Arrested Chinese Blogger "Confesses" On State TV, Praises Censorship 349
Koreantoast writes "As part of a broader, chilling Chinese crackdown on Internet dissent, Chinese blogger Charles Xue appeared on Chinese state television in handcuffs on Sunday, denouncing his blog and praising government censorship. He 'confessed' to becoming drunk on the accumulated power of his Weibo blog, which peaked at 12 million followers, and confessed to recklessly spreading unverified rumors and slander, disrupting social harmony and becoming a vent of negative emotion on mainstream society. He also praised new government legislation cracking down on Internet freedom, stating how dangerous the Internet would be if left uncontrolled by the government. Xue was arrested on prostitution solicitation charges though his television confession did not discuss that. His arrest was also suspiciously around the same time as a broader government sweep that picked up other Chinese Internet activists."
Oblig Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:2, Interesting)
This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.
This is what conservatives actually believe.
Re:Bradley Manning (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet when Bradley Manning makes an eerily similar statement plenty of people are willing to take it as proof positive that he was a bad guy.
The definition of patriotism is believing your country is the best country on Earth simply because you were born in it. Nobody's national anthem starts with "We're Number Two!" So when America says someone's bad, americans believe it, but nobody else does. When the Chinese say someone's bad, the chinese people believe it, but nobody else. And so on, and so on.
Nationalism is hardly a problem confined to America; It blinds people equally the world over. Here's some Russian [utdallas.edu] propaganda about American, and here's some American [designer-daily.com] propaganda about Russians. It's all the same.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to know results, try Venezuela. A year ago, they removed the guns from private citizen's hands because of escalating violence. Their crime rate is now 1/1000 (yes, ten cubed) what it was before the gun ban.
They removed some small percentage of arms from the hands of citizens, mostly to prevent overthrow of Chavez, and since he is dead, nobody cares any more. Other than that your claim is totally bogus.
But then, posting as AC, its what we all expect.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats WONDERFUL! Say, whats the state of human rights, democracy, etc in Venezuela?
All of these things are connected, you know; the Bill of Rights wasnt drafted for no reason.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a government that has 'constitution-free zones', 'free-speech areas', and drone strikes the shit out of its own citizens without warrant or trial. And just this summer we found out the government's been spying on all of us. And you still think it's a brilliant idea for Congress to ban all guns.
I used to think gun control was a good idea. I thought all semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed. I could not see the case where a semi-auto rifle could deliver results that a bolt or lever-action simply couldn't provide. I thought the government could be trusted with taking up peoples' weapons. I was wrong.
My views changed on this subject last summer, due to articles about the NDAA, willy-nilly drone strikes, the NSA data center in Utah (hey! the conspiracy nuts were right...again), and the whole Julian Assange embassy business. Even if a gun ban worked perfectly, and everybody (including the criminals) turned in their weapons to Uncle Sam...what do you think would happen about government abuses? We're knocking down the four boxes pretty quick. Soap doesn't work. I don't have a multi-million dollar news network to spread my views. Ballot doesn't work. The elections are rigged. Jury doesn't work. Not with secret courts. We're down to the ammo box, friends and neighbors. Giving that ammo box back to the same critters who tyrannize us will do...what, exactly? A few million pissed-off people with hunting rifles can cause a hell of a lot of trouble.
Hey, I even used to buy into the whole 'mouth-breathing redneck meme', too. And then I started getting to know some. You know, being open-minded and all that crap. Turns out, they're pretty darned cool. Sure, they may not have sheepskins from universities on their walls, but they've got a hell of a lot more practical knowledge than I do. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met are farmers who dropped out of high school. Some of the stupidest, most naive jackasses I've ever encountered have multiple PhDs from Yale and Stanford. Don't generalize before you really hang out with a group. They might surprise you. Ah, and most of the 'mouth-breathing rednecks' I've known have exhibited extreme amounts of caution and safety when operating a weapon. They know how much damage it can do.
Gun ban legislation will only do one thing: spark civil war. The 'Joe Sixpacks' with their blue tick hounds are plenty pissed about the Patriot Act, NDAA, and all that other crap. Don't let the stupid media stereotypes fool you! They like the first amendment too. A gun ban will push them over the edge (last box). It will not work. Simply because a lot of people will not let it work. Good for them, I say.
I think you've got a very inaccurate misconception about rural people. Spend some time with 'em. They'll blow your mind. I betcha we're on the same side about all the overreaches of power and whatnot. Let's focus on *that* first. Priorities. Let's reestablish a free country with liberty for all again.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a ridiculous statement. The concept of human rights are a human creation. The truth is that every "right" you have is currently granted to you at the point of a gun, through social constructs like law and its enforcement. Viewing rights as intrinsic is dangerous, because in the end it's just an ideology. I do agree with the idea of basic human rights granted to everyone, but we should never lose sight that we only have them because we kill and imprison people who disagree.
Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views.
Re:Bradley Manning (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong! The first rule you learn in the US Army is that you are to uphold the Constitution and defend the citizens. You also learn that you are not to obey orders that are unlawful and therefor illegal.
Uphold the Constitution [telegraph.co.uk], Defend the citizens [rnkr-static.com], and lawful orders [collateralmurder.com]. That would be the Abu Ghraib iraq prison scandal, the US government putting prisoners in a room with mustard gas to test its effects, and shooting unarmed bystanders trying to help the injured after a botched air strike, respectively.
Wear the Uniform and learn the job before you spout off bullshit propaganda.
I think the work speaks for itself. I don't think I need to participate in the torture and murder of people, or use chemical weapons on them, to arrive at the conclusion that some of the things our military has done has been very shameful. That all said, our military is better than most, but waving the flag and saying we can do no wrong is propaganda, man. We need to move past being "pro-USA" or "pro-Russian" or "pro-chinese" and start being "pro-human", because patriotism is built on the same principles as racism, sexism, fascism, communism, and all the other isms: It is dogma. It is a refusal to admit to mistakes, a belief in your own moral superiority, and those two things combined have written some of the darkest chapters in human history.
As Einstein wrote, and I paraphrase: The pioneers of world peace will be the youth who refuse military service. Yeah, putting on the uniform can be an honorable and necessary thing. You won't hear very many people dissing WWII veterans. But as long as people like you are eager to sign up to go kill foreigners, our leaders have little incentive to find peaceful solutions.
Re:Drudge and other U.S. bloggers are next (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly the outcome that Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk would visit upon the U.S., given her way.
Excuse me, but what exactly makes you so confident that it isn't already this way? You can't blame "Diane Feinstein" or [insert another name here] for this. The situation would simply breed another person to take their place. Blame Obama! Blame Bush! Blame Canada!
Please. Every government in the world wants things to be sunshine and kittens. It's the basis for all propaganda. We got revisionist history rewriting our high school text books every year. We got angry white fat dudes in suits on Fox News screaming at us about how avoiding war in Syria is somehow a bad thing... because Russia offered a peaceful solution and Syria took them up on it. I mean, how twisted is it that the party that made it's main agenda "making Obama a one term president" is backing him now because he's all like Let's Bomb ALL TEH THINGZ!
With media distortion and control like that patently obvious to anyone who puts on their critical thinking cap, why are we thinking that we're somehow different than the Chinese in this regard? They got propaganda. We got propaganda. And?
Anyone who says they're "pro-" whatever is admitting they've been suckered by pro-paganda. About the only place you don't hear "I'm pro-this-thing" is in science, where people regularly say "Well, the new evidence says I'm wrong. SWEET! To the lab!" ... They don't care for being pro-anything except passion for the work. Learn from them.