> With the Winter Olympics opening in Beijing in February, the IOC and corporate sponsors have multi-billion-dollar reasons to help China make the Peng Shuai story go away. Therein lies a bleak lesson. The WTA has been brave in challenging China, given that it has organised lucrative tournaments there. But as a women’s sports association, it depends on retaining the confidence of women players. Sometimes there are incentives larger than China’s market.
It's remarkable that the WTA has stood up for Peng Shuai. International corporations typically knuckle under to the CCP. See the IOC's response, and also Jamie Dimon recently backtracking on his mild joke.
Why are people referring to it as a joke? He may have said it in a jocular tone-of-voice, but I don't think it was a joke at all: it's a reasoned statement to make and furthermore it's a statement I agree with: given US blue-chip companies' propensity to entrench themselves and the CCP's reversion back to authoritarianism (which history has made abundantly clear: rarely ends-well for authoritarians) means that absent anything unexpected happening, the CCP may very-well no-longer exist within a generation or two from now - or at least the CCP won't exist as-we-know-it.
There is a view of history where the thousands of years of Chinese rule-by-bureaucracy is uninterrupted.
My grandfather grew up there and was fond of saying "you have to remember the Chinese did not pray to God. The average Chinese person is not important enough for that. They prayed to the third under-secretary to God's chamberlain. What they really worship is bureaucracy". I don't know China well enough to comment on this myself, but I always found it a fascinating take on the situation.
What is this thousands of years of uninterrupted rule thing? If nothing else there was a period where china's rule was very much interrupted by the mongols, not to mention warring states era, etc.
One could make a similar argument and generalize about Europeans and claim European unity exists because for most of the past 2,000 years practically all states in Europe were under the influence of the Catholic church in some way or another.
yes, you're right. There is a view of European history that sees the Roman Empire mutate into the Holy Roman Empire and maintain control over much of Europe for thousands of years (I guess from the end of the Republic in 27BC to the last Holy Roman Emperor in 1806, so not quite "thousands").
It depends what you mean with "roman empire mutate".
HRE had no connection to the Roman Empire besides approval by the papacy.
Meanwhile, other "nations" entitled their ruler as a successor, bestowing upon them the title of Caesar, Kaiser, Tsar. So, you can link it up until the fall of Imperial Russia. Or you can even keep it up to today with Romania, or even Turkey.
When Constantinople fell, there were no lack of claims.
I'm always fascinated by the idea that some political genius way back in the 4th century realised that the Roman Empire was doomed as a military empire, but could survive as a church (of all things), and then managed to persuade everyone that this was a good idea and get it done. The Roman Empire changed its previous policy of wide tolerance regarding religion, adopted what had been a weird cult as the state religion, and survived its military annihilation (at least in the West - as you say, the story in the East is different).
my point being that the CCP is merely the figurehead, much like the emperor was. It doesn't really matter if the CCP is replaced by something else, the rule-by-bureaucracy continues uninterrupted.
It is remarkable but it shouldn’t be surprising. As the article says, the WTA is a women’s sports association and arguably the most successful one in the world. If the WTA caved to pressure from China then they would rightly be vilified in the west for betraying women. There is no way they could ever do that and get away with it!
I can't help but wonder this myself, although I don't think it is safe/easy to say this with confidence - but if you look at Jane Jacobs, Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil, Rosa Luxemburg, Chelsea Manning and others, I sometimes think about whether being in the historically weaker societal role sharpens your insight and moral cohones. I don't believe there's enough evidence to say it's there, but I would buy a story that went something like the subtle machismo men suck up as they get socialised might hinder us in those regards.
But then I look to certain contemporary female lesbian politicians in my country and I reconsider that...and there have been people like David Graeber, James Scott, Mikhael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Edward Snowden and many others as well.
Only the wealthy and powerful, The Right, can afford the luxury of being truly stupid. The Left can never afford not to be as smart and pragmatic. This is why reality is always left-leaning.
It's also great that WTA does not depend on Chinese market, so they won't sustain too much of loss by antagonizing Chinese authority. On the other hand, look at NBA. The righteous American conscience, the one and the only King James, kisses up to China to no end.
I would be really interested to see how things would go if it was a WNBA player making the sexual assault complaint against a party grandee. The NBA owns the WNBA and we might reasonably expect them to cave to the pressure as they have before. However I think they’d face a rebellion from their players as well as the public. It could get really ugly.
He’s referring to Jamie Dimon from JPMorgan. I thought Dimon has quite the balls to come out on China like that, touching CCP and Taiwan (“China’s Vietnam” he called it, referring to America’s war) in a way that no one with business interests in China would.
Yeah, I'm talking about Dimon. China deserves the negativity, but dunking on them publicly like that only makes it easier for the government to drum up anti-US sentiment.
It’s funny that the GOP have expressed admiration for how Chinas governed and it’s resultant economy. (Even though America has a bigger economy and is a Democracy)
The WTA have done an amazing job of raising the profile of this case and keeping the story in the media. I have to admit that despite watching a lot of tennis, prior to this incident I was not familiar with Peng Shai. Doubles tennis is a little bit like a sport within a sport though.
I can’t help but wonder how badly the CCP is actually fighting to suppress this, though - I think I heard laowhy86 argue that they might allow it to consume the news cycle, to distract from something else.
Seeing this comment, and seeing e.g. CBS highlight the story, it really just seems fishy in general. Something is different - maybe we’re just in a new era, but who knows.
In addition there was a marked change in tone from when they were in China.
I subscribed and enjoyed that content and the two Exploring documentaries. Really good content.
When they left China it started to sound like highly personalized hate speech. I initially assumed that it was because they were upset at having their livelihoods up-ended and a sense of rejection. But... initially they had great plans for wide-ranging travel documentaries which did not seem to pan out ... so it seems like the next-best thing is Five Minutes Hate against our enemies in East Asia.
Sad to see them degenerate, but not living there now they are not much of a source of information.
TLDR: he didn't only not get paid, he refused payment. Plus the payment offer was not "we pay you to say this" but "we want to license your content for republication" and "we pay you a fee for the trouble of appearing on our show to give your independent opinions".
Dumbshill recently posted a clip of an old video of laowhy86, “exposing” him as a racist… which turned out to be taken extremely out of context and edited to be purposely misleading.
Hard to form an informative opinion when he released that AFTER he got exposed. It's possible that video is just him trying to save his skin. Just saying.
Sinocism is the approximately the same level of quality as Jansen, Dumbrill, etc. That it caters to a particular crowd of liberal "China watchers", which you may be party to, does not make it higher quality.
Axios is also known for producing outright disinformation on China via zealots like Allen-Ebrahimian.
It is a radically nationalist pro-China forum to the point where they regularly push anti-US conspiracy theories and regular usage of words like "Amerikkka".
>It is a radically nationalist pro-China forum to the point where they regularly push anti-US conspiracy theories and regular usage of words like "Amerikkka".
The person you're replying to is an occasional poster to that subreddit, who surely knows this already
>Which means you're an active lurker there and saw his name often?
I guess what you're trying to ask me is "How do you know that?"?
But rather than trusting any more of my claims, I suggest that you simply visit Reddit and look: You will see exactly the same unusual user name; with the same interests as here in various diverse topics; and the same writing style
Really, I think the initial question about the OP's behavior on Reddit was intrusive and probably out of line in HN etiquette, and the OP could ignore it
But I commented because the OP did engage with that question, and lied. And also because you then replied to OP in good faith, not realizing that you were wasting your time by trying to help someone who is obviously being disingenuous
I think it's fair to call out people who are spreading disinformation. I see the same patterns among some posters here and on reddit.
The two commenters above recommended youtube channels that A. are very low quality, B. repeat state media talking points verbatim, and C. are made by people who don't even speak Chinese, so they don't actually understand what is actually happening around them in their daily lives.
Lmao, HNers will eagerly doxx/dig up dirt on someone for a Gotcha moment but is offended by someone suggesting they validate propagandistic claims about a foreign country.
Honestly I have no recollection of ever visiting reddit Sino subreddit.
When weighing pphysch's media recommendations, consider that they apparently believe that applying Occam's Razor leads to the conclusion that "Washington media is blowing literally any scandal out of proportion in a propaganda blitz aimed at tarnishing Beijing 2022." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344160
> When the Chinese do it, it’s propaganda. When Washington does it, it’s “investing in our values”. The last phrase is taken from the Strategic Competition Act of 2021, newly passed by the United States Senate and will soon become law. It aims squarely at China and enjoys bipartisan support.
Surely no trusted journalist would publish objective nonsense for a slice of that $300,000,000 propaganda budget created by the SCA21?
It is truly bizarre to me that someone who is taking a very pro-CCP stance will justify this with reference to propaganda that other nations create...it is really something. Every nation creates propaganda, every nation does not have media controlled by the state, every nation does not have massive propaganda departments that are present at all levels of society...they aren't equivalent, the only reason to draw the equivalence is because you understand that something is wrong but (for whatever reason) have to justify that to yourself by claiming everyone else is just as bad.
It is like the Communist criticism of democracy: oh, elections are all rigged by wealthy people anyway...said from a country with no elections and a one-party state. Ofc.
It is truly bizarre when people trick themselves into the paradox of "I don't trust Government 1 but I trust everything they or their crony media says about Government 2"
My point is precisely that people in democracies are not forced to trust the govt. They don't have to trust the media, they are totally free. The only context in which your logic makes sense is one in which you believe the govt controls truth. You are living in a mental prison that you created.
Where is the "doublethink" in pointing out the paradox in distrusting your government yet trusting everything they say about a foreign government?
You do realize that "trusted" "unbiased" media outlets like the Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo literally have State Department/Pentagon censors filtering any material that could be deemed sensitive to "national security"?
You are complaining about the State Department censoring news but imply that the CCP which literally controls all information isn't as bad? Again, you realise that the US being as bad as China doesn't make China good?
And, again, the doublethink is being unable to understand that the question of whether you have to trust government makes no sense in the US. You don't have to trust the govt, that is freedom. Indeed, the US govt is constructed on the principle of multiple sources of power so it doesn't even make sense to say that authority arises from one source, there are competing sources of power (ironically, this is what the CCP finds incomprehensible about the US). The US govt does not censor the internet, most of the news sources you cite are not "trusted", people are sceptical of the media, people are sceptical of the govt. The point I am making is that people are unable to sceptical in China because they have no choice, the question you are posing makes no sense in a US context.
Both Chinese and Americans are more or less equally propagandized, the difference is that the Americans don't know it.
In China you know that whatever is getting media traction has been de facto approved by the Party. In America you have virtually no idea which special interest group is currently lying to you through the media, and they will never be held accountable.
> Both Chinese and Americans are more or less equally propagandized
This implies that the US government has total control over all domestic news outlets, a great firewall that censors the national internet and helps to find and remove references to embarrassing government incidents, policy that requires all companies to hand over all user data to the state unencrypted without a warrant, and a social credit system that can prevent you from getting a job if you make negative comments about the government's policies.
I very much would like to see proof of these things, given that I can do internet searches for atrocities like the Tuskegee Experiment, I've never gotten in any sort of trouble for making negative comments about the government, and I can find many news sources that run extremely conspiratorial articles about the same.
...which you've provided exactly zero evidence for. Please provide concrete evidence of propaganda that's equal in magnitude to the things described above.
Otherwise, yes, it rather does imply, because there are very few things similar to the CCP's social credit system that have the same effect, and even fewer that could be deployed in the US without immediately being noticed.
> The point I am making is that people are unable to sceptical in China because they have no choice, the question you are posing makes no sense in a US context.
Something funny and illustrative about the PRC for me was getting into shortwave radio. Let me explain. Sometimes certain people will tell you that the CCP isn't so censorious, that it's all Western hyperbole and propaganda, that most other governments are equivalent. But then you spin your dial through the shortwave broadcast bands and, no exaggeration, every 6 broadcasts or so will be the CCP jamming another broadcast from Taiwan, the US, the UK or elsewhere. No other country on Earth, apart from NK and occasionally Cuba, treats its people with such contempt. And all this energy, literal and figurative, just for shortwave radio.
Just to play devil's advocate on that one, but maybe the Chinese understand the power of propaganda better than anyone and they don't want western propaganda disrupting their society?
What precisely does that entail? I could say that and then prevent you from hearing anything from the outside world, just keep you locked in a cellar. It's for your own good, I understand how the propaganda might affect your delicate mind.
Edit: Revealing dirty political ploys and get downvoted... I have no idea what HN readers are upholding now...
This does not reveal anything more than what Lewinsky revealed about the US voting politics.
There are always political conflicts in any political system. The fight could be played openly, like the debates in voting politics.
The fight could be played covertly, like the hidden political campaign carried out by the huge donation-fueled political industry in voting politics.
In one-party system, the fight is hidden with more layers of covering. Like what happened in CCP's history, there are a lot of fights. At the beginning it's mostly ideology driven. Now it's more corruption driven.
> When a tennis star accuses a grandee of assault, China has no answer
This is an old and repeated accusation.
It's not wrong. It's just obvious. Most things in CCP system has no answer. CCP can only improve and make sure such things can be managed better next time. That not means CCP can eliminate the root cause of such things, as human sexuality is such a fundamental instinct that, CCP's ideology is not going to remove such cases at all...
> It is hard to see a good ending to the story of Peng Shuai, a Chinese tennis champion who on November 2nd accused a former Communist Party grandee more than twice her age of subjecting her to a coercive sexual relationship.
The ending of course will be good.
US and western get the chance of accusing China, and possibly follow up over winter olympic.
Xi get a card over the old competitors in the CCP high power.
Peng Shuai becomes a national star. Everyone knows her now. She also will become a special person in the CCP high power.
Gaoli had a romantic relationship with a very charming person. Peng Shuai is not pretty in the current PS & facial surgery standard, but her energetic and strength as a pro athlete no doubt make her a desirable partner in any relationship. Gaoli had such a high taste is a revealing fact of their humanity.
And media is getting another sensational piece that can be played and repeated for a long time to come.
> In theory, the party deplores all immorality in office.
Gaoli had already retired. And standing committee in politburo seldom get touched, especially if the wrongdoings are not political driving. Mr. Zhou Yongkang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Yongkang got what he had because he tried to alter the political arrangement.
> Ms Peng, who is 35, was doomed from the moment she posted her late-night essay.
Doomed?...
Song Zuying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Zuying was known to everyone to be Jiang Zemin's mistress... She enjoyed a great career and international appearance.
Liu Xiaoqing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaoqing was rumorred to have connection with Deng Xiaoping. She had a good fortunae, until Deng passed away. Although that might be done by Deng's family.
Mark my word, Peng Shuai are getting some thing in return from this affair...
> This does not reveal anything more than what Lewinsky revealed about the US voting politics.
Read my words.
There is nothing in parallel between them.
They just reveal a lot of similarity of how to play the sexual scandal for political gains in 2 political systems.
Peng Shuai and Gaoli are not going to be harmed in any way more than Clinton and Lewinsky.
So you do agree that it DID reveal something after all? Maybe not to you since you're more privy to how these things are handled in China, but maybe to Western readers.
Is there any suggestion that she was detained in a secret location? Or is it just that she was effectively removed from all the media and public functions?
She disappeared for some time, and has since only appeared in tightly controlled situations after public complaints by the WTA led to immense international pressure on the PRC to account for her.
Again, this is 'disappearance' from public life and the media, and 're-appearance' in the media.
But did she actually disappear? This means taken from her home with no-one including her family knowing where she was.
Here [1] the report is that she "vanished from public view". Here [2] that she "she did not communicate on social media" and that noone at WTA "had been able to reach her directly". And here [3] there is no mention of that at all, just people outside of China wondering about her because her presence online was censored.
Based on this I personally do not know whether she actually 'disappeared' at any time, and my guess is that no-one in Western organisations and media know, either. The only thing mentioned in these articles is that people outside of China could not reach her, which is quite different, and led to various speculations.
There are many reasons your comment would be getting downvoted. I found this paragraph particularly awful:
> Peng Shuai is not pretty in the current PS & facial surgery standard, but her energetic and strength as a pro athlete no doubt make her a desirable partner in any relationship. Gaoli had such a high taste is a revealing fact of their humanity.
Well, political fights based on sexual activity. If you dont like to see why Gaoli made this awful deed, then you have to understand the underlying human drive. I am stating a fact. Facts hurt, but that does not make my statement awful. It's just that readers dont like certain facts.
