I think it can compare to when you first wake up or come out of a dark area. At first all of the light hurts your eyes and your initial reaction is to shield yourself or go back to the darkness.
It has to be a slow transition to open information flow or it will be overwhelming.
I think it can compare to when you first wake up or come out of a dark area. At first all of the light hurts your eyes and your initial reaction is to shield yourself or go back to the darkness.
So it like that bright shiney thing in the sky.
I saw it once. I hate that thing.
This is backwards reasoning. The Do-Not-Call Registry prevents telemarketers (except for this evil robocaller that keeps offering me a warranty on my car) from contacting me. The Firewall prevents users from making voluntary contact with the outside world. Phishing, SPAM, and "defamation" (free speech, scary) are most certainly not the primary targets of the Firewall. Information critical or destabilizing to the ruling regime is.
Also, there is no Chinese "people." There are Chinese individuals, and they are most definitely not the government. They are its victims. You might want to look into organ harvesting to see what's going on over there.
If you read the report that says that 85% of those surveyed think the government should control the internet, it says, "This survey was funded by the New York-based Markle Foundation and directed by an
internationally respected research team at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. As required
of all public-opinion polling in China, either the survey or the surveyors must be approved by the government, and some topics that Westerners might have liked to see addressed directly, such
as censorship, were not."
How is any public survey useful if the respondents to the survey had to be filtered by the government?!?
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you're a Chinese entrepreneur given cash by a bunch of gullible Americans. You're an approved organisation which means you give results that won't annoy the Chinese government and cause them to pull your approval. Polling people is expensive. Do you 1) Poll lots more randomly selected people than the survey requires and cherry pick to the the politically correct results or 2) Make shit up, or poll a bunch of people who are politically reliable.
I lived in Taiwan and Asia for 5 years. I know and interact with a fair number of Mainland Chinese now that I'm back. Many (most) have Masters degrees or higher and have lived in the US for 10+ years.
The thing I've discovered is they are extremely Nationalist. Because I spent most of my time in Asia in Taiwan and married there I get plenty of earful of how Taiwan (and Tibet) are part of China and how ANYONE who disagrees needs to be beaten up (literally, financially or otherwise) because China is a bigger more powerful entity than anyone else. (might makes right is the prevailing Political theory among the educated)
Nationalism in China is running at levels not seen since August 1914.
So it is not "Slavery = Happiness," But "Nationalism = Happiness."
The communists are really riding a tiger here. They are constantly stoking the flames of Nationalism and desperately dependent on Economic growth to give them legitimacy and allow them continued rule. So long as they can continue to step on the throats of smaller people (Tibet) and have money in their pockets it makes the people feel happy.
Anyways, there are whole volumes of books out there for those that are interested (Look up Tyranny of History (0140146776) to get started). Also ask the next Mainland Chinese person you meet outside of China what he thought of the French President meeting with the Dali Lama recently. You will get some very interesting answers.
It's not just Chinese. US citizens seem to enjoy having their rights violated as well. They reelected Bush, most of those responsible for the PATRIOT act are still in office, etc. etc. As long as the government provides bread and circuses, nobody really cares about rights. That's the same for the East and West.
Whine Whine Whine... If you were in other countries you could get imprisoned or killed from saying that. While I do appreciate people keeping an eye on our rights to make sure they don't slip away quietly. However when you are a in a country that doesn't guarantee (or even respects) freedom of speech things like Open Source as free speech, or pornography etc... all seem like silly ideas. They just want to say Hey I dislike this government without getting killed.
hehehehe. Let me see. Who had control of the white house AND congress in 2002? Oh yeah; THE PUBS. ANd when was Obama in Office? 2005. And when was USPATRIOT ACT? 2002.
But I find it interesting that you pubs are working SO HARD to blast, FUD, and outright LIE about Obama before he has even started. Says a lot about pubs and patriotism.
I do not blame muslims for everything. I merely state facts.
Extremists like you are exactly the same as muslim extremists. You look for crazy, far-out interpretations of islam in order to justify hating them. They look for the exact same crazy far-out interpretations in order to justify hating you.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of muslims don't give a damn about the batshit crazy stuff either of you come up with because (a) there is always more to the story than you guys are willing to present and (b) its obvious you guys are just grasping at straws to rationalize your
Muslims are the filthiest animals on earth (literally from the quran, 8:55, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
Thanks for an easy one. Anyone following along should take this as an example of "your game" - the one I referred to originally where you and other extremists deliberately misinterpret scripture in order to rationalize your mental disease.
You claim the quran says literally "Infidels are the filthiest animals on earth" - a phrase which exists in no english translation of the quran [google.com] at all, not even the most extremist. A prefect example of the way extremists like you take scripture out of context.
[8:54] Such was the case with the people of Pharaoh and others before them. They first rejected the signs of their Lord. Consequently, we annihilated them for their sins. We drowned Pharaoh's people; the wicked were consistently punished.
