the students at Kent State. Not even Nixon would have tried that, but it's business as usual in China.

Er, the reason we rarely talk about Kent State anymore is because nobody defends that. What's the point in "criticizing" something when everyone agrees with the critics? Nobody criticizes the geocentric model of the solar system these days either.

Spherical Earth, on the other hand...

I have not found an explanation for that epiphenomenon, although I have concluded that it is not meant ironically.

Post reply on HN