Edit: Revealing dirty political ploys and get downvoted... I have no idea what HN readers are upholding now...
This does not reveal anything more than what Lewinsky revealed about the US voting politics.
There are always political conflicts in any political system. The fight could be played openly, like the debates in voting politics.
The fight could be played covertly, like the hidden political campaign carried out by the huge donation-fueled political industry in voting politics.
In one-party system, the fight is hidden with more layers of covering. Like what happened in CCP's history, there are a lot of fights. At the beginning it's mostly ideology driven. Now it's more corruption driven.
> When a tennis star accuses a grandee of assault, China has no answer
This is an old and repeated accusation. It's not wrong. It's just obvious. Most things in CCP system has no answer. CCP can only improve and make sure such things can be managed better next time. That not means CCP can eliminate the root cause of such things, as human sexuality is such a fundamental instinct that, CCP's ideology is not going to remove such cases at all...
> It is hard to see a good ending to the story of Peng Shuai, a Chinese tennis champion who on November 2nd accused a former Communist Party grandee more than twice her age of subjecting her to a coercive sexual relationship.
The ending of course will be good.
US and western get the chance of accusing China, and possibly follow up over winter olympic.
Xi get a card over the old competitors in the CCP high power.
Peng Shuai becomes a national star. Everyone knows her now. She also will become a special person in the CCP high power.
Gaoli had a romantic relationship with a very charming person. Peng Shuai is not pretty in the current PS & facial surgery standard, but her energetic and strength as a pro athlete no doubt make her a desirable partner in any relationship. Gaoli had such a high taste is a revealing fact of their humanity.
And media is getting another sensational piece that can be played and repeated for a long time to come.
> In theory, the party deplores all immorality in office.
Gaoli had already retired. And standing committee in politburo seldom get touched, especially if the wrongdoings are not political driving. Mr. Zhou Yongkang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Yongkang got what he had because he tried to alter the political arrangement.
> Ms Peng, who is 35, was doomed from the moment she posted her late-night essay.
Doomed?...
Song Zuying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Zuying was known to everyone to be Jiang Zemin's mistress... She enjoyed a great career and international appearance.
Liu Xiaoqing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaoqing was rumorred to have connection with Deng Xiaoping. She had a good fortunae, until Deng passed away. Although that might be done by Deng's family.
Mark my word, Peng Shuai are getting some thing in return from this affair...
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Before you automatically cite some site guideline, think it a moment about what happens when a community is collectively positioned with some mental disease. And see how this rule is literally prevent the community from criticizing its own behavior.
> guilt-tripping
If someone just downvote a informational piece written by someone who clearly demonstrated specific understanding on the topic, then calling them out and let me feel a bit guilty about their lack of patience, isn't that a good service to them?
You went way beyond the acceptable limits in this thread. I've defended you in the past because I know you're in a tough minority position in this community, but you can't do this sort of flamewar on HN.
Also, it's seriously against HN's rules to use the site primarily to argue about one thing—especially when it's a political or nationalistic issue. We need you to stop doing that and to use HN as intended—for curious conversation about a variety of things.
You defended me? I thought you stand for the HN rule and its culture of open and reasonable discussion.
If you do think you defend me, then you should see that I am still in a situation where I am becoming more and more attacked based on narrow view on China-related topics, especially politicizing everything to the degree that alternative and reasonable discussions are plainly impossible.
If you do still have faith in HN's value, then you should not defend me, you should defend the value.
And if you think I am not embodying HN's value, then do whatever you think it's reasonable. I don't care much about personal "support", I have long forsake those narrow views.
I realize you're representing a minority viewpoint. The HN demographic is highly international, but also overwhelmingly Western, and that inevitably comes with certain biases. We can benefit from hearing perspectives outside those biases. But that only works if you don't break the rules yourself, and you haven't been keeping to that.
I get that it's not easy and not fair, but the truth is that the one who represents a minority or contrarian view has to hold themselves to a higher standard [1]. Otherwise you make it easy for people to point fingers at you when you break the rules and use that as an excuse to discredit you [2]—and then they also point fingers at us and demand to know why we aren't enforcing the rules in your case. That's a lose-lose situation: either we have to ban you and silence a minority voice, or we allow you to break rules that would get others banned, in which case people will rightly accuse us of double standards. We can't allow that; I have to be able to say "no, we don't do that" in good conscience.
In order to follow the rules we need you to specifically do three things: (1) stay respectful and neutral when arguing; (2) avoid flamewar (your comments in this thread were inflammatory and way over the line, especially because the topic involves multiple flamewar themes - not just China/West but sexual assault etc.); and (3) not use HN primarily to argue about political and national fights. I'm sure there are other things on HN that interest you as well. Good community members engage out of curiosity on a variety of subjects—not just pre-existing agendas on the single point or two that they feel most passionately about. All of this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I am not personally felt much about the situation. Your reasoning is always admirable.
I did what I did because I believe there needs someone who can be more open about certain things, so that they extend the range of discussion seen as normal here.
My statements also serve as a tool to expand the space for discussion for fellow HN visitors to feel more comfortable to express themselves.
Do I intentionally break some guidelines here? I personally don't think so. But I cannot deny the accusations according to the site rules. Because site rules are interpreted in that way, and my interpretation is slightly different.
She reveals less about one party rule than she reveals about basic male/female interaction
The former prime minister not only shoot his shot early and in an aggressive manner
Later he didn’t follow up the courting to make sure that she could be feeling good about being on his mind for a while (and not just his penis for a night)
More generally if you don’t have a ring on it expect every woman who you had a romantic approach (successful or unsuccessful) to talk smack about you .
Sometimes the smack talking also comes if you put a ring on it .
The higher the fame then the biggest the platform given to her when the smack talking begins
The smack talking is not personal , meaning it’s not “against-guys” ….it’s “pro-her” to reinforce to herself and society the fact that there was a clear reason for her not receiving a marriage proposal or 500 , and that she dodged a bullet .
Without commenting on the validity of the article, it is true that the data in circulation about China in the West is highly distorted due to barriers in language, culture and the internet.
While this does not mean that China would necessarily be any less "evil" than it seems to be, details can rarely be trusted.
Well we always find out the mainstream news coverage is either fake, distorted or falsehoods by omission post-mortem (pun intended). Reminds me of Brezinski setting up the "Afghan trap" for the Soviets (his own words) and then the Carter administration boycotting the Moscow Olympics. History and the boycotting play just seems to rhyme awfully well:
Our hope instead was to prolong the war, keeping the Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski is quite open about this. In the same 1997 interview, he speaks of “drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.” He claims: “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.’”
Do you think it's distorted because of that, or because of America's agenda against China itself? Seems like an easy and convenient way to sow distrust and hate, no?
On the other hand, if what is reported is true, then more power to her.
What's wrong with that? Read it with skepticism, just like you read the corporate outlets pushing propaganda on behalf of the USA with skepticism. Hopefully you'll find some clashing ideas/narratives. There is a lot of good content on Russia Today e.g. Chris Hedges' show.
It attempts to highlight a few cultural nuances missing from the original translation. However it hasn't had any native speakers weigh in on it on r/tennis.
It's commendable that he tried adding more notes but on the whole I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with:
I disagree with note 4, claiming that that paragraph is her evidence for non-consensual relationship. My reading of that paragraph (about 10 years ago, the previous time she had an affair) is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken at him for having broken up 10 years ago.
The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous. It could be something like "my parents forced me to become doctor" (they didn't literally force, they nagged until you agree).
There is no doubt that Zhao is a manipulative jerk and that he engaged in unacceptable questionable acts. But given the ambiguity of this phrase, plus the fact that the rest of the text is not focused on that single even, makes some wonder whether this is even a rape allegation at all. The rest of the text say things like "I reopened my love for you", "we are so compatible", "we could talk endlessly". Some believe that this is more like her venting that he played with her feelings and then dumped her.
The "'rape allegation' narrative" is your imagination. Most news reports did not use the word "rape". "sexual assault" is commonly used in reporting this case. The Economist does not use rape either. "coercive sexual relationship" appeared in the first sentence. Stop making strawman attack.
She clearly says that she was in tears and panicking when he pressured her for sex the second time. There's very little ambiguity there: this is a serious allegation of lack of true consent, not just emotional venting.
I respect your interpretation. I am just saying that there are indeed people out there who don't agree. Of course you are free to disagree with them. Being pro-democratic, we respect each others' differences in opinion.
What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.
Why do you keep pushing for that? I just want to highlight data and different opinions and let people make up their own minds. No need for me to impose my views.
Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.
YOU happily gave YOUR opinion that there was no sexual assault involved:
>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..]
The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.
Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.
And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.
Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
That's just your imagination and your over-eagerness to pick up a pitchfork. Of course sexual assault should be punished, nobody disagrees with that. I find you jumping to conclusions so quickly and your tendency to identify me as a bad guy so quickly, to be absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
Look, it's really, really simple. Just answer a very basic question:
Whats your interpretation of her social media post when taking into account the panicked crying? Does it change your opinion of her claim being ambiguous? Yes, or no?
The fact that you have repeatedly dodged that question is what will cause myself and other readers to jump to conclusions. Nothing else.
If someone claims that WW2 was an elaborate hoax (to pick something uncontroversial), and you present them evidence, and they say "that's just your interpretation" - what would you think of that person?
Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.
No man, not every report needs to have a personal opinion. Journalists are expected to be objective and neutral and only present facts and different views. Why can't I do the same?
I didn't say "that's just your interpretation" (implying I am downplaying that opinion), I said "whatever interpretation you hold is fine, it's not up to me to decide" (implying respect). That's something totally different.
>No man, not every report needs to have a personal opinion. Journalists are expected to be objective and neutral and only present facts and different views. Why can't I do the same?
Oh, come on. You offered your opinion. You presented yourself as an authority (which is somewhat fair, given you are a native speaker). But, your opinion can only be seen as biased if you won't even respond to a well-intentioned, well-reasoned, and completely factual counterpoint.
Any idiot reading this can see what you're doing. It won't work. It's so obvious that you are engaging honestly.
How is the specific content of her Weibo post relevant at all here?
The issue is that the woman was kidnapped by the Chinese government because simple because she spoke out publicly, and it seems to me that the media’s reporting has been very complete in that regard.
Because the media doesn't just report on her safety, it also reports on what she said? And how they interpret what she said has significant impact on how people think what happened?
Thank you sir. It is always better to read the source. Though in this case, the most of the discussion is about how party protect its members against scandals and law. Poor woman.
When I asked "how is the content of her post relevant here?" I meant: how is the content of the post relevant with regards to your assertion that the media's reporting has been incomplete?
I also asked you what specifically has been lacking in those media reports.
You are not just posting this information to share it. You are making a claim that the media's reporting has been incomplete, which claim you have not substantiated.
So, I ask again, what specific relevant information has been lacking from media reports?
I’m sorry, but what aspect of the context has been missing from the reporting? There was nothing in the post that you shared that I haven’t read about elsewhere in western media, with regards to the facts.
That is, except perhaps for the emotional anguish that the poor woman was feeling, which can only really be discerned from her writing. The pain that led her to write this simply cannot be expressed accurately except through her own words.
Is that what you meant? That the western media has not painted a sympathetic enough picture of Peng Shuai? That the media has been too deferential to the Chinese government in not giving her voice a platform?
Whether that means that the media was or wasn't sympathetic enough, isn't my point. It also doesn't matter whether I think the media was/wasn't sympathetic enough.
Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation. It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
> If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
This sentence is rather condescending, and I believe it reveals something of your true intention here that you refuse to admit.
There is something about Peng Suai’s post that you believe exonerates Chinese officials or the Chinese government in some way, but you are unwilling to explain what it is for some reason.
> It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
Humor me. What is the alternate interpretation of these events that you believe is missing from western media reports? What are the different interpretations that people may arrive at other than “the media’s interpretation” as you put it?
> Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation.
You seem not to agree with the “media’s interpretation”. Why not? Why in your opinion would anyone disagree with the media’s interpretation of events after reading Peng Shuai’s post?
This "condescension" is wholly your reading. I meant literally what I said: if you agree with the media then great, I won't bother you and I'm happy for you. But here you go taking a sign of good faith and then interpreting it as an attack. It seems you are the one hiding something here. You are looking for "wrong thoughts" in others. All this is wholly abhorrent, shameful behavior and I condemn you for it.
Look others have already said they found the extra information helpful. Respect the fact that others may find this information useful instead of going on a witch hunt, ok? You seem extremely angry at the possibility that others may think differently than you. You don't get to police of dictate others' thoughts.
Hmm. This is quite an overreaction to what I wrote. You “condemn me” for these comments I’ve posted on hacker news? Seriously?
All I am asking for is an articulation of the alternative interpretation of events that you have said is lacking in media reports.
I can only think of one reason why you would believe that my questions somehow show me to be “extremely angry” (when I am not) or that I want to “dictate others’ thoughts” (which I don’t) or that I am somehow on a “witch hunt” just because I am being persistent in responding to your comments (this is a two-way street). It is the same reason that you cannot articulate any other interpretation than the one found in media reports:
In your own heart you know that there is only one reasonable interpretation of these events and of Peng Shuai’s writings. This poor woman was abused—certainly emotionally and possibly physically—by a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, and officials of the Chinese government have taken extraordinary steps to cover it up.
If there were any other reasonable interpretation you would say what it is!
See also @honglilai on Twitter ("Hongli Lai") for more exclusively pro-China commentary. I'm afraid that engaging him in honest debate is an exercise in futility.
(Note: I'm not attempting to dox the user, his Twitter handle/name can be found in his HN profile)
Exclusively pro-China commentary... such as "discriminations of Africans in Guangzhou is wrong"[1] and non-political commentary such as "healthcare workers in Shenzheng are getting 1 free meal a day, this is good progress in society"[2]?
Come on man, aren't we supposed to be "only against the CCP and for the Chinese people"?
I don't believe at all that you are being honest in saying that "all your are asking for is an articulation". You're trying to doxx me; i.e. a witch hunt, for possibly having wrong thoughts, where even not having an opinion is reason to suspect someone for having wrong thoughts.
> For almost three weeks following the accusation, Peng was not seen in public and her whereabouts were not publicly disclosed.
> WTA chief Simon told CNN he had been in conversation with counterparts at the Chinese Tennis Association, who had provided assurances Peng was unharmed in Beijing. However, attempts to reach Peng directly had proved unsuccessful, he said.
After her initial disappearance (not just from social media, but also from public) she has only been seen in stage-managed circumstances, only accompanied by state officials:
> New video clips of the tennis star were tweeted by members of Chinese state media on November 20 and 21.
> One clip appears to show Peng sitting with China Open tournament co-director Zhang Junhui and two women around a table in a restaurant in Beijing. The clips appear to deliberately emphasize specific dates. Throughout the video, Zhang is speaking to Peng, but she doesn't say anything.
> Then later on Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced its President Thomas Bach held a video phone call with Peng. The two were accompanied on the call by a Chinese sports official, Li Lingwei, as well as the Chair of the Athletes' Commission, Emma Terho.
The evidence points to her having been physically seized by state officials, who seem to be attempting to mitigate the PR crisis created by her accusations by controlling her physical person. Of course, this is only my opinion and personal interpretation of reported events.
The whole story is bs.
She took some time of from social media after ending a complicated relationship and posting something she really shouldn't have.
Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place? Which meetings didn't she show up for? Which family members couldn't contact her?
Now that they've decided that she was missing the anti-china crowd are in the very convenient situation where they can discard everything they don't like.
She makes a statement to Chinese news? Fake. Forced. Doesn't sound right.
She posts pictures on wechat? Staged, deep-fake, oh and is that a Winnie the Pooh picture in the background? Clearly a cry for help!
She appears on video? They have a gun to her head! They are acting weird!
She talks to the IOC? Everyone knows China controls the IOC!
The only thing they will accept if she denounces Xi Jinping as the literal antichrist.
Well you're ignoring the fact that the Chinese government is very open to criticisms and actually regularly change policies based on criticism, despite the counter-intuitive act of simultaneously censoring some critics.
I have reflected and I disagree with you. Explaining how China works and presenting alternative views is not "defending [an evil] regime", thank you very much.