[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous. Surah 8 Al-Anfaal [submission.org]
So, here we have first an example of how the God of Moses punished the people of Pharaoh - because he broke his promise to the Israelites - and how those rules still apply, furthermore the line you tried to misquote refers to a specific battle with the Banu Qurayza in which the Qurayza were reported to have twice broken agreements of peace with mohammed's group. It clearly isn't racist, nor is it any justification for hatred the way you would have it.
And that is a typical example of why you are just a broken record of extremist hate. Go and bugger off now little hater boy.
Not the same thing. This is the fallacy of moral relativism at work again on two grounds
1. Bush never committed active genocide. Muslims have, several times, in the 20th century (Armenia, Pontic Greeks, Bangladesh)
Moral relativism my ass. You think America hasn't committed genocide? Furthermore, that is completely irrelevant to my point which was that nit-picking specific characteristics of a small minority and using them to define an entire group is typical innumerate racist idiocy.
No such demographic exists in the Muslim world that actively undermines Islamic terror. All we hear are hollow condemnations of Wahabbism and Deobandi militancy. Nobody (and I mean nobody) in the entire Muslim world actively undermines their proliferation. Witness the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, and the active collusion of the Pakistani government in as well as the widespread approval of the Pakistani people (second-most Muslim population) of the attacks. Clearly, most of the Muslim world is on board with the terrorists.
Get a grip. You confuse territorial conflict with an idealogical conflict. Mumbai and almost all "terrorism" in India is about Kashmir separatism. You might as well complain that muslims aren't doing enough to stop the LTTE. While a
You don't state facts, you're cherry-picking them. The claim that Mohammed had sex with Aisha at age 9 is disputed. Others have put her at 14 to 15. While this seems weird today, applying 21st-century standards to the 7th century is disingenuous at best.
You also conveniently ignore what Aisha did after Mohammed's death to advance the power of women in Beduin society at that time and that she is revered as a role model by millions of women around the world today. They probably all hate themselves in your
They don't like it this way, they just know better at this point. It's like hitting a dog with a stick anytime he goes to get a snack from you, eventually he won't go get the snack even if you aren't carrying a stick. The dog learns not to like snacks, because who knows if you are hiding a stick somewhere. It's just safer not to like snacks.
The chinese people are tired of being hit with sticks and are afraid. It's fear, plain and simple.
Care to justify your assertion that they don't like it this way? Your own beliefs regarding free speech, etc., are not valid justification for what other people may believe.
As hard as it may be to believe for jaded Americans, the majority of the Chinese actually approve of and trust their government. I say this because it seems in America, people whine and bitch about being forced to choose the lesser of two evils, whereas in China people generally tend to be content with whoever Congress deems suitable to elect.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the other poster that you've simply missed out on the fact that the Chinese actually do *like* this system. If you had a time machine and took pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib back to 2000 and asked most Americans what they thought of the events, they would've been horrified. Tell them that these were prisoners of war, and they might have been setting bombs that killed soldiers, and most Americans would have still been appalled.
Fast forward a few years until it's *our* government doing it, and patriotism / nationalism / partisanship or what-have-you has made a bunch of people wrap their brains around the notion that torture is good. Why? Because they love their country / their chosen ideology / their President or whatever, and they rationalize away any negative behavior as good. The Chinese people do the same thing. It seems to be a universal human quality that one takes pride in the group one is in and rationalizes away all bad behavior. So, I'm not surprised that the Chinese like it.
Plus, unlike us, they have been raised from birth with a values system that prioritizes social stability and harmony over individual liberty. 2500 years of Confucian thought doesn't just vanish with the modern age. China would never be the birthplace of democracy. It's just not a natural progression of their dominant social philosophies. Hopefully, they can learn, but they'll have to overcome far more inertia than the early American colonists did. FAR more inertia.
Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way.
Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to take a stand on basic human rights, but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
Then again, I rather suspect you knew all that. I suppose I've been trolled.
Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.
Don't give all of your examples in the past tense.... Many US citizens still support oppressing the rights of gay people. Many US citizens support the unconstitutional searches, seizures, and wiretaps that have gone on since 9/11. A huge number of US citizens supported invading a foreign country and overthowing their government.
A majority of Americans support the Children's Internet Protection Act [wikipedia.org] - and so a majority of Americans also support censorship of the Internet, just like the Chinese do.
I am a westerner living and working in China now, I find that partly because of the governments insular attitudes, people in China are blissfully unaware.
When I say blissfully, I mean most are actually very happy people. The level of freedom they have in the workplace these days (I'm talking white collar) is of an equal or higher standard than the west in terms of conditions. I think most people feel there are enough problems in the world for each person to be a good representative of their people.
Look we already sent them a very tersely worded letter saying that, if they didn't improve their human rights record, we would probably still come to the games anyway.