I am not ignoring that such a thing might happen. The regime must be able to doublespeak. Allowing a small amount of safe criticism and changing policies allows those in power to deflect and convince people who aren't paying attention.
Any criticism that is a legitimate threat is met with blanket censorship - as in the case of Peng Shuai - or deadly violence as in the case of Tiananmen.
You are free to disagree and I am free to disagree with you. But I am sure glad that 98% of Chinese people are happy and feel that the country is heading in the right direction, and I am glad that the world has a diverse set of governance systems.
How do you know 98% Chinese people are happy if there is no credible, independent study? Surely any study saying Chinese are unhappy would be censored.
This one actually made me belly laugh, thanks for that.
It's not independent, a study, or by York University, it was a ccp sponsored poll performed in China, by party members, with data collated and compiled by party members.
It's rare to see propaganda crumble to so delicate an interrogation, that's some primo stuff.
Looking at your posts on HN (this topic and others) you clearly and plainly defend CCP (chinese gov) on many of it's policies (even if being atrocities), while trying to evade questions and whitewash topics. You did try defend CCP Taiwan stance.
You either lie, either are (in my opinion) delusional, because your writing here 'CCP is open to criticism', on this very thread about Peng. This is nuts. Literally 30 minutes after publication of her _personal_ post, remind you she is a China citizen, the post is removed (no trial! pure force gov action) and discussion is actively blocked in China. It is a very simple cognitive task in reasoning and critical thinking, to conclude what does it mean for CCP and China in general, if there are _personal_ things not allowed to be aired there.
If you can't grasp it, do a simple exercise: on your next trip to China (or ask your china based family) do a post about Peng, asking for answers, reposting her post etc -> you will be healed quickly and promptly by the very CCP.
p.s. I'm just a guy, my opinion is mine, I may be wrong. Yet I observed your karma on this thread, literally hundreds of people dont agree with you on HN. I would start thinking about me if that many HN people tell me I'm wrong.
You are making very big assumptions. Re Taiwan (or any other matter), I am anti-war and pro-peace. Let's make a wager: I dare you to dig up a message in which I support military invasion of Taiwan. If you can do so within 3 days I will pay you $1000 USD. Otherwise you pay me $1000 USD. Do you dare to take this challenge?
Saying "you clearly and plainly defend CCP" is unnuanced at best, a complete misrepresentation at worst. Explaining how the Chinese government works and explaining that many Chinese people view things differently, is not at all the same as "defending the CCP", and even further from "defending the CCP blindly" as you seem to be implying. One can say "this is how it works, and the population there don't see it as much of a problem as here" without personally agreeing with everything.
You are also being very reductive about this matter. It's perfectly possible to have complex thoughts and complex stances. My stance is "the CCP has many problems but it is unfair to ignore the good aspects, and one should recognize that some issues depend very much on one's perspective, and the Chinese perspective differs from western perspective". That is not at all the same as "the CCP great".
---
You are confusing censorship with kidnapping. Unlike what people think, they are not related: censorship is a kind of super-moderation.[1] You and I dislike censorship on an ideological level, but that is besides the point I'm making. People getting censored is not an indication of people getting kidnapped. In fact, it happens regularly that people are censored for their criticism, and that the government responds to that criticism.
This, along with "CCP is open to criticism", isn't "delusional", it's fact supported by research papers[2][3][4], Asian media[5], independent accounts by foreigners who have lived in China[6] and street interviews[7]. None of these facts are well-known by popular western understanding of China, and indeed they seem so ludicrous that your first impression is that I am delusional, but they remain facts nevertheless. Please, go read my hard evidence before you declare me as delusional (or even lying).
My point isn't "censorship is fine and I defend it", it's "censorship is misunderstood, censorship works differently and its role is different than what westerners typically imagine, plus the Chinese themselves have complex and nuanced opinions about censorship, viewing them as both good and bad". That's not "defending the CCP", that's showing complex, nuanced reality and alternative perspectives.
While I agree with your (general) point, I'm not so sure about the last paragraph.
I mean, I would answer "yes" to your "being oppressed by the government" part. And, to some extent, everyone who lives in mainland China and reads HN should feel so, as HN is censored by GFW.
Overthrowing CCP idk, I am not seeing how this could be practically done without making my life significantly worse. So that's the trade-off I made.
That is fair. I too have met Chinese that are anti-govt/anti-CCP (though nowadays they seem to be a minority). And yes I also recognize that there are still many problems that need solving.
> You should reflect on how much effort you spend defending such a regime all over this website (...)
Wow, you're right about that. I thought you might have been saying it as an offhand comment, but I just looked through the 4 most recent pages of FooBarWidget's comments and only 2 comments of those listed were not directly defending or espousing CCP talking points.
Potential shill?
edit:
Their earlier comments have a higher 'normal' to shill-esque ratio, but the greater majority of their comments that I have seen are shill-like.
That's perfectly normal. If you're going to be accused of being a shill you might as well silo your accounts into one for serious matter and one everyone is going to adhominem into extinction.
He may not be a paid shill, but he is not arguing from a position of sincerity. FooBarWidget is far too intelligent to actually believe half of what he's saying, especially his claim that 98% of Chinese citizens are happy with their government. That number is absurdly high.
For reference, trust in government is 84% in Switzerland (highest in the OECD), 65% in Germany, 46% in the US, 42% in Japan, 35% in the UK.
Even if the source of the claim is the WaPo, such an outlier deserves extreme scrutiny.
I agree that 98% is too high, but 90% is not unreasonable. There is no country in the world off the top of my head where the quality of life has improved more than in China.
Additionally the Chinese government has a very skillful tactic where they make the local government much more accountable via the central government but charges it of all the unpopular things. That way it gets credit for the good while the local government is blamed for the bad. It's quite smart actually.
The data comes from in-person interviews. One may think that they were scared of saying bad things but plenty of negative feedback was received, they just reported that most issues were solved and were happy with the progress.
I the conclusion of dishonesty was much too quick.
Obviously older, but Japan and South Korea have probably improved even more if we look since the end of WW2. I hadn't known until recently that South and North Korea were both similarly poor at the end of the Korean War.
Nah. Japan was well on its way to industry in WW2. SK improved a lot yes but still not as much as China and unlike China prospects are dim for a lot of people and politics is somehow even more of a mess. I think the average Chinese citizen is a lot happier with their government than a Korean one. Having a prime minister puppetted by a cult doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Do you know why I am angry and pushed to speak up so much about China lately? Because the reality on the ground turns out to be really different from mainsteam media depiction. For 25 years I have heard tropes like "Chinese people are oppressed" but when I did deeper research I found a very different picture. It's like watching my father (the west) defame my mother (China) for 25 years and then finding out that 90% of the accusations are distorted.
You don't have to agree with me but please don't claim that I am being insincere. It's up to me to decide whether I am sincere or not.
It isn't really a question of agreement or disagreement. In the PRC people are jailed for complaining too much, or complaining about the wrong thing. You can't have an accurate picture of what people think about the state in those circumstances, especially when this information is distributed solely by government-sanctioned and/or actively censored outlets. Like that joke Zizek tells sometimes:
"A German worker gets a job in Siberia; aware of how all mail will be read by censors, he tells his friends: “Let’s establish a code: if a letter you will get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter, written in blue ink: “Everything is wonderful here: stores are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, movie theaters show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair—the only thing unavailable is red ink.”"
And I'm trying to say that "In the PRC people are jailed for complaining too much, or complaining about the wrong thing" is a mischaracterization at best, a complete falsehood at worst. I've found this to be the case after research.
But again, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Just don't claim I am insincere.
> And I'm trying to say that "In the PRC people are jailed for complaining too much, or complaining about the wrong thing" is a mischaracterization at best, a complete falsehood at worst. I've found this to be the case after research.
I had an apologist describe it to be once like "if you want to suggest improvements in local government, or you want to make a request, as long as you do it respectfully, then there is no problem at all", as if that is what free people mean when they talk of complaint.
We've all had a nice refresher about what happens in China if you complain, about a sexual assault for example. For the sake of "social stability", of course.
I have personally noted a large quantity of CCP propaganda turning up on other social media. Voted up unusually high, unusually early, and by accounts that regularly wind up banned by the admins. As a normal user it can be hard to differentiate real shill accounts from motivated nationalists and/or supremacists, but it's absurd to say this sort of thing isn't likely going on, certainly not to claim any absolute knowledge of the subject.
I am using my one and only account. I made a concious decision to that so people can verify my identify and 20-year long Internet history so that they can't just call me a "paid shill".
You don't have to agree with me but please don't paint me as being insincere.
Yes I am speaking about China a lot lately. Because I am Chinese, I care about the subject a lot, and the whole Cold War and all the media lies have made me angry and pushed me to speak up.
You don't have to agree with me. But please don't say silly things like that I am a paid shill or that I don't belive what I say. I will remind you that I have a job.
If you are not open to my arguments then don't listen to me. No need to defame me.
Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have international broadcasts in China been dropping out when her case is mentioned? Why did the CCP deny any knowledge of her situation, only to later say "she will be making a public appearance soon"?
First I want to know whether you genuinely want to know my opinion, or whether these are some sort of rethorical questions.
After all, I see that you are worried about "shills" and "propaganda". If you are not open to alternative perspectives then there's no need to talk to me. We can agree to disagree and still respect each other.
I assume that you are a good-natured member of this community. Hacker News tends to have a higher grade of participant. I also note that I gave no indication about my opinion of you personally, despite your suggestion. Since that is cleared up, and since you seem to take an alternate viewpoint than mine, I will repeat my initial question:
Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have international broadcasts in China been dropping out when her case is mentioned? Why did the CCP deny any knowledge of her situation, only to later say "she will be making a public appearance soon"?
To the best of my knowledge, this is what's going on:
- In China, censorship is common for any kind of controversy, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-government. It's common for people to be silent during a controversy regardless of what it was about. Furthermore, censorship is not related to whether someone will be caught/jailed/kidnapped or not. See my writeups here for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344676 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
- When you say "CCP deny knowledge of her situation", you need to understand that neither the CCP nor the Chinese government (there is a distinction, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume they're the same) are a monolith. The people who were asked are responsible for foreign relations. They don't know every single domestic issue right away, especially not if China didn't consider that issue to be a diplomatic issue. It's like asking the US ambassador "where is Britney Spears, her Facebook is blocked!"
The censorship apparatus operates independently from the foreign relations apparatus, and even from the law enforcement apparatus. Censorship is more like super-moderation rather than a police force. Furthermore, censorship is decentralized. The censorship authority provides guidelines on what sort of content to censor, and then Internet companies do the censoring themselves. It's not so that the censorship authority directly monitors every post at all times.
The western public kept pushing for "Chinese government, produce her". So they did.
- The Chinese public largely does not believe that she is or has ever been in danger. Some Chinese criticized the fact that she's censored, but even they don't believe she's in danger. They don't believe she's forced to give a false statement. Chinese have high trust in government and police, and they trust that if Zhao is indeed a corrupt official then he will be dealt with.
- The Chinese view censorship and information control in a more nuanced manner than westerners. Where censorship is a deadly sin in the west, Chinese view censorship as sometimes good sometimes bad. They believe that sometimes censorship is necessary for the greater good.
I will note that my writeups are not so much about endorsing them. My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west. You don't have to agree with their practices, but I do think it's important for people to understand what the Chinese public thinks, and how Chinese values are different from western values. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west, and the western way would work disastrously in China. China is different rather than universally evil. To each their own.
I can't say you have answered my questions satisfactorily. Broadcasts from international news sources that mentioned Peng Shuai were censored - this is not just some procedural or algorithmic issue. And what business does the CCP have, if Peng Shuai is free from the kind of imprisonment it is assumed she is under, telling the public when she will be making a public statement? As for the Chinese public not believing she is in danger, well why would they? Again, information about her, including in international broadcasts, have been censored in China, online and on TV.
I edited my comment slightly and added more info. Not sure whether you've seen them.
> Broadcasts from international news sources that mentioned Peng Shuai were censored
I do not know about this specific issue. What I suspect is that now it has become a foreign relations issue, they are pushing for unity in messaging. Unity in messaging is a core principle in Chinese foreign relations practice.
> And what business does the CCP have, if Peng Shuai is free from the kind of imprisonment it is assumed she is under, telling the public when she will be making a public statement?
This is a matter of values. Westerners believe that government should interfere as little as possible in citizen matters. That's fine.
The Chinese don't tend to see the government in an adversarial manner. In general, they prefer a strong, centralized government that actively meddles in citizen matters as long as it is for the public benefit. They see the government as a partner (though, depending on times and context, "necessary evil" may sometimes be more appropriate) in building a better society rather than an enemy of a better society.
Furthermore, the CCP and the government aren't just a top-down imposition. They are the very fabric of society. They are everywhere. Every neighborhood has a neighborhood commitee who are party members. They help the neighborhood and perform important community management tasks. If you have a complaint about the neighborhood, you go to them. They regularly come ask you whether everything is fine, whether you need something. During Wuhan's COVID-19 lockdown they were the ones on the front lines, ensuring that health workers stay supplied and ensuring that food gets delivered to every household. The CCP has 90 million members, or about 5% of the population. Everybody has some relative that's a party member.
The Chinese public does not view the issue as "the govt is telling her to make a public statement". Rather, they view it as "the foreign public is making so much fuss about her, the government and the media are helping her voice get heard by foreign public". That her social media account remains blocked for now is seen as a completely separate matter, related to domestic social stability, which has got nothing to do with foreign relations.
Regarding the future of her censorship: that will be lifted once things have calmed down. See my case studies on Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
With regards to the value judgement, it depends on whether you can accept that western values are not universal. I propose the thesis that they are not, because many other Asian and African countries have also criticized the western "our values are the only right ones" attitude.
Like I said in another response to you, it's a wonderful coincidence for a totalitarian government to be ruling over people who are so naturally deferential. There is no evidence of innate deference to totalitarian governments in Chinese people. Given environments out of control of the CCP, like Hong Kong or Taiwan, Chinese people eagerly engage in democratic processes.
If you think that it's impossible for Chinese (or other countries in general) to have a different attitude towards government then you should watch some videos by Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat. For example https://youtu.be/zBpmm5hdbFQ
Furthermore, the characterization of China being "totalitarian" is wrong because China is in no way comparable to the likes of North Korea or Saudi Arabia. You should check out the works of political science professor Daniel A. Bell: https://youtu.be/ckt94_JWHPs
This isn't a "coincidence". The Chinese government has evolved to its current form because of Chinese values. The CCP won the civil war because it had support of the majority of the population.
This is what totalitarian governments always claim. "We are the deterministic result of the people organizing themselves", generally a single ethnic group. Conveniently this also means an attack on the party is an attack on the ethnic group. The CCP was formed in the chaos of the early 20th century, buoyed by the Soviets, and maintained its power in part by astonishing acts of brutality on the Chinese people. If the "Chinese peoples values" you're referring to includes a significant streak of sadomasochism you can fill me in.
What? An attack on the party is not seen as an attack on Han man. You can't just conveniently draw false comparisons between western paradigms and China. You keep saying unsubstantiated stereotypes while I keep posting sources.
Han supremacism — while it exists — is largely not a thing and certainly not state policy. State policy is that minorities receive extra benefits that Han do not enjoy, and that the provincial government heads of minority provinces must be of those ethnicities.
Please go to China and tell a Chaoxianzu he's not Chinese. He'll tell you to fuck off.
Please go to China and tell people that the KMT should have won the civil war and see how people react.
> My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west.
> China is different rather than universally evil.
I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.
I've seen very few comments on HN (or even in real life) that criticize the people or the culture - everything is about the CCP and its policies, which are authoritarian-for-your-own-good at best.
Every piece of evidence that I've seen points to the CCP being a very evil organization that has hijacked the legacy of a great and old empire and convinced its subjects that its merely the latest figurehead of it.
I'm an American, acutely aware of the many faults and malicious actors at work in my government, yet I'm capable of separating that from the ideals of my country.
Don't confuse criticism of your government with criticism of your people, history, culture, or national ideals. They're completely separate.
> I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.
This is something I have heard many times before, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For one, I have debated with a lot of people. The majority of them say something along this line, but then a few messages later they post things like "Chinese people can't innovate, only copy" or "they are brainwashed". A lot of people hide blatant racism, sinophobia or plain prejudice behind "we are only against the CCP, not the people". This is no criticism to you or the other poster specifically, but is a criticism against the general public.
Furthermore, even among the more honest people, what I have noticed is that most of even them are not so much "against the CCP and not the people", but rather "against the CCP and don't care about the people". They will happily suggest actions (sanctions, revolutions, overthrow of government, war, etc) that will result in Chinese people suffering. But they consider that fine, because they are just "standing up to the CCP". In other words, they don't care whether Chinese people become cannon fodder and collateral damage in their fight of justice against the Chinese government.
Why would Chinese people want this? We just got out of 120 years of war, revolution and famine. We've tried many things. Many different governing and social organization forms failed, and now when things are finally going well foreigners want us to start over again just because they think our government is bad? Can't we have a say in this too? Can't we say, look the government is not perfect but it's not as bad as you think, they also do a lot of good things and things are still improving (and they have improved), so we don't want another revolution and we certainly don't want you to encourage one for us?
Anti-China sentiment (or anti-CCP sentiment, as you'd prefer to call it) isn't just about logic and debate, it's a gateway drug into a war against China. The US military industrial complex is literally pouring millions of dollars in anti-China propaganda and the prop-up of "the China threat", with the aim of manufacturing consent for a war against China.
The more people jump on the China-evil (or the CCP-evil) bandwagon, the more you enlarge the echo chamber and the more willingness there is for a war. It doesn't matter whether the bandwagon is "China is evil" or "the Chinese government (but not its people) is evil" — the potential outcomes are equally disastrous. You can already see this on the streets: anti-Asian violence has spiked in the US thanks to all the anti-China reporting. Thugs on the streets don't care whether a person is Vietnamese or Taiwanese or anti-CCP Chinese or whatever, they are all Chinese to them. Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat, recently visited New York, reporting that the mood in New York is very dark: people see the Chinese state as "the enemy".
As someone who thinks about many things rationally, what I find stupid about this bandwagon is that half of the reasons people cite for declaring the Chinese government as bad, are based non-understanding of Chinese context and values, an inflated sense of "the China threat", the idea that the western perspective is the only legitimate one, or just plain biased reporting. Yet most people refuse to critically examine whether their attitude against China/CCP is even correct and based on the right facts and the right perspectives. Most people start with the final conclusion that China/CCP is evil and then they find arguments to fit that conclusion, while sticking to the notion that the western perspective is the only perspective that could possibly be right. This attitude perfec...
There is no Streisand effect on the dark side of the Great Firewall. There, a scandal has a short lifespan. It is hard for the censors to prevent its birth, but its progeny, the discussion and the aftereffects, are easily nipped with keyword blocking and disabling comments.
What effects does this have on Chinese society? What happens when the only public scandals are those that are convenient for the government?
The dissent moves offline. To kitchens and smoking rooms. And judging by what happened in the USSR, it results in a social apathy and, eventually, economic stagnation.
I don't generally give creedence to what hostages say at gunpoint, and it beggars belief that Peng Shuai, who just aired explosive allegations of sexual assault to a huge audience, wants her "privacy to be respected" and the story to go away.
The IOC is actively aiding the CCP's repression by passing that along.
Actual evidence that cannot be (as easily) produced by pressuring her into creating it would be useful. That probably means her meeting with WTA officials outside of China on her own itinerary, and without handlers watching her every move.
The fact that the WTA kept the pressure on may ultimately prevent the Chinese political bigwig she accused from crushing her, and may eventually help other Chinese women in a similar position. For some senior male politicians in China this seems not to be about Peng personally, but about protecting the continued practice of concubinage for the political top of the CCP; something that is exemplified by Chinese state media essentially ignoring the allegations of sexual abuse.
>His tabloid then tweeted what looked like staged videos of Ms Peng having dinner at a restaurant with her coach and meeting children at a tennis event.
Is the production of deepfakes by the world's largest internal security service outside the domain of plausibility? A smart programmer can crank one out in a weekend by themself. What can an entire cyber security bureau accomplish with the backing of the CCP?
It's funny, I tried applying Occam's Razor and was not able to find the simplest conclusion. Especially since in (b) "Washington media" should actually read "WTA and the women's tennis community".
Please don't disingenuously pretend that you or 99% of the people unseriously frothing over this scandal are subscribed to WTA newsletters, and did not first hear about it from your corporate media sources.
I don't get how the method by which I learned of this is relevant to the reality of the situation. It's the WTA that's not satisfied with the "proof" offered for Peng Shuai's safety.
And I'm not pretending anything. I never even mentioned where I learned of this. You seem very defensive.
The WTA is threatening to pull billions of dollars out of business out of China. The outcry is coming from all over the world, not just "Washington media".
And if you believe the scandal is being "blown out of proportion", well there are a lot of us who disagree.
The CCP has some 100,000,000 active members and >90% domestic approval rate. You simply cannot decouple it from "China" in any meaningful social, political, or economic manner without resorting to boring Orientalist/"white savior" narratives.
>>>why wouldn't the Chinese support their government?
Trepidation at encouraging/rewarding a state apparatus that is comfortable driving armored vehicles over its own protesting student citizens? It's easy to support a government during periods of success and abundance. How does the government treat its population during periods of hardship and uncertainty? The CCP has already demonstrated its preferred solution: grind the population into hamburger under its power, in order to preserve the position and quality of life of those at the top.
If Tiananmen Square riots are enough reason for Chinese to overthrow their govt, then the Americans should have overthrown their govt 100 times due to LA riots, People's Park massacre, MOVE bombing, etc etc
What? I never said the Chinese people should rebel. Your anti anti China rhetoric is frankly absurd.
I said you cannot voice dissent towards CCP, so saying “x% approve” is utterly meaningless. Similarly, being a CCP member is not like being a member of a democratic party in some other country.
I’m sure you understand that though, you’re just out here pushing against anti CCP sentiment in a thread about a woman who put her career on the line to say that she has been sexually abused by powerful people.
Good thing I'm not here for the HN karma or optics. If at least one person has read my comments and started asking questions and doing their own research into the current anti-China propaganda blitz, that's a win for me.
Seriously. Step back and look at what is going on here. One Chinese women opened up on social media and an emotional and traumatic experience she had long ago. Instantly, the entire Western propaganda apparatus amplifies it into a massive scandal. Every rumor is tested: it's a CCP coverup, Peng has been disappeared, the evidence of her being safe is all deep faked...
Meanwhile, every single day people are going through much, much worse. Including in America. But it's one Chinese lady that gets all the attention. Because we're in the midst of a political propaganda campaign against Beijing 2022.
A distinction that the CCP is clear to confuse. I believe his wife is Chinese, he lived in the country for a long time and his videos clearly show that he has no real problem with the Chinese people (if you had a problem with Chinese people...why would you move to China? It makes no sense, there must be some psychological bias where people see bigotry everywhere), he just doesn't like the CCP (tbh, his account of why he left China justifies that view, he may not be telling the truth, I don't really care tbh but that is his story). For some reason, people will view not liking the CCP as a slight against all Chinese people but those same people will usually dislike America with same venom they see in others...funny that.
But yeah, his videos are partisan, there is nothing wrong with being partisan and having an opinion. People are free to have opinions whether other people agree or disagree, whether they are justified by reason or changes in the stars. You can also watch a video that is partisan, agree with some of it, disagree with some of it without attempting to generalise that person's views as totally correct or incorrect...most people are not totally correct or incorrect all the time (ofc, this notion of truth is something that authoritarian govts fundamentally disagree with, having a monopoly on objective truth is a source of political and cultural control).
I don't want to detract from the main story, because we need to call this out regardless of the source nation, but it really does grind my gears the way that Western politicians use this kind of thing to strengthen the anti-Chinese FUD, when there are similar issues at home they could actually do something about, but don't (or worse, even support it - usually "because terrorists, paedos, foreigners etc").
I’m very happy to see WTA take it directly to the Olympic level and also threaten to recall WTA tournaments in China.
Note the third para that describes the censorship. How despicably efficient is the Chinese censorship apparatus that they caught this and deleted it within an hour and commenced with clean-up. They knew this could have incited dissent.
If this is the “utopia” that awaits us in the up-and-coming centralized walled gardens of software, count me out.
I am not trying to defend China or the CCP in any way here, the situation is not defensible.
However, I'm surprised that more comparisons haven't been made to the way the West has erased Julian Assange, and how easily he disappeared from our collective consciousness.
The West hasn’t censored Assange, though. Throughout he has been free to say whatever he wants to say whenever he wants to say it. Him disappearing from collective consciousness says more about the speed of news cycles these days than anything about censorship, IMO.
If we’re going to talk about erasure, one big difference is that there are many people like you in the West who do draw those comparisons publicly on the internet and they remain accessible and even popular online.
Because that's not comparable..? If someone tried to disseminate classified Chinese military documents depicting war crimes, and got caught by CCP, chances are that nobody will ever see them or hear of them ever again.
Assange isn't American. Is it true that an Australian reporting on Chinese warcrimes would not see freedom for 9 years? That doesn't pass the smell test for me.
That's not an analogous situation. This is virtually identical to #MeToo cases in the West. For many years, those were also swept under the rug, but the situation now, while still mixed, does seem different.
A closer analogy would be the accusations that were made against Bill Clinton. Those would (presumably, and hopefully) be dealt with differently today than they were at the time, but to echo your sentiment, it is a bit amnesiac to point fingers at China for behaviour that the West (or perhaps just some Western countries) has just barely started to change.
One difference is that rather than censorship, allegations of sexual abuse by the powerful have long been simply ignored by the police, judiciary, media, etc., rather than censored. The end result was much the same.
I don't think the situations are similar. Peng is not a dissident, she's a tennis player. And Assange has not been erased, his trial has been covered even in the mainstream media.
The real difference, as the old story goes, is in the quality of the propaganda. The west has managed to convince its people that Assange is a bad person, a rapist even. Whereas China has not managed to convince many of its people that Peng is a bad person, rather they are simply crudely prevented from talking about the issue online. The west is much much better at propaganda than China.
People think Chinese propaganda is clever and insidious but in truth Chinese propaganda is extremely clumsy to the point of being essentially harmless in the west.
Is their aim to be harmful in the west? My impression has always been that they’re pretty ambivalent about that, they’re more concerned with the internal effect.
I don’t know that people even do think Chinese propaganda is clever! In my mind their skill is overarching control over communication. It’s dumb and brute force but it seems to work.
You don't have a non-mainstream opinion on China; you hold every Chinese (domestic) mainstream opinion and parrot them on this Western forum. One only needs to look at your post history to see that all you do here is post CCP propaganda.
Who would do that but a paid shill?
HN is one of the few places online that both allows free speech and isn't riddled with bots/spammers/shills. I'd like to keep it that way, meaning you should fuck off. No one is buying your shit, anyway, as you might have found from the replies your posts get. It's a lost cause.
No. There are a lot of things from the mainstream Chinese discourse that I agree with, but also things I disagree with. For example I tell mainland Chinese that anti-US conspiracy theories (e.g. Fort Dedrick) are wrong.
I compare arguments from both sides and I make up my own mind. I have my own agency and my own opinion, thank you.
If you're gonna call me a "paid shill" even though I have 20 years of online history in a different field, you're gonna have to prove it.
If you don't like what I have to say, then fine, don't listen to me. But don't prevent others from listening to me and don't prevent me from speaking.
Ultimately I want peace and understanding between both sides.
Actually he’s convinced me. He does have a non-mainstream opinion on China. The boots on the ground, lived reality and perspective of Chinese domestic experience is literally a non-mainstream opinion on China.
You’re being extremely rude here, accusing people of being shills and telling them to literally “fuck off”. If anything goes against the HN ethos and rules, it’s terrible behaviour and bad faith behaviour like that, not a veteran Hacker News member with an account that’s twice as old as yours arguing a refreshingly non-mainstream perspective.
The West's propaganda is just as clumsy, civil servants everywhere are far removed from real people (the stuff the US used in Iraq/Afghanistan is comic, I believe they are used leaflets drops in Syria too...you could also include public health campaigns and "nudges" in this, lots of comic nonsense).
The difference is that the West has the media which puts its own propaganda, people on the internet putting their own propaganda, etc. There is a market. In China, that market is limited.
Every time there is a story that criticizes China's Communist Party there is a flood of troll-like comments here in Hacker News. Lot of "What about X" comments and just general trolling and uncivil behavior.
As a non-Chinese I never could understand the relationship of CCP, Chinese nationals and Chinese immigrants in the US and West. To me, it seems very hyocritcal to live in the Western societies and be very pro-CCP. I have interacted with many Chinese immigrants that defend CCP at any cost. I'm very confused about it.
Ah yes fellow Chinese are bad at explaining to westerners. As a more westernized Chinese who started researching west-vs-China differences a few years ago, I could help you better understand -- if you are open minded enough and willing to change some of your views. Are you in? If so ask me anything, either here or in private.
Please go ahead and explain. I'm genuinely curious. The best defend I've heard is "my parents generation were farmers but now living in a nice apartment thanks to CCP so we are thankful for what they did..."
I posted that and I'm 0% Chinese. What do you think is unreasonable about the comment? Isn't it true that nothing done to prove that she is fine has been accepted?
One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead.
The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows:
1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM
4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you fo...
When the CIA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Chinese people were mad and going around in pro government/ anti-US riots and tried to storm the embassy/ consulates in Beijing and other cities. The government shutdown the subways and public transportation and enacted some degree of censorship in the state controlled news. (This was in '99 before widespread adoption of the internet)
>Large demonstrations erupted at consular offices of the United States and other NATO countries in China in reaction to news of the bombing. On May 9, 1999, then-Vice President Hu Jintao delivered a national televised speech calling the act both "criminal" and "barbaric" and that it "has greatly infuriated the Chinese people." He said the unauthorized demonstrations in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Shenyang reflected the anger and patriotism of the Chinese people, and which the Chinese government fully supported, but urged against extreme and illegal conduct.
>The protests continued for several days, during which tens of thousands of rock-throwing protesters kept U.S. Ambassador James Sasser and other staff trapped in the Beijing embassy.
There's zero evidence that the CCP censors pro- and anti- government information equally here. None. Only that, after first inflaming the rioters.... they eventually owned up to their internationally recognized responsibility to protect embassy staff.
From the paper I linked, section "Content of Censored and Uncensored Posts", here's one example:
> we now highlight the obverse condition by giving examples of two posts related to events with collective action potential that support the state but which
nevertheless were quickly censored. During the bombings in Fuzhou, the government censored this post, which unambiguously condemns the actions of Qian Mingqi, the bomber,
and explicitly praises the government’s work on the
issues of housing demolition, which precipitated the
bombings:
> “The bombing led not only to the tragedy of his
death but the death of many government workers.
Even if we can verify what Qian Mingqi said on
Weibo that the building demolition caused a great
deal of personal damage, we should still condemn
his extreme act of retribution.... The government has
continually put forth measures and laws to protect
the interests of citizens in building demolition. And
the media has called attention to the plight of those
experiencing housing demolition. The rate at which
compensation for housing demolition has increased
exceeds inflation. In many places, this compensation
can change the fate of an entire family.”
---
A more recent example. Jerry Grey is a Canadian who lives in China and who opposes the Xinjiang narrative in western mainstream media because he has travelled to Xinjiang and saw a different reality than described in the media.
On Chinese social media he posted a criticism of Adrien Zenz, one of the people pushing the genocide narrative. Grey's criticism was that Zenz has never been to Xinjiang, and Grey says that Zenz should go and take a look. This was then censored, because "it's not China's place to encourage other's to change their minds".
> Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over
Being put under house arrest and prevented from having contact with the outside world by the government, without being charged with a crime is a pretty big abuse power. Imagine if Trump just put one of his critics under house arrest and prevented contact with the outside for several months. This would be an outrageous thing to do, and there'd probably have been riots outside the White House.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I believe that you earnestly feel this is an okay thing for the CCP to do. But that's not swaying my skepticism and distrust of the Chinese government. The fact that it's successfully normalized this level of authoritarianism among mainland Chinese to such an extent that they earnestly see it as normal is precisely why most Westerners are so distrustful of the Chinese government.
You can be put into regular arrest without being charged for a crime for weeks in almost every country on earth and there is no obligation in most country to allow for more than one or two monitored calls that can be interrupted at any moment for any reason.