No, but I don't think they're entirely relative, either. For example, I think slander and libel laws are reasonable limits on speech. I could see different communities reaching different, legitimate conclusions about what precisely those laws should cover. I believe that there are many valid viewpoints, but also many less valid or completely invalid ones.
The IOC must learn that there is no long term positive effect of allowing a totalitarian government to host the olympics in exchange for agreements that are slowly implemented and quickly removed, just as the western countries have learned that when the IOC makes such a mistake it is wrong to respond by boycotting the games.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 17 2008, @04:02PM (#26150789)
As far as most Chinese are concerned their government is great. For more than a decade the average Chinese citizen has seen there lot only improve. Naturally the government there is taking full advantage of this by giving themselves all the credit. Thus to many in China it seems that the government is doing a great job, and who are they to argue with success?
It won't last though. There's a generation of children being born who will take economic prosperity for granted. It's the nature of humanity, and by that same token they'll want more than just that. With economic power in their hands they'll want political power, and that's when the government will be in trouble.
It won't last though. There's a generation of children being born who will take economic prosperity for granted. It's the nature of humanity, and by that same token they'll want more than just that. With economic power in their hands they'll want political power, and that's when the government will be in trouble.
Maybe, maybe not.
Taiwan went from single-party (and single-family) rule to a full-fledged democracy in the course of about 15 years. The old farts who had been running (and robbing) the country were quietly retired and a generation which was willing to allow more political pluralism were seated in their place. This happened with a lot of protests, legislative fistfights, and more than a few cracked heads on the street, but it did not involve putting the heads of the Old Guard up on a post in the process.
On the other side, Singapore has become wildly prosperous, with no sign of democracy or pluralism anywhere in sight. The People's Action Party (read: Senior Minister Harry Lee and his son Lee Hsien Loong) still run everything. It's a weird place. It's clean, it's modern. People go in, people go out. If living in the Lees's Disneyland [wired.com] pisses you off, you're free to go to Australia, or the US, or wherever you like. Everyone knows the rules, and nobody rocks the boat.
The government want to censor what it deems "illegal content" (such as references to Taiwan as a country).
What do the people seem to want (according to the quoted survey)? A more reliable source of information, and who should ensure the internet is "more reliable" other than the state? "Since the only legitimate source of authority in many aspects of Chinese life is the state, when
Chinese citizens are of the opinion that some aspects of the internet should be controlled, it is natural for them to assume that the state should take the lead in doing the controlling."
The censorship we're seeing is (IMO) wrong. The survey seems to be being misrepresented in this context. Or rather, the people's wishes are not being reflected in the way the censorship is being condected...
(Sorry, meant to keep editing, pressed submit instead)
What I was trying (and failing) to say was that the survey appeared to show that "the people" do indeed seem to want some control of the internet, to make it more usable and reliable, and that the state would be the only body able to provide it. This isn't the spirit of the Chinese government's censorship, and the survey can't be used to support the its current actions.
I have heard people complain about things like spam and porn on the internet and say "Why doesn't the government do something about it". If you frame the question properly in the US I bet you would get a surprising amount of support for government censorship.
If you frame the question properly in the US I bet you would get a surprising amount of support for government censorship.
Yeah, but the nice thing about our system is that a surprising amount of support isn't sufficient to deny rights outlined in the Constitution. In theory anyway.
Prohibition got passed. Don't misunderestimate the power of mass delusions. With a 2/3 majority, it's possible to completely butcher our form of government.
If George W. Bush had asked for broad eavesdropping powers with no oversight or certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to be written into the Constitution shortly after 9/11, I suspect he'd have gotten it with little opposition.
Not to sound like the Chinese who "like it that way", but I don't think a complete censor of Chinese news broadcasts to America would effect me in the least. I suspect the same major stories (Free Tibet, the major Earthquake, and the Olympics) would have aggregated into the American and British news sites that I read... and that's all that I really need (or want).
However... I sincerely believe that long-term diplomatic relations are needed with China to prevent any potential future pissing contests like
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 17 2008, @04:16PM (#26150963)
I was there during the Olympics and had internet access through a residential hookup. There was a lot of censoring going on: for example, URLs containing "blog" were generally not accessible. It was clearly not related to what was on the blog, but a blanket thing.
Just wait until the London Olympics. We'll show the Chinese. Ha, they don't even have 5 million security cameras. Amateurs. Hadriansfirewall will kick your Greatfirewall's ass.
Comrade Gordon "the Butcher of Woolies" Brown-shirt, and Leader Jacqui "Winston" Smith will show you the way.
You kind of went off on a tangent there. Actually, the entire post was a tangent. As far as anyone in the USA accessing anything on the internet: What is the government censoring? Please be specific here as I'm no longer in the USA and am curious what I can get here in Europe that you can't. I know of many blacklisted sites/subjects but that has more to do with internet providers than the government deciding that a certain word is verboten to search for.