As far as I know Jack Ma never criticized Xi. He criticized (international) banking regulations that were ratified in 2009 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and that he was not in compliance of. Legally in the United States that could very well put you in prison for fraud and you are not guaranteed the right to make a phone call or see family federally, though some states guarantee phone calls to some people on the day of arrest. Then the prosecutors can seal the indictment and you can be held for a year without anyone except your immediate family and attorney (if you can afford one) knowing. And then the prosecutors can drop chargers a few months later.
What happened to Jack Ma could have happened in the US because he was did something (fraud) that is a federal crime in the US. Thankfully it doesn't happen often. You also don't know that he wasn't charged. He recorded himself giving probable cause for a crime. It was really stupid of him.
It's important to understand the concept of the Petrodollar, how that system is secured by US maritime supremacy, and how it underpins the US financial system.
*If there is another strong power that can provide military security and at the same time offer sufficient funds and industrial products, the whole Middle East oil can be freed from the dominance of the dollar*
>>>What size defense force do you think China should have?
It's not the size that matters per se, it's the content. China used to have a largely-coastal navy. It has massively expanded its ability to conduct expeditionary warfare, with aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. The latter category are basically carbon-copies of the equivalent US classes. You only need warships like this if you expect to put entire battalions of troops on other people's shores.
> I believe that you earnestly feel this is an okay thing for the CCP to do
This is a wrong characterization.
China has different values and practices. Freedom means something different in China than in the west. China values other things more than western-style freedom of speech. For example there is a greater emphasis on responsibility.
The practice you quoted is unacceptable in the west. That's fine — for you. Chinese think differently and believe that such practices are sometimes necessary to prevent rumors from running wild and causing social instability. That's also fine — for them.
I just want you to know that Chinese genuinely have a different opinion and a different perspective. That you disagree with them is fine.
To each their own. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west. The western way would work disastrously in China. Let each country decide what they value and how they want to do things.
> The practice you quoted is unacceptable in the west. That's fine — for you. Chinese think differently and believe that such practices are sometimes necessary to prevent rumors from running wild and causing social instability. That's also fine — for them.
What a marvelous coincidence for the CCP that "what Chinese people value", according to you, is the kind of submissive defference totalitarian governments desire from the people under their control.
And so what if you view them as totalitarian? By and large the Chinese do not. Let them decide what kind of society they want. There's no need for you to make the judgement for them. They aren't forcing their ways on you either.
> One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Why would she put herself and her family in danger to do that? She's basically at the age of retirement in her career. What do you think she'll do after she retires, with the CCP denying her further career prospects?
Well I, and many other Chinese people, don't think that "CPP will deny her further career aspects". We'll see in a few weeks whether she continues playing tennis.
I'm not personally a supporter of the CCP, but I do interact with people who are.
For those who are immigrants from mainland China who support the CCP, there's an element of patriotism with regards to seeing their country becoming a burgeoning superpower and as a form of comeuppance for national shame that stretches all the way back to the unequal treaties during the era of the Qing dynasty.
For people born and raised in the West who support the CCP, a lot of them tend to approach it from an enemy-of-my-enemy angle in opposition to US imperialism (they tend to be aligned along a subfaction of leftists), along with a general skepticism of US media.
I think your interpretation is quite simplified. Yes there is some "element of patriotism" but it's enhanced by something else. Let me explain.
homo sapiens are born to have defects that their brains can not differentiate model of their neural network and data (i.e. fact). The people from China have more data or ground facts compare to the Westerners who get all the information from media. There's a quite big discrepancy (There are some reasons but beyond the scope). What happened quite often is their perception of unfairness. More specific: The western media lied in a very tricky way so almost the whole western are brainwashed. Please note: that's somehow popular perceptions.
But the perception is also mixed and dynamic.
For the dynamic part: Today's popular perception was not popular 15 or 20 years ago. The perception has been changing gradually because the neural networks are fed with new data so the weights are changing and models i.e. opinions are changing. Especially young generation who have better neural plasticity.
For the mixed part: There are quite portion of anti CPP opinions. You can easily find many anti CPP people from China. Some are quite extreme. You can say it's somehow polarized. Even within China the portion of anti CPP is quite sizable.
I agree that I've boiled it down a bit too much and so I should also add that beyond patriotism the CCP have actually had a positive impact on the material conditions of the rural people of China, as well as engaging in extensive modernization -- compare Shanghai's Pudong district between now and 20 years ago and it's night and day.
I think the problem here is people in the West see things in the following way:
Chinese system inherently evil.
Western system inherently good.
When a bad thing happens in the West; we condemn it but don't see it as the overall system being evil.
When a bad thing happens in China; we condemn it and see it as further evidence of the fundamental evil of the system.
I think the Chinese basically have faith in their Government in spite of its short comings.
Let's go deeper. Not many people know why human invented the concept of evil.
Most animals especially mammals evolved by the arm race between the predators and the preys to perfect their power,agility and intelligence. The algorithm is called GAN. There are few extreme instances that GAN between predators and preys is not enough. Human is among the few primates that often kill their own species. Competition and cooperation are 2 parts of evolution. The extreme competition is war among human tribes. We have the nature of fighting and killing other human even the society become civilized.
The concept of "evil" emerged as a reason to justify the killing of our same species. You can get that from a lot of Hollywood movies. There's a spiritual need for evil to exist.
That's why NATO can bomb the oppressive regimes all over the world everywhere. Because they are collectively supported by the people of NATO countries. When something's wrong they collectively blame wrong information. What I mean is: "Weapons of Massive Destruction was caused by intelligence failure" is a bigger lie than WMD itself. It's also cannot be blamed on a few politicians who are democratically elected by people. The real reason is there was a spiritual need for evil so the people were easily fooled.
Even today after millions of people's life were ruined and there are massive waves of immigration people in NATO countries still don't connect the cause end effects, never realize that it was their own arrogant belief that they own democracy and human rights, along with they have superior weapons to liberate the people from oppressive regimes, cause the chaos world today.
Will they wake up? not likely. The retreat from Afghanistan was because of running out of resource but not because realize it was fundamentally wrong.
HN is weird. Articles, stories, and conversations show up here before getting to content aggregators or social media, and it's ahead of the curve by hours. Focusing a/b tests here gives you a strategic edge in controlling a narrative further downstream, and can give you a sample of what arguments can close down a discussion, or exactly how to script your sock puppets so that people feel their opinion is represented within a discussion.
I'm pretty sure this happens because people in ycombinator circles use HN as a high quality content pipeline, and because of dang's impeccable curation, front page HN content gets greenlit for immediate display. If you see something on HN, it'll almost inevitably show up on Slashdot, Reddit, Facebook, and a slew of other smaller sites and forums, often unchanged from its presentation here.
HN also has the bonus that many silicon valley movers and shakers frequent the site and join the discussions. China's troll generals would be foolish not to capitalize on that.
As far as immigrants defending ccp that's usually because they have family back in China and would like to see them again some day. Their family's social standing could take a hit if they are insufficiently "patriotic," even in the US. China's got social influence inside the US, and extensive networks of casual spies that report problematic behaviors, ranging from local cultural clubs and groups to college and campus outreach organizations. It's very (darkly) sophisticated.
You have to at least admit that the reaction of the Chinese government didn't help in the matter. If the post hadn't been immediately deleted and any discussion censored, if the government announced an open investigation and Peng Shuai were free to talk to media then none of this would have happened.
This lack of openness of the Chinese government on issues such as these is what essentially leaves what you call sinophobic media to write about it.
I'm European. The news I read about the US aren't exactly feel good stories either. That's generally not what people are interested in.
There are occasional short articles about some funny internet sensation or what have you but you do read about those from China as well. Like for instance when that elephant herd moved through Southern China earlier this year.
You don't have to lie to paint the USA in an bad light. Socioeconomic conditions here have been in decline for half a century, and greatly accelerated in the last 13 years. Foreign policy has been failure after failure.
PRC however has been on the opposite trajectory, a meteoric rise in the living conditions of the average person over just a few generations. So you do have to lie/omit to paint China in a uniformly negative light, which is what the Western media virtually always does in the past 5 years.
That's true. There was a meme not long ago showing headlines that admonished China for doing something, and then for doing the opposite. There is an element of a hermetic dogma that whatever China does is bad.
That being said, the whole Peng Shuai situation is quite shady. On the whole the only really bad thing is that the post was censored, and it's reasonable to infer negative things from that.
I wish another org would follow suit ahead of the Winter Olympics. A brilliant move would be if the ice hockey tournament would be moved to Taiwan, much like the world championships were pulled from Belarus recently. Who would lose? Sponsors would be happy, players would be happy.
double standard: the US propertied class is openly involved in a bunch of wars and regime change operations in a number of countries (which essentially comes down to severe human rights violations). why aren't we boycotting all sporting events held by the US?
Because this is a western centric forum, and with anything western centric- it is being chiseled into our DNA to despise outsiders(can be anyone that isn't brbding over to our will). And these westerners(the ones in the know) realistically cant survive a quality of life provided without extortion of the weaker groups.
You're right, of course. It would be too uncomfortable to confront that reality so we filter it out, that way we can direct our moral outrage to an enemy without having to deal with the moral distress of confronting these issues (or failing to do so) in our own societies.
346 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 285 ms ] threadIt's remarkable that the WTA has stood up for Peng Shuai. International corporations typically knuckle under to the CCP. See the IOC's response, and also Jamie Dimon recently backtracking on his mild joke.
The quotation seems to be garbled in that link, https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/jamie-dimon-jokes-jpmorgan... has one that makes more sense
> The Communist Party is celebrating its 100th year. So is JPMorgan. And I’ll make you a bet we last longer.
Tho second link isn't a citation for:
> I can’t say that in China. They are probably listening anyway.
Why are people referring to it as a joke? He may have said it in a jocular tone-of-voice, but I don't think it was a joke at all: it's a reasoned statement to make and furthermore it's a statement I agree with: given US blue-chip companies' propensity to entrench themselves and the CCP's reversion back to authoritarianism (which history has made abundantly clear: rarely ends-well for authoritarians) means that absent anything unexpected happening, the CCP may very-well no-longer exist within a generation or two from now - or at least the CCP won't exist as-we-know-it.
My grandfather grew up there and was fond of saying "you have to remember the Chinese did not pray to God. The average Chinese person is not important enough for that. They prayed to the third under-secretary to God's chamberlain. What they really worship is bureaucracy". I don't know China well enough to comment on this myself, but I always found it a fascinating take on the situation.
China's history is as complicated as any other similarly sized territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_Dynasties.gif and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#/media/File:D...
Meanwhile, other "nations" entitled their ruler as a successor, bestowing upon them the title of Caesar, Kaiser, Tsar. So, you can link it up until the fall of Imperial Russia. Or you can even keep it up to today with Romania, or even Turkey.
When Constantinople fell, there were no lack of claims.
2. You're explaining why this "joke" might be taken serious by CCP
3. Most jokes have a hint of truth to them
Actually, I'm not.
It’s funny ‘cause it’s true.
But then I look to certain contemporary female lesbian politicians in my country and I reconsider that...and there have been people like David Graeber, James Scott, Mikhael Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Edward Snowden and many others as well.
Due to Covid several tournaments in China were cancelled, which seems to have helped.
The fact one dude has a mistress he raped then followed on, doesnt need to reflect on the political model, the party legitimity, or China's success.
Just look at Trump and the republicans in the US, they rolled with it, Toad dick or not.
We are talking here about a former professional player the China government made disappear.
I find that curious!
Seeing this comment, and seeing e.g. CBS highlight the story, it really just seems fishy in general. Something is different - maybe we’re just in a new era, but who knows.
When they left China it started to sound like highly personalized hate speech. I initially assumed that it was because they were upset at having their livelihoods up-ended and a sense of rejection. But... initially they had great plans for wide-ranging travel documentaries which did not seem to pan out ... so it seems like the next-best thing is Five Minutes Hate against our enemies in East Asia.
Sad to see them degenerate, but not living there now they are not much of a source of information.
TLDR: he didn't only not get paid, he refused payment. Plus the payment offer was not "we pay you to say this" but "we want to license your content for republication" and "we pay you a fee for the trouble of appearing on our show to give your independent opinions".
I recommend you to watch arguments from both sides and then decide for yourself whether the accusation is right or not.
Dumbshill recently posted a clip of an old video of laowhy86, “exposing” him as a racist… which turned out to be taken extremely out of context and edited to be purposely misleading.
Let people watch both and decide for themselves who to trust.
Maybe let people check both out and decide for themselves.
Axios is also known for producing outright disinformation on China via zealots like Allen-Ebrahimian.
The person you're replying to is an occasional poster to that subreddit, who surely knows this already
I guess what you're trying to ask me is "How do you know that?"?
But rather than trusting any more of my claims, I suggest that you simply visit Reddit and look: You will see exactly the same unusual user name; with the same interests as here in various diverse topics; and the same writing style
Really, I think the initial question about the OP's behavior on Reddit was intrusive and probably out of line in HN etiquette, and the OP could ignore it
But I commented because the OP did engage with that question, and lied. And also because you then replied to OP in good faith, not realizing that you were wasting your time by trying to help someone who is obviously being disingenuous
The two commenters above recommended youtube channels that A. are very low quality, B. repeat state media talking points verbatim, and C. are made by people who don't even speak Chinese, so they don't actually understand what is actually happening around them in their daily lives.
Honestly I have no recollection of ever visiting reddit Sino subreddit.
> When the Chinese do it, it’s propaganda. When Washington does it, it’s “investing in our values”. The last phrase is taken from the Strategic Competition Act of 2021, newly passed by the United States Senate and will soon become law. It aims squarely at China and enjoys bipartisan support.
Surely no trusted journalist would publish objective nonsense for a slice of that $300,000,000 propaganda budget created by the SCA21?
It is like the Communist criticism of democracy: oh, elections are all rigged by wealthy people anyway...said from a country with no elections and a one-party state. Ofc.
My point is precisely that people in democracies are not forced to trust the govt. They don't have to trust the media, they are totally free. The only context in which your logic makes sense is one in which you believe the govt controls truth. You are living in a mental prison that you created.
You do realize that "trusted" "unbiased" media outlets like the Reuters, AP, NYT, WaPo literally have State Department/Pentagon censors filtering any material that could be deemed sensitive to "national security"?
You are complaining about the State Department censoring news but imply that the CCP which literally controls all information isn't as bad? Again, you realise that the US being as bad as China doesn't make China good?
And, again, the doublethink is being unable to understand that the question of whether you have to trust government makes no sense in the US. You don't have to trust the govt, that is freedom. Indeed, the US govt is constructed on the principle of multiple sources of power so it doesn't even make sense to say that authority arises from one source, there are competing sources of power (ironically, this is what the CCP finds incomprehensible about the US). The US govt does not censor the internet, most of the news sources you cite are not "trusted", people are sceptical of the media, people are sceptical of the govt. The point I am making is that people are unable to sceptical in China because they have no choice, the question you are posing makes no sense in a US context.
In China you know that whatever is getting media traction has been de facto approved by the Party. In America you have virtually no idea which special interest group is currently lying to you through the media, and they will never be held accountable.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-di...
This implies that the US government has total control over all domestic news outlets, a great firewall that censors the national internet and helps to find and remove references to embarrassing government incidents, policy that requires all companies to hand over all user data to the state unencrypted without a warrant, and a social credit system that can prevent you from getting a job if you make negative comments about the government's policies.
I very much would like to see proof of these things, given that I can do internet searches for atrocities like the Tuskegee Experiment, I've never gotten in any sort of trouble for making negative comments about the government, and I can find many news sources that run extremely conspiratorial articles about the same.
No, it doesn't. Americans are more or less equally propagandized, but in different (and less transparent) ways.
Otherwise, yes, it rather does imply, because there are very few things similar to the CCP's social credit system that have the same effect, and even fewer that could be deployed in the US without immediately being noticed.
This is staggeringly naive.
"America banned citizens from owning heavy weaponry. Look how much contempt they have!"
"American banned citizens from smoking meth! Look how much contempt they have!"
Ridiculous.
pphysch’s sources could very well be garbage, but I can decide that for myself.
Would you mind to elaborate why you consider it bottom of the gutter grifting? Genuinely curious to hear another perspective.
Meanwhile in Xinjiang...
Every story about the Olympics should have a comment asking "Where is Peng?"
This does not reveal anything more than what Lewinsky revealed about the US voting politics.
There are always political conflicts in any political system. The fight could be played openly, like the debates in voting politics.
The fight could be played covertly, like the hidden political campaign carried out by the huge donation-fueled political industry in voting politics.
In one-party system, the fight is hidden with more layers of covering. Like what happened in CCP's history, there are a lot of fights. At the beginning it's mostly ideology driven. Now it's more corruption driven.
> When a tennis star accuses a grandee of assault, China has no answer
This is an old and repeated accusation. It's not wrong. It's just obvious. Most things in CCP system has no answer. CCP can only improve and make sure such things can be managed better next time. That not means CCP can eliminate the root cause of such things, as human sexuality is such a fundamental instinct that, CCP's ideology is not going to remove such cases at all...
> It is hard to see a good ending to the story of Peng Shuai, a Chinese tennis champion who on November 2nd accused a former Communist Party grandee more than twice her age of subjecting her to a coercive sexual relationship.
The ending of course will be good.
US and western get the chance of accusing China, and possibly follow up over winter olympic.
Xi get a card over the old competitors in the CCP high power.
Peng Shuai becomes a national star. Everyone knows her now. She also will become a special person in the CCP high power.
Gaoli had a romantic relationship with a very charming person. Peng Shuai is not pretty in the current PS & facial surgery standard, but her energetic and strength as a pro athlete no doubt make her a desirable partner in any relationship. Gaoli had such a high taste is a revealing fact of their humanity.
And media is getting another sensational piece that can be played and repeated for a long time to come.
> In theory, the party deplores all immorality in office.
Gaoli had already retired. And standing committee in politburo seldom get touched, especially if the wrongdoings are not political driving. Mr. Zhou Yongkang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Yongkang got what he had because he tried to alter the political arrangement.
> Ms Peng, who is 35, was doomed from the moment she posted her late-night essay.
Doomed?...
Song Zuying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Zuying was known to everyone to be Jiang Zemin's mistress... She enjoyed a great career and international appearance.
Liu Xiaoqing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaoqing was rumorred to have connection with Deng Xiaoping. She had a good fortunae, until Deng passed away. Although that might be done by Deng's family.
Mark my word, Peng Shuai are getting some thing in return from this affair...
Read my words.
There is nothing in parallel between them. They just reveal a lot of similarity of how to play the sexual scandal for political gains in 2 political systems. Peng Shuai and Gaoli are not going to be harmed in any way more than Clinton and Lewinsky.
As for anyone disappearing. No one will, CCP will make sure of that. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/china/peng-shuai-public-appea...
They reveal the characteristics of how 2 systems play out the sexual scandal. Of course, the actual revealed facts are different.
Is there any suggestion that she was detained in a secret location? Or is it just that she was effectively removed from all the media and public functions?
It's not clear to me.
But did she actually disappear? This means taken from her home with no-one including her family knowing where she was.
Here [1] the report is that she "vanished from public view". Here [2] that she "she did not communicate on social media" and that noone at WTA "had been able to reach her directly". And here [3] there is no mention of that at all, just people outside of China wondering about her because her presence online was censored.
Based on this I personally do not know whether she actually 'disappeared' at any time, and my guess is that no-one in Western organisations and media know, either. The only thing mentioned in these articles is that people outside of China could not reach her, which is quite different, and led to various speculations.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2021/nov/25/the-disap...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peng_Shuai
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59338205
> Peng Shuai is not pretty in the current PS & facial surgery standard, but her energetic and strength as a pro athlete no doubt make her a desirable partner in any relationship. Gaoli had such a high taste is a revealing fact of their humanity.
There are always political conflicts in any political system. The fight could be played openly, like the debates in voting politics.
The fight could be played covertly, like the hidden political campaign carried out by the huge donation-fueled political industry in voting politics.
In one-party system, the fight is hidden with more layers of covering. Like what happened in CCP's history, there are a lot of fights. At the beginning it's mostly ideology driven. Now it's more corruption driven.
> When a tennis star accuses a grandee of assault, China has no answer
This is an old and repeated accusation. It's not wrong. It's just obvious. Most things in CCP system has no answer. CCP can only improve and make sure such things can be managed better next time. That not means CCP can eliminate the root cause of such things, as human sexuality is such a fundamental instinct that, CCP's ideology is not going to remove such cases at all...
> It is hard to see a good ending to the story of Peng Shuai, a Chinese tennis champion who on November 2nd accused a former Communist Party grandee more than twice her age of subjecting her to a coercive sexual relationship.
The ending of course will be good.
US and western get the chance of accusing China, and possibly follow up over winter olympic.
Xi get a card over the old competitors in the CCP high power.
Peng Shuai becomes a national star. Everyone knows her now. She also will become a special person in the CCP high power.
Gaoli had a romantic relationship with a very charming person. Peng Shuai is not pretty in the current PS & facial surgery standard, but her energetic and strength as a pro athlete no doubt make her a desirable partner in any relationship. Gaoli had such a high taste is a revealing fact of their humanity.
And media is getting another sensational piece that can be played and repeated for a long time to come.
> In theory, the party deplores all immorality in office.
Gaoli had already retired. And standing committee in politburo seldom get touched, especially if the wrongdoings are not political driving. Mr. Zhou Yongkang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Yongkang got what he had because he tried to alter the political arrangement.
> Ms Peng, who is 35, was doomed from the moment she posted her late-night essay.
Doomed?...
Song Zuying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Zuying was known to everyone to be Jiang Zemin's mistress... She enjoyed a great career and international appearance.
Liu Xiaoqing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaoqing was rumorred to have connection with Deng Xiaoping. She had a good fortunae, until Deng passed away. Although that might be done by Deng's family.
Mark my word, Peng Shuai are getting some thing in return from this affair...
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I especially don't appreciate the guilt-tripping in your comment.
Before you automatically cite some site guideline, think it a moment about what happens when a community is collectively positioned with some mental disease. And see how this rule is literally prevent the community from criticizing its own behavior.
> guilt-tripping
If someone just downvote a informational piece written by someone who clearly demonstrated specific understanding on the topic, then calling them out and let me feel a bit guilty about their lack of patience, isn't that a good service to them?
Also, it's seriously against HN's rules to use the site primarily to argue about one thing—especially when it's a political or nationalistic issue. We need you to stop doing that and to use HN as intended—for curious conversation about a variety of things.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If you do think you defend me, then you should see that I am still in a situation where I am becoming more and more attacked based on narrow view on China-related topics, especially politicizing everything to the degree that alternative and reasonable discussions are plainly impossible.
If you do still have faith in HN's value, then you should not defend me, you should defend the value.
And if you think I am not embodying HN's value, then do whatever you think it's reasonable. I don't care much about personal "support", I have long forsake those narrow views.
I realize you're representing a minority viewpoint. The HN demographic is highly international, but also overwhelmingly Western, and that inevitably comes with certain biases. We can benefit from hearing perspectives outside those biases. But that only works if you don't break the rules yourself, and you haven't been keeping to that.
I get that it's not easy and not fair, but the truth is that the one who represents a minority or contrarian view has to hold themselves to a higher standard [1]. Otherwise you make it easy for people to point fingers at you when you break the rules and use that as an excuse to discredit you [2]—and then they also point fingers at us and demand to know why we aren't enforcing the rules in your case. That's a lose-lose situation: either we have to ban you and silence a minority voice, or we allow you to break rules that would get others banned, in which case people will rightly accuse us of double standards. We can't allow that; I have to be able to say "no, we don't do that" in good conscience.
In order to follow the rules we need you to specifically do three things: (1) stay respectful and neutral when arguing; (2) avoid flamewar (your comments in this thread were inflammatory and way over the line, especially because the topic involves multiple flamewar themes - not just China/West but sexual assault etc.); and (3) not use HN primarily to argue about political and national fights. I'm sure there are other things on HN that interest you as well. Good community members engage out of curiosity on a variety of subjects—not just pre-existing agendas on the single point or two that they feel most passionately about. All of this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
I did what I did because I believe there needs someone who can be more open about certain things, so that they extend the range of discussion seen as normal here.
My statements also serve as a tool to expand the space for discussion for fellow HN visitors to feel more comfortable to express themselves.
Do I intentionally break some guidelines here? I personally don't think so. But I cannot deny the accusations according to the site rules. Because site rules are interpreted in that way, and my interpretation is slightly different.
You think CCP had make anything out that sports community can have a talking point?
The former prime minister not only shoot his shot early and in an aggressive manner
Later he didn’t follow up the courting to make sure that she could be feeling good about being on his mind for a while (and not just his penis for a night)
More generally if you don’t have a ring on it expect every woman who you had a romantic approach (successful or unsuccessful) to talk smack about you .
Sometimes the smack talking also comes if you put a ring on it .
The higher the fame then the biggest the platform given to her when the smack talking begins
The smack talking is not personal , meaning it’s not “against-guys” ….it’s “pro-her” to reinforce to herself and society the fact that there was a clear reason for her not receiving a marriage proposal or 500 , and that she dodged a bullet .
https://www.mintpressnews.com/olympolitik-fake-peng-shuai-sc...
While this does not mean that China would necessarily be any less "evil" than it seems to be, details can rarely be trusted.
Our hope instead was to prolong the war, keeping the Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski is quite open about this. In the same 1997 interview, he speaks of “drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.” He claims: “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.’”
https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/opinions/commentary/commen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2021/11/24/heres-the-...
On the other hand, if what is reported is true, then more power to her.
A cursory read through the Mint Press wiki page reveals it's an affiliate channel from Russia Today.
Also nice section around the opacity of their funding and revenue model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
I've checked this translation and I agree with most of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/qzhxao/translation_...
It attempts to highlight a few cultural nuances missing from the original translation. However it hasn't had any native speakers weigh in on it on r/tennis.
I disagree with note 4, claiming that that paragraph is her evidence for non-consensual relationship. My reading of that paragraph (about 10 years ago, the previous time she had an affair) is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken at him for having broken up 10 years ago.
The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous. It could be something like "my parents forced me to become doctor" (they didn't literally force, they nagged until you agree).
There is no doubt that Zhao is a manipulative jerk and that he engaged in unacceptable questionable acts. But given the ambiguity of this phrase, plus the fact that the rest of the text is not focused on that single even, makes some wonder whether this is even a rape allegation at all. The rest of the text say things like "I reopened my love for you", "we are so compatible", "we could talk endlessly". Some believe that this is more like her venting that he played with her feelings and then dumped her.
What's your interpretation of her panicked crying? You just spent 4 paragraphs outlining how you think her allegation is ambiguous. Now you're attempting to outright dodge a perfectly valid counterpoint.
Others can listen to me in they are interested. If they are not interested, that is fine too.
>[...] I don't find it more useful to English speakers than the version I linked. The version you linked also has some things I disagree with: I disagree with note 4 [...] My reading of that paragraph [...] is that that was consensual, or at least not unconsensual. My reading is that at the time she met him for the 2nd time, she was still heartbroken [..] The translation you linked to also misses an important note on the phrase "逼我和你发生关系". Presumably the "rape allegation" narrative is based on this phrase. The problem however is that 逼 could mean either “to pressure [to have sex]” or “to force [to have sex]”; its meaning is ambiguous.
Now you are categorically ignoring the contradicting evidence presented by the other poster. This is not how civilized debate works. YOU made a claim. YOU should respond to the contradicting evidence, not disown it as soon as your claim is challenged.
And also, sex is either consensual or not. It's binary. It can not be "consensual, or at least not unconsensual". Whatever that means.
Given that we are talking about sexual assault/rape here. I find what you are doing here absolutely abhorrent and shameful.
Whats your interpretation of her social media post when taking into account the panicked crying? Does it change your opinion of her claim being ambiguous? Yes, or no?
The fact that you have repeatedly dodged that question is what will cause myself and other readers to jump to conclusions. Nothing else.
Using "interpretation" and "pro-democratic" here is pretty dishonest. You can either contest the interpretation of those specific words of Peng Shuai using concrete arguments, or not say anything. Democracy isn't relevant when it comes to the facts - it doesn't matter how many votes a lie gets, it's still a lie.
I didn't say "that's just your interpretation" (implying I am downplaying that opinion), I said "whatever interpretation you hold is fine, it's not up to me to decide" (implying respect). That's something totally different.
Oh, come on. You offered your opinion. You presented yourself as an authority (which is somewhat fair, given you are a native speaker). But, your opinion can only be seen as biased if you won't even respond to a well-intentioned, well-reasoned, and completely factual counterpoint.
Any idiot reading this can see what you're doing. It won't work. It's so obvious that you are engaging honestly.
The issue is that the woman was kidnapped by the Chinese government because simple because she spoke out publicly, and it seems to me that the media’s reporting has been very complete in that regard.
What specifically has been lacking?
I also asked you what specifically has been lacking in those media reports.
You are not just posting this information to share it. You are making a claim that the media's reporting has been incomplete, which claim you have not substantiated.
So, I ask again, what specific relevant information has been lacking from media reports?
That is, except perhaps for the emotional anguish that the poor woman was feeling, which can only really be discerned from her writing. The pain that led her to write this simply cannot be expressed accurately except through her own words.
Is that what you meant? That the western media has not painted a sympathetic enough picture of Peng Shuai? That the media has been too deferential to the Chinese government in not giving her voice a platform?
Whether that means that the media was or wasn't sympathetic enough, isn't my point. It also doesn't matter whether I think the media was/wasn't sympathetic enough.
Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation. It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
This sentence is rather condescending, and I believe it reveals something of your true intention here that you refuse to admit.
There is something about Peng Suai’s post that you believe exonerates Chinese officials or the Chinese government in some way, but you are unwilling to explain what it is for some reason.
> It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
Humor me. What is the alternate interpretation of these events that you believe is missing from western media reports? What are the different interpretations that people may arrive at other than “the media’s interpretation” as you put it?
> Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation.
You seem not to agree with the “media’s interpretation”. Why not? Why in your opinion would anyone disagree with the media’s interpretation of events after reading Peng Shuai’s post?
Look others have already said they found the extra information helpful. Respect the fact that others may find this information useful instead of going on a witch hunt, ok? You seem extremely angry at the possibility that others may think differently than you. You don't get to police of dictate others' thoughts.
All I am asking for is an articulation of the alternative interpretation of events that you have said is lacking in media reports.
I can only think of one reason why you would believe that my questions somehow show me to be “extremely angry” (when I am not) or that I want to “dictate others’ thoughts” (which I don’t) or that I am somehow on a “witch hunt” just because I am being persistent in responding to your comments (this is a two-way street). It is the same reason that you cannot articulate any other interpretation than the one found in media reports:
In your own heart you know that there is only one reasonable interpretation of these events and of Peng Shuai’s writings. This poor woman was abused—certainly emotionally and possibly physically—by a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, and officials of the Chinese government have taken extraordinary steps to cover it up.
If there were any other reasonable interpretation you would say what it is!
See also @honglilai on Twitter ("Hongli Lai") for more exclusively pro-China commentary. I'm afraid that engaging him in honest debate is an exercise in futility.
(Note: I'm not attempting to dox the user, his Twitter handle/name can be found in his HN profile)
Come on man, aren't we supposed to be "only against the CCP and for the Chinese people"?
[1] https://twitter.com/honglilai/status/1256923741940068353?s=2...
[2] https://twitter.com/honglilai/status/1454718292191596551?s=2...
TLDR: no.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/tennis/peng-shuai-china-expla...
Relevant quotes:
> For almost three weeks following the accusation, Peng was not seen in public and her whereabouts were not publicly disclosed.
> WTA chief Simon told CNN he had been in conversation with counterparts at the Chinese Tennis Association, who had provided assurances Peng was unharmed in Beijing. However, attempts to reach Peng directly had proved unsuccessful, he said.
After her initial disappearance (not just from social media, but also from public) she has only been seen in stage-managed circumstances, only accompanied by state officials:
> New video clips of the tennis star were tweeted by members of Chinese state media on November 20 and 21.
> One clip appears to show Peng sitting with China Open tournament co-director Zhang Junhui and two women around a table in a restaurant in Beijing. The clips appear to deliberately emphasize specific dates. Throughout the video, Zhang is speaking to Peng, but she doesn't say anything.