Please enlighten me as to what specifically you in A
Anyway, you have to realize that Chinese values are fundamentally different from your own. "The Right Thing", to you, might mean freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, etc., but that's not true of all people. Here in Canada, we believe The Right Thing is gays should be allowed to marry, and nobody should walk around packin'. In China, people believe The Right Thing is a centralized, stable government.
Personally, I find it easy to understand the sentiments of the people you mentioned who believed Tiananmen was a case of "tough shit", because given China's chaotic political history, especially in the recent past, organized, stable government is a top priority for many people. And you can't blame them, given the shit they had to suffer through with unstable governments. Many people today still remember said shit, and deems it important to pass these values, namely avoiding said shit, down to the next generation. And the protestors were challenging those very values - the main goal behind the protest was further government reforms, and sought to basically remove the Party from power. In essence, completely disrupting the stable government that China had suffered through three or four periods of complete chaos for.
Obviously Westerners, when presented with the two sides, take the side of the idealistic students clamouring for rights and liberty, since you've enjoyed the luxuries of stable government for centuries. I mean, when was the last major revolution in the Western world? The French Revolution? The availability of these luxuries means that you no longer rank them as high as someone who's lived through several turbulent governments would, and instead prioritize further luxuries like the freedoms I mentioned above. Well, when you look at those freedoms from the perspective of someone who just came out of the feudal age, they're really not that essential to life. So you must understand why they don't rank as high on the list of priorities for a Chinese person.
I mean, when was the last major revolution in the Western world? The French Revolution?
Depends what you call 'Western'. The French Revolution ended in 1799. Since then, a large part of the USA broke away and fought its own unsuccessful war of independence from 1861-65. The Irish Free State was established in 1922, after violent revolts on and off since 1916 culminating in a downright vicious terrorist campaign. Mussolini came to power in Italy in the same year, at the head of an armed coup d'etat by his F
"Here in Canada" we have a charter of rights and freedoms, as a matter of fact, which -should- guarantee that every citizen in the country has equal rights and opportunity.
Don't twist my argument. My example was to show that different people in different countries have different moral grounds. Canada happens to have some similar things as the US due to similar culture, and as I said, have some dissimilar things as well. How about I protest your right to have guns?
Some morals go beyond boundaries, they're what join us together as human beings.
Wow, did you just single-handedly settle the absolute morals debate, and expected everyone to just go along with your assertion? The justification is that you believe this to be fact, thus everyone else should too? This is the exact underlying problem I'm attacking.
Secondly I find it absolutely laughable, and perhaps intentionally misleading that you would even -suggest- that the past few centuries have been in any way peaceful for the Western world (of which France is not considered a part, incidentally). Starting from the 18th century (a "few hundred" as you would put it), there have been over 40 major conflicts involving North America, either on its own soil or others (ones that you seem to have conveniently forgotten include both World Wars, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and a few other blatantly obvious choices). Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_North_America [wikipedia.org] to educate yourself, assuming that Wikipedia isn't censored where you live. We have -not- had stable governments for centuries and we've been through our own share of atrocities ("Here in Canada" we also had concentration camps for the Japanese during the second World War, which you also seem to have conveniently forgotten).
You missed my point completely, perhaps intentionally. It was not about peace or conflicts. Internal chaos is not the same as conflict against other countries. Let me simplify: - Government changes three times in the span of about thirty years, lots of people die, lots of people starve, lots of people homeless, not to mention all the opportunistic warlords making their own landgrab. - Chinese person: "Shit, this sucks. Let's pick a government and stick with it for a while and trust it to do the right thing." - After about another forty years of turmoil, things are finally starting to look up. - Government censorship. - Westerner: "HOLY FUCK THE GOVERNMENT IS CENSORING SHIT! OUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO THAT, SO THAT AIN'T RIGHT! DOWN WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT!" - Chinese person: "Well gee, I don't really give a damn about the censored stuff or very explicitly and loudly expressing my ideas about how the government sucks. Also, the economy's booming lately, and changing governments suck. Yay government!
To summarize, your way is not necessarily the best way, even if it is the only way you know. Other people in other countries have had different circumstances and came up with different methods to cope, and developed different value systems as a result. Learn to look at things from a different perspective, and deal with it.
On a kind of related tangent, this is exactly the reason, in my experience, for a lot of Middle- and Far-East resentment against the US. Americans are on this moral high horse and tries to push their own values and standards onto everybody else, which is especially ridiculous considering all the hypocritical bullshit that goes on in America. You know what I'm talking about.
Yes, we do take the side of idealistic students clamouring for rights and liberty, because it's the same thing that we are clamouring for every day.
Clamour in your own country? Fine. That's the value system your society has decided to adopt. Quit judging other countries' value systems.