> Then later on Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced its President Thomas Bach held a video phone call with Peng. The two were accompanied on the call by a Chinese sports official, Li Lingwei, as well as the Chair of the Athletes' Commission, Emma Terho.
The evidence points to her having been physically seized by state officials, who seem to be attempting to mitigate the PR crisis created by her accusations by controlling her physical person. Of course, this is only my opinion and personal interpretation of reported events.
Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place? Which meetings didn't she show up for? Which family members couldn't contact her?
Now that they've decided that she was missing the anti-china crowd are in the very convenient situation where they can discard everything they don't like.
She makes a statement to Chinese news? Fake. Forced. Doesn't sound right.
She posts pictures on wechat? Staged, deep-fake, oh and is that a Winnie the Pooh picture in the background? Clearly a cry for help!
She appears on video? They have a gun to her head! They are acting weird!
She talks to the IOC? Everyone knows China controls the IOC!
The only thing they will accept if she denounces Xi Jinping as the literal antichrist.
As long as no one takes notice, I am free to say whatever I want.
You should reflect on how much effort you spend defending such a regime all over this website, twitter, and elsewhere.
I have reflected and I disagree with you. Explaining how China works and presenting alternative views is not "defending [an evil] regime", thank you very much.
Any criticism that is a legitimate threat is met with blanket censorship - as in the case of Peng Shuai - or deadly violence as in the case of Tiananmen.
It's not independent, a study, or by York University, it was a ccp sponsored poll performed in China, by party members, with data collated and compiled by party members.
It's rare to see propaganda crumble to so delicate an interrogation, that's some primo stuff.
The author even explicitly stated that the survey was anonymous. The author states that their findings are consistent with other studies.
Except when it comes to Taiwan, right?
Besides, not a reason to look at Taiwan's future, while you can look at Honk Kong past two years.
You either lie, either are (in my opinion) delusional, because your writing here 'CCP is open to criticism', on this very thread about Peng. This is nuts. Literally 30 minutes after publication of her _personal_ post, remind you she is a China citizen, the post is removed (no trial! pure force gov action) and discussion is actively blocked in China. It is a very simple cognitive task in reasoning and critical thinking, to conclude what does it mean for CCP and China in general, if there are _personal_ things not allowed to be aired there.
If you can't grasp it, do a simple exercise: on your next trip to China (or ask your china based family) do a post about Peng, asking for answers, reposting her post etc -> you will be healed quickly and promptly by the very CCP.
p.s. I'm just a guy, my opinion is mine, I may be wrong. Yet I observed your karma on this thread, literally hundreds of people dont agree with you on HN. I would start thinking about me if that many HN people tell me I'm wrong.
Saying "you clearly and plainly defend CCP" is unnuanced at best, a complete misrepresentation at worst. Explaining how the Chinese government works and explaining that many Chinese people view things differently, is not at all the same as "defending the CCP", and even further from "defending the CCP blindly" as you seem to be implying. One can say "this is how it works, and the population there don't see it as much of a problem as here" without personally agreeing with everything.
You are also being very reductive about this matter. It's perfectly possible to have complex thoughts and complex stances. My stance is "the CCP has many problems but it is unfair to ignore the good aspects, and one should recognize that some issues depend very much on one's perspective, and the Chinese perspective differs from western perspective". That is not at all the same as "the CCP great".
---
You are confusing censorship with kidnapping. Unlike what people think, they are not related: censorship is a kind of super-moderation.[1] You and I dislike censorship on an ideological level, but that is besides the point I'm making. People getting censored is not an indication of people getting kidnapped. In fact, it happens regularly that people are censored for their criticism, and that the government responds to that criticism.
This, along with "CCP is open to criticism", isn't "delusional", it's fact supported by research papers[2][3][4], Asian media[5], independent accounts by foreigners who have lived in China[6] and street interviews[7]. None of these facts are well-known by popular western understanding of China, and indeed they seem so ludicrous that your first impression is that I am delusional, but they remain facts nevertheless. Please, go read my hard evidence before you declare me as delusional (or even lying).
My point isn't "censorship is fine and I defend it", it's "censorship is misunderstood, censorship works differently and its role is different than what westerners typically imagine, plus the Chinese themselves have complex and nuanced opinions about censorship, viewing them as both good and bad". That's not "defending the CCP", that's showing complex, nuanced reality and alternative perspectives.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
2. Harvard: How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression — https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
3. Harvard: Conditional Receptivity to Citizen Participation: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in China — https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414014556212
4. American Journal of Political Science: Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China — https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12207
5. https://mothership.sg/2019/12/ne...
I mean, I would answer "yes" to your "being oppressed by the government" part. And, to some extent, everyone who lives in mainland China and reads HN should feel so, as HN is censored by GFW.
Overthrowing CCP idk, I am not seeing how this could be practically done without making my life significantly worse. So that's the trade-off I made.
Wow, you're right about that. I thought you might have been saying it as an offhand comment, but I just looked through the 4 most recent pages of FooBarWidget's comments and only 2 comments of those listed were not directly defending or espousing CCP talking points.
Potential shill?
edit: Their earlier comments have a higher 'normal' to shill-esque ratio, but the greater majority of their comments that I have seen are shill-like.
Less on HN than other social media, maybe, but this place is far from immune.
As far as we've seen China has no shill operation outside of its borders outside of bots and some vote manipulation by Chinese companies for profit.
For reference, trust in government is 84% in Switzerland (highest in the OECD), 65% in Germany, 46% in the US, 42% in Japan, 35% in the UK.
Even if the source of the claim is the WaPo, such an outlier deserves extreme scrutiny.
https://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm
Edit: Those conducting the survey probably experienced reactions similar to this: https://vimeo.com/44078865
Additionally the Chinese government has a very skillful tactic where they make the local government much more accountable via the central government but charges it of all the unpopular things. That way it gets credit for the good while the local government is blamed for the bad. It's quite smart actually.
His data probably comes from this research : https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resil...
The data comes from in-person interviews. One may think that they were scared of saying bad things but plenty of negative feedback was received, they just reported that most issues were solved and were happy with the progress.
I the conclusion of dishonesty was much too quick.
Do you know why I am angry and pushed to speak up so much about China lately? Because the reality on the ground turns out to be really different from mainsteam media depiction. For 25 years I have heard tropes like "Chinese people are oppressed" but when I did deeper research I found a very different picture. It's like watching my father (the west) defame my mother (China) for 25 years and then finding out that 90% of the accusations are distorted.
You don't have to agree with me but please don't claim that I am being insincere. It's up to me to decide whether I am sincere or not.
"A German worker gets a job in Siberia; aware of how all mail will be read by censors, he tells his friends: “Let’s establish a code: if a letter you will get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is written in red ink, it is false.” After a month, his friends get the first letter, written in blue ink: “Everything is wonderful here: stores are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, movie theaters show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair—the only thing unavailable is red ink.”"
But again, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. Just don't claim I am insincere.
I had an apologist describe it to be once like "if you want to suggest improvements in local government, or you want to make a request, as long as you do it respectfully, then there is no problem at all", as if that is what free people mean when they talk of complaint.
We've all had a nice refresher about what happens in China if you complain, about a sexual assault for example. For the sake of "social stability", of course.
Let's see who's right in a few years from now. Maybe she'll be vacationing in Europe like Jack Ma is today while Zhang received a punishment.
You don't have to agree with me but please don't paint me as being insincere.
You don't have to agree with me. But please don't say silly things like that I am a paid shill or that I don't belive what I say. I will remind you that I have a job.
If you are not open to my arguments then don't listen to me. No need to defame me.
After all, I see that you are worried about "shills" and "propaganda". If you are not open to alternative perspectives then there's no need to talk to me. We can agree to disagree and still respect each other.
Why, in your opinion, was her name censored on the PRC Internet? Why have international broadcasts in China been dropping out when her case is mentioned? Why did the CCP deny any knowledge of her situation, only to later say "she will be making a public appearance soon"?
- In China, censorship is common for any kind of controversy, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-government. It's common for people to be silent during a controversy regardless of what it was about. Furthermore, censorship is not related to whether someone will be caught/jailed/kidnapped or not. See my writeups here for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344676 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
- When you say "CCP deny knowledge of her situation", you need to understand that neither the CCP nor the Chinese government (there is a distinction, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume they're the same) are a monolith. The people who were asked are responsible for foreign relations. They don't know every single domestic issue right away, especially not if China didn't consider that issue to be a diplomatic issue. It's like asking the US ambassador "where is Britney Spears, her Facebook is blocked!"
The censorship apparatus operates independently from the foreign relations apparatus, and even from the law enforcement apparatus. Censorship is more like super-moderation rather than a police force. Furthermore, censorship is decentralized. The censorship authority provides guidelines on what sort of content to censor, and then Internet companies do the censoring themselves. It's not so that the censorship authority directly monitors every post at all times.
The western public kept pushing for "Chinese government, produce her". So they did.
- The Chinese public largely does not believe that she is or has ever been in danger. Some Chinese criticized the fact that she's censored, but even they don't believe she's in danger. They don't believe she's forced to give a false statement. Chinese have high trust in government and police, and they trust that if Zhao is indeed a corrupt official then he will be dealt with.
- The Chinese view censorship and information control in a more nuanced manner than westerners. Where censorship is a deadly sin in the west, Chinese view censorship as sometimes good sometimes bad. They believe that sometimes censorship is necessary for the greater good.
I will note that my writeups are not so much about endorsing them. My primary goal of my writings are to promote better understanding between China and the west. You don't have to agree with their practices, but I do think it's important for people to understand what the Chinese public thinks, and how Chinese values are different from western values. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west, and the western way would work disastrously in China. China is different rather than universally evil. To each their own.
> Broadcasts from international news sources that mentioned Peng Shuai were censored
I do not know about this specific issue. What I suspect is that now it has become a foreign relations issue, they are pushing for unity in messaging. Unity in messaging is a core principle in Chinese foreign relations practice.
> And what business does the CCP have, if Peng Shuai is free from the kind of imprisonment it is assumed she is under, telling the public when she will be making a public statement?
This is a matter of values. Westerners believe that government should interfere as little as possible in citizen matters. That's fine.
The Chinese don't tend to see the government in an adversarial manner. In general, they prefer a strong, centralized government that actively meddles in citizen matters as long as it is for the public benefit. They see the government as a partner (though, depending on times and context, "necessary evil" may sometimes be more appropriate) in building a better society rather than an enemy of a better society.
Furthermore, the CCP and the government aren't just a top-down imposition. They are the very fabric of society. They are everywhere. Every neighborhood has a neighborhood commitee who are party members. They help the neighborhood and perform important community management tasks. If you have a complaint about the neighborhood, you go to them. They regularly come ask you whether everything is fine, whether you need something. During Wuhan's COVID-19 lockdown they were the ones on the front lines, ensuring that health workers stay supplied and ensuring that food gets delivered to every household. The CCP has 90 million members, or about 5% of the population. Everybody has some relative that's a party member.
The Chinese public does not view the issue as "the govt is telling her to make a public statement". Rather, they view it as "the foreign public is making so much fuss about her, the government and the media are helping her voice get heard by foreign public". That her social media account remains blocked for now is seen as a completely separate matter, related to domestic social stability, which has got nothing to do with foreign relations.
Regarding the future of her censorship: that will be lifted once things have calmed down. See my case studies on Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29347811
With regards to the value judgement, it depends on whether you can accept that western values are not universal. I propose the thesis that they are not, because many other Asian and African countries have also criticized the western "our values are the only right ones" attitude.
Furthermore, the characterization of China being "totalitarian" is wrong because China is in no way comparable to the likes of North Korea or Saudi Arabia. You should check out the works of political science professor Daniel A. Bell: https://youtu.be/ckt94_JWHPs
This isn't a "coincidence". The Chinese government has evolved to its current form because of Chinese values. The CCP won the civil war because it had support of the majority of the population.
Han supremacism — while it exists — is largely not a thing and certainly not state policy. State policy is that minorities receive extra benefits that Han do not enjoy, and that the provincial government heads of minority provinces must be of those ethnicities.
Please go to China and tell a Chaoxianzu he's not Chinese. He'll tell you to fuck off.
Please go to China and tell people that the KMT should have won the civil war and see how people react.
> China is different rather than universally evil.
I think I found the issue - you might be confusing criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party with criticisms of the Chinese culture or people, and those are two very different things.
I've seen very few comments on HN (or even in real life) that criticize the people or the culture - everything is about the CCP and its policies, which are authoritarian-for-your-own-good at best.
Every piece of evidence that I've seen points to the CCP being a very evil organization that has hijacked the legacy of a great and old empire and convinced its subjects that its merely the latest figurehead of it.
I'm an American, acutely aware of the many faults and malicious actors at work in my government, yet I'm capable of separating that from the ideals of my country.
Don't confuse criticism of your government with criticism of your people, history, culture, or national ideals. They're completely separate.
This is something I have heard many times before, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For one, I have debated with a lot of people. The majority of them say something along this line, but then a few messages later they post things like "Chinese people can't innovate, only copy" or "they are brainwashed". A lot of people hide blatant racism, sinophobia or plain prejudice behind "we are only against the CCP, not the people". This is no criticism to you or the other poster specifically, but is a criticism against the general public.
Furthermore, even among the more honest people, what I have noticed is that most of even them are not so much "against the CCP and not the people", but rather "against the CCP and don't care about the people". They will happily suggest actions (sanctions, revolutions, overthrow of government, war, etc) that will result in Chinese people suffering. But they consider that fine, because they are just "standing up to the CCP". In other words, they don't care whether Chinese people become cannon fodder and collateral damage in their fight of justice against the Chinese government.
Why would Chinese people want this? We just got out of 120 years of war, revolution and famine. We've tried many things. Many different governing and social organization forms failed, and now when things are finally going well foreigners want us to start over again just because they think our government is bad? Can't we have a say in this too? Can't we say, look the government is not perfect but it's not as bad as you think, they also do a lot of good things and things are still improving (and they have improved), so we don't want another revolution and we certainly don't want you to encourage one for us?
Anti-China sentiment (or anti-CCP sentiment, as you'd prefer to call it) isn't just about logic and debate, it's a gateway drug into a war against China. The US military industrial complex is literally pouring millions of dollars in anti-China propaganda and the prop-up of "the China threat", with the aim of manufacturing consent for a war against China.
The more people jump on the China-evil (or the CCP-evil) bandwagon, the more you enlarge the echo chamber and the more willingness there is for a war. It doesn't matter whether the bandwagon is "China is evil" or "the Chinese government (but not its people) is evil" — the potential outcomes are equally disastrous. You can already see this on the streets: anti-Asian violence has spiked in the US thanks to all the anti-China reporting. Thugs on the streets don't care whether a person is Vietnamese or Taiwanese or anti-CCP Chinese or whatever, they are all Chinese to them. Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat, recently visited New York, reporting that the mood in New York is very dark: people see the Chinese state as "the enemy".
As someone who thinks about many things rationally, what I find stupid about this bandwagon is that half of the reasons people cite for declaring the Chinese government as bad, are based non-understanding of Chinese context and values, an inflated sense of "the China threat", the idea that the western perspective is the only legitimate one, or just plain biased reporting. Yet most people refuse to critically examine whether their attitude against China/CCP is even correct and based on the right facts and the right perspectives. Most people start with the final conclusion that China/CCP is evil and then they find arguments to fit that conclusion, while sticking to the notion that the western perspective is the only perspective that could possibly be right. This attitude perfec...
What effects does this have on Chinese society? What happens when the only public scandals are those that are convenient for the government?
IOC president has reportedly talked to her, and said she seems to be ok.
What more do we need?
The IOC is actively aiding the CCP's repression by passing that along.
The fact that the WTA kept the pressure on may ultimately prevent the Chinese political bigwig she accused from crushing her, and may eventually help other Chinese women in a similar position. For some senior male politicians in China this seems not to be about Peng personally, but about protecting the continued practice of concubinage for the political top of the CCP; something that is exemplified by Chinese state media essentially ignoring the allegations of sexual abuse.
Is the production of deepfakes by the world's largest internal security service outside the domain of plausibility? A smart programmer can crank one out in a weekend by themself. What can an entire cyber security bureau accomplish with the backing of the CCP?
b) Washington media is blowing literally any scandal out of proportion in a propaganda blitz aimed at tarnishing Beijing 2022.
Occam's Razor, anyone?
And I'm not pretending anything. I never even mentioned where I learned of this. You seem very defensive.
And if you believe the scandal is being "blown out of proportion", well there are a lot of us who disagree.
check Laowhy86's video about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dc4tNY7S6Q
Weird how great stats they get, gotta get in on their secret.
You have to answer the question: why wouldn't the Chinese support their government?
Trepidation at encouraging/rewarding a state apparatus that is comfortable driving armored vehicles over its own protesting student citizens? It's easy to support a government during periods of success and abundance. How does the government treat its population during periods of hardship and uncertainty? The CCP has already demonstrated its preferred solution: grind the population into hamburger under its power, in order to preserve the position and quality of life of those at the top.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gabrielsanchez/disturbi...
https://allthatsinteresting.com/tiananmen-square-jiang-lin
I said you cannot voice dissent towards CCP, so saying “x% approve” is utterly meaningless. Similarly, being a CCP member is not like being a member of a democratic party in some other country.
I’m sure you understand that though, you’re just out here pushing against anti CCP sentiment in a thread about a woman who put her career on the line to say that she has been sexually abused by powerful people.
It’s not a good look.
Seriously. Step back and look at what is going on here. One Chinese women opened up on social media and an emotional and traumatic experience she had long ago. Instantly, the entire Western propaganda apparatus amplifies it into a massive scandal. Every rumor is tested: it's a CCP coverup, Peng has been disappeared, the evidence of her being safe is all deep faked...
Meanwhile, every single day people are going through much, much worse. Including in America. But it's one Chinese lady that gets all the attention. Because we're in the midst of a political propaganda campaign against Beijing 2022.
I always wonder about these kinds of numbers. Who's asking, and how are they asking? And is there an element of coercion involved?
But yeah, his videos are partisan, there is nothing wrong with being partisan and having an opinion. People are free to have opinions whether other people agree or disagree, whether they are justified by reason or changes in the stars. You can also watch a video that is partisan, agree with some of it, disagree with some of it without attempting to generalise that person's views as totally correct or incorrect...most people are not totally correct or incorrect all the time (ofc, this notion of truth is something that authoritarian govts fundamentally disagree with, having a monopoly on objective truth is a source of political and cultural control).
Note the third para that describes the censorship. How despicably efficient is the Chinese censorship apparatus that they caught this and deleted it within an hour and commenced with clean-up. They knew this could have incited dissent.
If this is the “utopia” that awaits us in the up-and-coming centralized walled gardens of software, count me out.
However, I'm surprised that more comparisons haven't been made to the way the West has erased Julian Assange, and how easily he disappeared from our collective consciousness.
A much more comparable incident is something like this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct... ), where nobody was "disappeared" - on the contrary, for several months, the media talked about it pretty much every day.
For now there's recent news that he's getting married, but that isn't going to be frontpage news
A closer analogy would be the accusations that were made against Bill Clinton. Those would (presumably, and hopefully) be dealt with differently today than they were at the time, but to echo your sentiment, it is a bit amnesiac to point fingers at China for behaviour that the West (or perhaps just some Western countries) has just barely started to change.
One difference is that rather than censorship, allegations of sexual abuse by the powerful have long been simply ignored by the police, judiciary, media, etc., rather than censored. The end result was much the same.
The real difference, as the old story goes, is in the quality of the propaganda. The west has managed to convince its people that Assange is a bad person, a rapist even. Whereas China has not managed to convince many of its people that Peng is a bad person, rather they are simply crudely prevented from talking about the issue online. The west is much much better at propaganda than China.
This is the typical level of Chinese propaganda: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1454346638596743173
Is their aim to be harmful in the west? My impression has always been that they’re pretty ambivalent about that, they’re more concerned with the internal effect.
I don’t know that people even do think Chinese propaganda is clever! In my mind their skill is overarching control over communication. It’s dumb and brute force but it seems to work.
But I've seen plenty of people paint everybody who have a non-mainstream opinion on China, as paid undercover propagandists.
Who would do that but a paid shill?
HN is one of the few places online that both allows free speech and isn't riddled with bots/spammers/shills. I'd like to keep it that way, meaning you should fuck off. No one is buying your shit, anyway, as you might have found from the replies your posts get. It's a lost cause.
I compare arguments from both sides and I make up my own mind. I have my own agency and my own opinion, thank you.
If you're gonna call me a "paid shill" even though I have 20 years of online history in a different field, you're gonna have to prove it.
If you don't like what I have to say, then fine, don't listen to me. But don't prevent others from listening to me and don't prevent me from speaking.
Ultimately I want peace and understanding between both sides.
You’re being extremely rude here, accusing people of being shills and telling them to literally “fuck off”. If anything goes against the HN ethos and rules, it’s terrible behaviour and bad faith behaviour like that, not a veteran Hacker News member with an account that’s twice as old as yours arguing a refreshingly non-mainstream perspective.
The difference is that the West has the media which puts its own propaganda, people on the internet putting their own propaganda, etc. There is a market. In China, that market is limited.
Edit: reworded
As a non-Chinese I never could understand the relationship of CCP, Chinese nationals and Chinese immigrants in the US and West. To me, it seems very hyocritcal to live in the Western societies and be very pro-CCP. I have interacted with many Chinese immigrants that defend CCP at any cost. I'm very confused about it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344355
Specifically, there are doubts on whether it's a rape charge at all. See the translation discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244
One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead.
The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows:
1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM
3. Chinese have high trust in their government, between 93% and 98%. These are not fake government numbers: they're measured by Harvard and York University through thousands of participants and anonymous surveys. See https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pande...
4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you fo...
Can you provide any examples where praise of the government (CCP) was "censored"?
Quote:
>Large demonstrations erupted at consular offices of the United States and other NATO countries in China in reaction to news of the bombing. On May 9, 1999, then-Vice President Hu Jintao delivered a national televised speech calling the act both "criminal" and "barbaric" and that it "has greatly infuriated the Chinese people." He said the unauthorized demonstrations in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Shenyang reflected the anger and patriotism of the Chinese people, and which the Chinese government fully supported, but urged against extreme and illegal conduct.
>The protests continued for several days, during which tens of thousands of rock-throwing protesters kept U.S. Ambassador James Sasser and other staff trapped in the Beijing embassy.
There's zero evidence that the CCP censors pro- and anti- government information equally here. None. Only that, after first inflaming the rioters.... they eventually owned up to their internationally recognized responsibility to protect embassy staff.
> we now highlight the obverse condition by giving examples of two posts related to events with collective action potential that support the state but which nevertheless were quickly censored. During the bombings in Fuzhou, the government censored this post, which unambiguously condemns the actions of Qian Mingqi, the bomber, and explicitly praises the government’s work on the issues of housing demolition, which precipitated the bombings:
> “The bombing led not only to the tragedy of his death but the death of many government workers. Even if we can verify what Qian Mingqi said on Weibo that the building demolition caused a great deal of personal damage, we should still condemn his extreme act of retribution.... The government has continually put forth measures and laws to protect the interests of citizens in building demolition. And the media has called attention to the plight of those experiencing housing demolition. The rate at which compensation for housing demolition has increased exceeds inflation. In many places, this compensation can change the fate of an entire family.”
---
A more recent example. Jerry Grey is a Canadian who lives in China and who opposes the Xinjiang narrative in western mainstream media because he has travelled to Xinjiang and saw a different reality than described in the media.
On Chinese social media he posted a criticism of Adrien Zenz, one of the people pushing the genocide narrative. Grey's criticism was that Zenz has never been to Xinjiang, and Grey says that Zenz should go and take a look. This was then censored, because "it's not China's place to encourage other's to change their minds".
https://twitter.com/Jerry_grey2002/status/131872917977329664...
Being put under house arrest and prevented from having contact with the outside world by the government, without being charged with a crime is a pretty big abuse power. Imagine if Trump just put one of his critics under house arrest and prevented contact with the outside for several months. This would be an outrageous thing to do, and there'd probably have been riots outside the White House.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I believe that you earnestly feel this is an okay thing for the CCP to do. But that's not swaying my skepticism and distrust of the Chinese government. The fact that it's successfully normalized this level of authoritarianism among mainland Chinese to such an extent that they earnestly see it as normal is precisely why most Westerners are so distrustful of the Chinese government.
As far as I know Jack Ma never criticized Xi. He criticized (international) banking regulations that were ratified in 2009 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and that he was not in compliance of. Legally in the United States that could very well put you in prison for fraud and you are not guaranteed the right to make a phone call or see family federally, though some states guarantee phone calls to some people on the day of arrest. Then the prosecutors can seal the indictment and you can be held for a year without anyone except your immediate family and attorney (if you can afford one) knowing. And then the prosecutors can drop chargers a few months later.
What happened to Jack Ma could have happened in the US because he was did something (fraud) that is a federal crime in the US. Thankfully it doesn't happen often. You also don't know that he wasn't charged. He recorded himself giving probable cause for a crime. It was really stupid of him.
Because the CCP has built a blue-water Navy, which it continues to expand, with the stated goal of dethroning the US as the global hegemon?
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-ar... https://www.amazon.com/Unrestricted-Warfare-Chinas-Destroy-A... https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-seeks-become-worlds-next-025...
Because the CCP conducts influence operations globally? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49511231 https://uscnpm.org/2021/09/14/prc-overseas-influence-disaggr...
This is the typical level of Chinese influence operation. I really don't know why you're worried about it.
https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/chinese_malign_influ...
https://gnews.org/635457/
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/China-s-Belt-... (paywalled article)
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-264b-df97-a9ff-be7f6...
https://www.hudson.org/research/17118-the-ccp-goes-to-hollyw...
Far more dangerous than any hamfisted TV broadcasts.
What size defense force do you think China should have? China has a population 4.3 times that of the US you've got to allow them something.
It's important to understand the concept of the Petrodollar, how that system is secured by US maritime supremacy, and how it underpins the US financial system.
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/50983
>>>What size defense force do you think China should have?It's not the size that matters per se, it's the content. China used to have a largely-coastal navy. It has massively expanded its ability to conduct expeditionary warfare, with aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. The latter category are basically carbon-copies of the equivalent US classes. You only need warships like this if you expect to put entire battalions of troops on other people's shores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_071_amphibious_transport_... compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio-class_amphibious_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_075_landing_helicopter_do... compared to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...
This is a wrong characterization.
China has different values and practices. Freedom means something different in China than in the west. China values other things more than western-style freedom of speech. For example there is a greater emphasis on responsibility.
The practice you quoted is unacceptable in the west. That's fine — for you. Chinese think differently and believe that such practices are sometimes necessary to prevent rumors from running wild and causing social instability. That's also fine — for them.
I just want you to know that Chinese genuinely have a different opinion and a different perspective. That you disagree with them is fine.
To each their own. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west. The western way would work disastrously in China. Let each country decide what they value and how they want to do things.
What a marvelous coincidence for the CCP that "what Chinese people value", according to you, is the kind of submissive defference totalitarian governments desire from the people under their control.
> And so what if you view them as totalitarian? By and large the Chinese do not.
They'd better not!
Why would she put herself and her family in danger to do that? She's basically at the age of retirement in her career. What do you think she'll do after she retires, with the CCP denying her further career prospects?
For those who are immigrants from mainland China who support the CCP, there's an element of patriotism with regards to seeing their country becoming a burgeoning superpower and as a form of comeuppance for national shame that stretches all the way back to the unequal treaties during the era of the Qing dynasty.
For people born and raised in the West who support the CCP, a lot of them tend to approach it from an enemy-of-my-enemy angle in opposition to US imperialism (they tend to be aligned along a subfaction of leftists), along with a general skepticism of US media.
homo sapiens are born to have defects that their brains can not differentiate model of their neural network and data (i.e. fact). The people from China have more data or ground facts compare to the Westerners who get all the information from media. There's a quite big discrepancy (There are some reasons but beyond the scope). What happened quite often is their perception of unfairness. More specific: The western media lied in a very tricky way so almost the whole western are brainwashed. Please note: that's somehow popular perceptions.
But the perception is also mixed and dynamic.
For the dynamic part: Today's popular perception was not popular 15 or 20 years ago. The perception has been changing gradually because the neural networks are fed with new data so the weights are changing and models i.e. opinions are changing. Especially young generation who have better neural plasticity.
For the mixed part: There are quite portion of anti CPP opinions. You can easily find many anti CPP people from China. Some are quite extreme. You can say it's somehow polarized. Even within China the portion of anti CPP is quite sizable.
Chinese system inherently evil.
Western system inherently good.
When a bad thing happens in the West; we condemn it but don't see it as the overall system being evil. When a bad thing happens in China; we condemn it and see it as further evidence of the fundamental evil of the system.
I think the Chinese basically have faith in their Government in spite of its short comings.
Most animals especially mammals evolved by the arm race between the predators and the preys to perfect their power,agility and intelligence. The algorithm is called GAN. There are few extreme instances that GAN between predators and preys is not enough. Human is among the few primates that often kill their own species. Competition and cooperation are 2 parts of evolution. The extreme competition is war among human tribes. We have the nature of fighting and killing other human even the society become civilized.
The concept of "evil" emerged as a reason to justify the killing of our same species. You can get that from a lot of Hollywood movies. There's a spiritual need for evil to exist.
That's why NATO can bomb the oppressive regimes all over the world everywhere. Because they are collectively supported by the people of NATO countries. When something's wrong they collectively blame wrong information. What I mean is: "Weapons of Massive Destruction was caused by intelligence failure" is a bigger lie than WMD itself. It's also cannot be blamed on a few politicians who are democratically elected by people. The real reason is there was a spiritual need for evil so the people were easily fooled.
Even today after millions of people's life were ruined and there are massive waves of immigration people in NATO countries still don't connect the cause end effects, never realize that it was their own arrogant belief that they own democracy and human rights, along with they have superior weapons to liberate the people from oppressive regimes, cause the chaos world today.
Will they wake up? not likely. The retreat from Afghanistan was because of running out of resource but not because realize it was fundamentally wrong.
I'm pretty sure this happens because people in ycombinator circles use HN as a high quality content pipeline, and because of dang's impeccable curation, front page HN content gets greenlit for immediate display. If you see something on HN, it'll almost inevitably show up on Slashdot, Reddit, Facebook, and a slew of other smaller sites and forums, often unchanged from its presentation here.
HN also has the bonus that many silicon valley movers and shakers frequent the site and join the discussions. China's troll generals would be foolish not to capitalize on that.
As far as immigrants defending ccp that's usually because they have family back in China and would like to see them again some day. Their family's social standing could take a hit if they are insufficiently "patriotic," even in the US. China's got social influence inside the US, and extensive networks of casual spies that report problematic behaviors, ranging from local cultural clubs and groups to college and campus outreach organizations. It's very (darkly) sophisticated.
> The fate of Ms Peng could yet become grimmer.
This is not journalism. There is nothing of objective substance to this piece. This is literally just smut for sinophobes.
In 20 years we will look back at this incredible nonsense and wonder how we every got here. Hopefully.
This lack of openness of the Chinese government on issues such as these is what essentially leaves what you call sinophobic media to write about it.
We start from the conclusion "China bad" and search for evidence to confirm it, while ignoring contrary evidence.
There are occasional short articles about some funny internet sensation or what have you but you do read about those from China as well. Like for instance when that elephant herd moved through Southern China earlier this year.
PRC however has been on the opposite trajectory, a meteoric rise in the living conditions of the average person over just a few generations. So you do have to lie/omit to paint China in a uniformly negative light, which is what the Western media virtually always does in the past 5 years.
# of American adults living with their parents
Average indebtedness of college graduates
Unrestrained corporations causing opioid crisis, political polarization, drop in productivity...
That being said, the whole Peng Shuai situation is quite shady. On the whole the only really bad thing is that the post was censored, and it's reasonable to infer negative things from that.
Here is a good read -
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/11/new-york-times-invents...
It's China after all (according to China alone).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Taiwan#Climate
https://taiwan-scene.com/cool-ice-hockey-in-a-hot-hot-land-t...
Taiwan actually has a hockey scene, I'm sure they'd love to host.
I felt the same when Trump was running America. Now he is gone, my life is a bit nicer. China though, it doesn’t stop.
The China racket of world sports https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/11...