It irks me that democracy has become such a buzzword, placed on a pedestal as some sort of basic human allowance. But it's really not the best form of government, and some would argue that it's not even a good one. Most countries that claim to be democratic don't even directly implement it.
There is no good form of government. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried." Democracy in its purest form is actually pretty terrible. The whole "two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner." But democracy as it's commonly implemented today actually has several, common anti-democratic features, like a prohibition on the right of a majority to decide what speech is acceptable or what race gets to ride on the bus
It took them this long to start again? (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow, I find that suspect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It took them this long to be sure that international attention had died down sufficiently.
Re:Off topic: What idiot modded this up? (Score:4, Funny)
you must be new here.
Parent
...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:4, Insightful)
It has to be a slow transition to open information flow or it will be overwhelming.
Parent
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:5, Funny)
I think it can compare to when you first wake up or come out of a dark area. At first all of the light hurts your eyes and your initial reaction is to shield yourself or go back to the darkness.
So it like that bright shiney thing in the sky. I saw it once. I hate that thing.
Parent
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there is no Chinese "people." There are Chinese individuals, and they are most definitely not the government. They are its victims. You might want to look into organ harvesting to see what's going on over there.
Parent
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:5, Insightful)
More like:
Toe the "Party Line" or find yourself "Dissapeared" in short order.
Parent
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose you're a Chinese entrepreneur given cash by a bunch of gullible Americans. You're an approved organisation which means you give results that won't annoy the Chinese government and cause them to pull your approval. Polling people is expensive. Do you 1) Poll lots more randomly selected people than the survey requires and cherry pick to the the politically correct results or 2) Make shit up, or poll a bunch of people who are politically reliable.
The survey is worthless.
Parent
Nationalism Equals Happiness (Score:5, Insightful)
I lived in Taiwan and Asia for 5 years. I know and interact with a fair number of Mainland Chinese now that I'm back. Many (most) have Masters degrees or higher and have lived in the US for 10+ years.
The thing I've discovered is they are extremely Nationalist. Because I spent most of my time in Asia in Taiwan and married there I get plenty of earful of how Taiwan (and Tibet) are part of China and how ANYONE who disagrees needs to be beaten up (literally, financially or otherwise) because China is a bigger more powerful entity than anyone else. (might makes right is the prevailing Political theory among the educated)
Nationalism in China is running at levels not seen since August 1914.
So it is not "Slavery = Happiness," But "Nationalism = Happiness."
The communists are really riding a tiger here. They are constantly stoking the flames of Nationalism and desperately dependent on Economic growth to give them legitimacy and allow them continued rule. So long as they can continue to step on the throats of smaller people (Tibet) and have money in their pockets it makes the people feel happy.
Anyways, there are whole volumes of books out there for those that are interested (Look up Tyranny of History (0140146776) to get started). Also ask the next Mainland Chinese person you meet outside of China what he thought of the French President meeting with the Dali Lama recently. You will get some very interesting answers.
Parent
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just Chinese. US citizens seem to enjoy having their rights violated as well. They reelected Bush, most of those responsible for the PATRIOT act are still in office, etc. etc. As long as the government provides bread and circuses, nobody really cares about rights. That's the same for the East and West.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whine Whine Whine...
If you were in other countries you could get imprisoned or killed from saying that. While I do appreciate people keeping an eye on our rights to make sure they don't slip away quietly. However when you are a in a country that doesn't guarantee (or even respects) freedom of speech things like Open Source as free speech, or pornography etc... all seem like silly ideas. They just want to say Hey I dislike this government without getting killed.
Re: (Score:3)
But I find it interesting that you pubs are working SO HARD to blast, FUD, and outright LIE about Obama before he has even started. Says a lot about pubs and patriotism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not blame muslims for everything. I merely state facts.
Extremists like you are exactly the same as muslim extremists.
You look for crazy, far-out interpretations of islam in order to justify hating them.
They look for the exact same crazy far-out interpretations in order to justify hating you.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of muslims don't give a damn about the batshit crazy stuff either of you come up with because (a) there is always more to the story than you guys are willing to present and (b) its obvious you guys are just grasping at straws to rationalize your
Re:...as many Chinese citizens seem to like it tha (Score:5, Interesting)
Muslims are the filthiest animals on earth (literally from the quran, 8:55, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
Thanks for an easy one. Anyone following along should take this as an example of "your game" - the one I referred to originally where you and other extremists deliberately misinterpret scripture in order to rationalize your mental disease.
You claim the quran says literally "Infidels are the filthiest animals on earth" - a phrase which exists in no english translation of the quran [google.com] at all, not even the most extremist. A prefect example of the way extremists like you take scripture out of context.
[8:54] Such was the case with the people of Pharaoh and others before them. They first rejected the signs of their Lord. Consequently, we annihilated them for their sins. We drowned Pharaoh's people; the wicked were consistently punished.
[8:55] The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe.
[8:56] You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
Surah 8 Al-Anfaal [submission.org]
So, here we have first an example of how the God of Moses punished the people of Pharaoh - because he broke his promise to the Israelites - and how those rules still apply, furthermore the line you tried to misquote refers to a specific battle with the Banu Qurayza in which the Qurayza were reported to have twice broken agreements of peace with mohammed's group. It clearly isn't racist, nor is it any justification for hatred the way you would have it.
And that is a typical example of why you are just a broken record of extremist hate. Go and bugger off now little hater boy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not the same thing. This is the fallacy of moral relativism at work again on two grounds
1. Bush never committed active genocide. Muslims have, several times, in the 20th century (Armenia, Pontic Greeks, Bangladesh)
Moral relativism my ass. You think America hasn't committed genocide? Furthermore, that is completely irrelevant to my point which was that nit-picking specific characteristics of a small minority and using them to define an entire group is typical innumerate racist idiocy.
No such demographic exists in the Muslim world that actively undermines Islamic terror. All we hear are hollow condemnations of Wahabbism and Deobandi militancy. Nobody (and I mean nobody) in the entire Muslim world actively undermines their proliferation. Witness the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, and the active collusion of the Pakistani government in as well as the widespread approval of the Pakistani people (second-most Muslim population) of the attacks. Clearly, most of the Muslim world is on board with the terrorists.
Get a grip. You confuse territorial conflict with an idealogical conflict. Mumbai and almost all "terrorism" in India is about Kashmir separatism. You might as well complain that muslims aren't doing enough to stop the LTTE. While a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't state facts, you're cherry-picking them. The claim that Mohammed had sex with Aisha at age 9 is disputed. Others have put her at 14 to 15. While this seems weird today, applying 21st-century standards to the 7th century is disingenuous at best.
You also conveniently ignore what Aisha did after Mohammed's death to advance the power of women in Beduin society at that time and that she is revered as a role model by millions of women around the world today. They probably all hate themselves in your
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does islam encourage the rape of children ? Well here's the description of what the paedophile prophet did to a 9 year old he had bought :
islam encourages child rape as much as christianity encourages smashing babies heads against rocks.
How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.
You just knew this would happen (Score:2, Funny)
An hour later, and they're hungry for censorship again.
"many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way (Score:5, Interesting)
As hard as it may be to believe for jaded Americans, the majority of the Chinese actually approve of and trust their government. I say this because it seems in America, people whine and bitch about being forced to choose the lesser of two evils, whereas in China people generally tend to be content with whoever Congress deems suitable to elect.
Parent
Re:"many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the other poster that you've simply missed out on the fact that the Chinese actually do *like* this system. If you had a time machine and took pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib back to 2000 and asked most Americans what they thought of the events, they would've been horrified. Tell them that these were prisoners of war, and they might have been setting bombs that killed soldiers, and most Americans would have still been appalled.
Fast forward a few years until it's *our* government doing it, and patriotism / nationalism / partisanship or what-have-you has made a bunch of people wrap their brains around the notion that torture is good. Why? Because they love their country / their chosen ideology / their President or whatever, and they rationalize away any negative behavior as good. The Chinese people do the same thing. It seems to be a universal human quality that one takes pride in the group one is in and rationalizes away all bad behavior. So, I'm not surprised that the Chinese like it.
Plus, unlike us, they have been raised from birth with a values system that prioritizes social stability and harmony over individual liberty. 2500 years of Confucian thought doesn't just vanish with the modern age. China would never be the birthplace of democracy. It's just not a natural progression of their dominant social philosophies. Hopefully, they can learn, but they'll have to overcome far more inertia than the early American colonists did. FAR more inertia.
Parent
Human Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way.
Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to take a stand on basic human rights, but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
Then again, I rather suspect you knew all that. I suppose I've been trolled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right..
Except it's not a minority being opresses it's the whole country.
Re:Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.
Don't give all of your examples in the past tense.... Many US citizens still support oppressing the rights of gay people. Many US citizens support the unconstitutional searches, seizures, and wiretaps that have gone on since 9/11. A huge number of US citizens supported invading a foreign country and overthowing their government.
A majority of Americans support the Children's Internet Protection Act [wikipedia.org] - and so a majority of Americans also support censorship of the Internet, just like the Chinese do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a westerner living and working in China now, I find that partly because of the governments insular attitudes, people in China are blissfully unaware.
When I say blissfully, I mean most are actually very happy people. The level of freedom they have in the workplace these days (I'm talking white collar) is of an equal or higher standard than the west in terms of conditions. I think most people feel there are enough problems in the world for each person to be a good representative of their people.
It is h
Re:Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Look we already sent them a very tersely worded letter saying that, if they didn't improve their human rights record, we would probably still come to the games anyway.
What more do you want from us?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting attitude (Score:5, Funny)
IOC Must Learn (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wouldn't they? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as most Chinese are concerned their government is great. For more than a decade the average Chinese citizen has seen there lot only improve. Naturally the government there is taking full advantage of this by giving themselves all the credit. Thus to many in China it seems that the government is doing a great job, and who are they to argue with success?
It won't last though. There's a generation of children being born who will take economic prosperity for granted. It's the nature of humanity, and by that same token they'll want more than just that. With economic power in their hands they'll want political power, and that's when the government will be in trouble.
Re:Why wouldn't they? (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't last though. There's a generation of children being born who will take economic prosperity for granted. It's the nature of humanity, and by that same token they'll want more than just that. With economic power in their hands they'll want political power, and that's when the government will be in trouble.
Maybe, maybe not.
Taiwan went from single-party (and single-family) rule to a full-fledged democracy in the course of about 15 years. The old farts who had been running (and robbing) the country were quietly retired and a generation which was willing to allow more political pluralism were seated in their place. This happened with a lot of protests, legislative fistfights, and more than a few cracked heads on the street, but it did not involve putting the heads of the Old Guard up on a post in the process.
On the other side, Singapore has become wildly prosperous, with no sign of democracy or pluralism anywhere in sight. The People's Action Party (read: Senior Minister Harry Lee and his son Lee Hsien Loong) still run everything. It's a weird place. It's clean, it's modern. People go in, people go out. If living in the Lees's Disneyland [wired.com] pisses you off, you're free to go to Australia, or the US, or wherever you like. Everyone knows the rules, and nobody rocks the boat.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...you're free to go to Australia...
ie. the new China (in terms of Great Firewalls).
What *does* the survey imply? (Score:3, Interesting)
What do the people seem to want (according to the quoted survey)? A more reliable source of information, and who should ensure the internet is "more reliable" other than the state?
"Since the only legitimate source of authority in many aspects of Chinese life is the state, when Chinese citizens are of the opinion that some aspects of the internet should be controlled, it is natural for them to assume that the state should take the lead in doing the controlling."
The censorship we're seeing is (IMO) wrong. The survey seems to be being misrepresented in this context. Or rather, the people's wishes are not being reflected in the way the censorship is being condected...
Re: (Score:2)
What I was trying (and failing) to say was that the survey appeared to show that "the people" do indeed seem to want some control of the internet, to make it more usable and reliable, and that the state would be the only body able to provide it. This isn't the spirit of the Chinese government's censorship, and the survey can't be used to support the its current actions.
people who prefer censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
I have heard people complain about things like spam and porn on the internet and say "Why doesn't the government do something about it". If you frame the question properly in the US I bet you would get a surprising amount of support for government censorship.
Re:people who prefer censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
If you frame the question properly in the US I bet you would get a surprising amount of support for government censorship.
Yeah, but the nice thing about our system is that a surprising amount of support isn't sufficient to deny rights outlined in the Constitution. In theory anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prohibition got passed. Don't misunderestimate the power of mass delusions. With a 2/3 majority, it's possible to completely butcher our form of government.
If George W. Bush had asked for broad eavesdropping powers with no oversight or certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to be written into the Constitution shortly after 9/11, I suspect he'd have gotten it with little opposition.
Too Much News? (Score:2)
Not to sound like the Chinese who "like it that way", but I don't think a complete censor of Chinese news broadcasts to America would effect me in the least. I suspect the same major stories (Free Tibet, the major Earthquake, and the Olympics) would have aggregated into the American and British news sites that I read... and that's all that I really need (or want).
However... I sincerely believe that long-term diplomatic relations are needed with China to prevent any potential future pissing contests like
They were censoring during the Olympics (Score:5, Informative)
I was there during the Olympics and had internet access through a residential hookup. There was a lot of censoring going on: for example, URLs containing "blog" were generally not accessible. It was clearly not related to what was on the blog, but a blanket thing.
Re:They were censoring during the Olympics (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Scared (Score:3, Insightful)
"as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way."
Particularly those who are concerned that the masses will learn how miserable and fettered their lives are.
China Schmina (Score:5, Interesting)
Comrade Gordon "the Butcher of Woolies" Brown-shirt, and Leader Jacqui "Winston" Smith will show you the way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please enlighten me as to what specifically you in A
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is nothing unusual about having your internet access filtered in the workplace, which is a far cry from the great firewall of china.
Re:The Chinese are ignorant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, you have to realize that Chinese values are fundamentally different from your own. "The Right Thing", to you, might mean freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, etc., but that's not true of all people. Here in Canada, we believe The Right Thing is gays should be allowed to marry, and nobody should walk around packin'. In China, people believe The Right Thing is a centralized, stable government.
Personally, I find it easy to understand the sentiments of the people you mentioned who believed Tiananmen was a case of "tough shit", because given China's chaotic political history, especially in the recent past, organized, stable government is a top priority for many people. And you can't blame them, given the shit they had to suffer through with unstable governments. Many people today still remember said shit, and deems it important to pass these values, namely avoiding said shit, down to the next generation. And the protestors were challenging those very values - the main goal behind the protest was further government reforms, and sought to basically remove the Party from power. In essence, completely disrupting the stable government that China had suffered through three or four periods of complete chaos for.
Obviously Westerners, when presented with the two sides, take the side of the idealistic students clamouring for rights and liberty, since you've enjoyed the luxuries of stable government for centuries. I mean, when was the last major revolution in the Western world? The French Revolution? The availability of these luxuries means that you no longer rank them as high as someone who's lived through several turbulent governments would, and instead prioritize further luxuries like the freedoms I mentioned above. Well, when you look at those freedoms from the perspective of someone who just came out of the feudal age, they're really not that essential to life. So you must understand why they don't rank as high on the list of priorities for a Chinese person.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends what you call 'Western'. The French Revolution ended in 1799. Since then, a large part of the USA broke away and fought its own unsuccessful war of independence from 1861-65. The Irish Free State was established in 1922, after violent revolts on and off since 1916 culminating in a downright vicious terrorist campaign. Mussolini came to power in Italy in the same year, at the head of an armed coup d'etat by his F
Re:The Chinese are ignorant. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here in Canada" we have a charter of rights and freedoms, as a matter of fact, which -should- guarantee that every citizen in the country has equal rights and opportunity.
Don't twist my argument. My example was to show that different people in different countries have different moral grounds. Canada happens to have some similar things as the US due to similar culture, and as I said, have some dissimilar things as well. How about I protest your right to have guns?
Some morals go beyond boundaries, they're what join us together as human beings.
Wow, did you just single-handedly settle the absolute morals debate, and expected everyone to just go along with your assertion? The justification is that you believe this to be fact, thus everyone else should too? This is the exact underlying problem I'm attacking.
Secondly I find it absolutely laughable, and perhaps intentionally misleading that you would even -suggest- that the past few centuries have been in any way peaceful for the Western world (of which France is not considered a part, incidentally). Starting from the 18th century (a "few hundred" as you would put it), there have been over 40 major conflicts involving North America, either on its own soil or others (ones that you seem to have conveniently forgotten include both World Wars, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and a few other blatantly obvious choices). Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_North_America [wikipedia.org] to educate yourself, assuming that Wikipedia isn't censored where you live. We have -not- had stable governments for centuries and we've been through our own share of atrocities ("Here in Canada" we also had concentration camps for the Japanese during the second World War, which you also seem to have conveniently forgotten).
You missed my point completely, perhaps intentionally. It was not about peace or conflicts. Internal chaos is not the same as conflict against other countries. Let me simplify:
- Government changes three times in the span of about thirty years, lots of people die, lots of people starve, lots of people homeless, not to mention all the opportunistic warlords making their own landgrab.
- Chinese person: "Shit, this sucks. Let's pick a government and stick with it for a while and trust it to do the right thing."
- After about another forty years of turmoil, things are finally starting to look up.
- Government censorship.
- Westerner: "HOLY FUCK THE GOVERNMENT IS CENSORING SHIT! OUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DO THAT, SO THAT AIN'T RIGHT! DOWN WITH THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT!"
- Chinese person: "Well gee, I don't really give a damn about the censored stuff or very explicitly and loudly expressing my ideas about how the government sucks. Also, the economy's booming lately, and changing governments suck. Yay government!
To summarize, your way is not necessarily the best way, even if it is the only way you know. Other people in other countries have had different circumstances and came up with different methods to cope, and developed different value systems as a result. Learn to look at things from a different perspective, and deal with it.
On a kind of related tangent, this is exactly the reason, in my experience, for a lot of Middle- and Far-East resentment against the US. Americans are on this moral high horse and tries to push their own values and standards onto everybody else, which is especially ridiculous considering all the hypocritical bullshit that goes on in America. You know what I'm talking about.
Yes, we do take the side of idealistic students clamouring for rights and liberty, because it's the same thing that we are clamouring for every day.
Clamour in your own country? Fine. That's the value system your society has decided to adopt. Quit judging other countries' value systems.
Freedom
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It irks me that democracy has become such a buzzword, placed on a pedestal as some sort of basic human allowance. But it's really not the best form of government, and some would argue that it's not even a good one. Most countries that claim to be democratic don't even directly implement it.
There is no good form of government. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried." Democracy in its purest form is actually pretty terrible. The whole "two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner." But democracy as it's commonly implemented today actually has several, common anti-democratic features, like a prohibition on the right of a majority to decide what speech is acceptable or what race gets to ride on the bus