Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 06 2019, @10:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-roughed-up dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Chinese state media has urged authorities to take a "tougher line" against protesters in Hong Kong who vandalised state-run Xinhua news agency and other buildings at the weekend, saying the violence damaged the city's rule of law.

[...] In an editorial, state-backed China Daily newspaper criticised the "wanton" attacks by "naive" demonstrators, adding, "They are doomed to fail simply because their violence will encounter the full weight of the law."

Police fired tear gas at black-clad protesters on Saturday and Sunday in some of the worst violence in the Asian financial hub in weeks, with metro stations set ablaze and buildings vandalised.

Violence also erupted on Sunday after a man with a knife attacked several people and bit off part of the ear of a pro-democracy politician. Two of the victims are reportedly in critical condition, according to reports.

The past five months of anti-government protests in the former British colony represent the biggest popular challenge to President Xi Jinping's government since he took over China's leadership in late 2012.

Protesters are angry at China's perceived meddling with Hong Kong's freedoms, including its legal system, since the Asian financial hub returned to Chinese rule in 1997. China denies the accusation.

The widely-read Global Times tabloid on Sunday condemned the protesters' actions targeting Xinhua and called for action by Hong Kong's enforcement agencies.

"Due to the symbolic image of Xinhua, the vandalizing of its branch is not only a provocation to the rule of law in Hong Kong, but also to the central government and the Chinese mainland, which is the rioters' main purpose," it said.

On Friday, after a meeting of China's top leadership, a senior Chinese official said it would not tolerate separatism or threats to national security in Hong Kong and would "perfect" the way it appointed the city's leader.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:46PM (37 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:46PM (#917304) Journal

    It wasn't Chinese government wishes.

    And my unicorn farm produces 100 rainbows per hour.

    It was just British successor government plugging blatant hole in laws making certain murders unprosecuteable.

    Don't buy it. The laws were far too broad to be for that purpose. I find it interesting that you spout these statements uncritically and then whine about lying in democracies. Not much point to caring about the quality of the lies, when you're that gullible.

    Also remember that elections are not panacea. Not the best person wins elections but who lies best. Liars don't always make good rulers.

    The Chinese system selects for liars too. So what?

    So if you're for full public elections there you're basically for making everything worse.

    Like what? Your sole example is lying. China is notorious for its lies (such as the Hundred Flowers Campaign [wikipedia.org] to the later "one country, two systems" fig leaf) some which killed tens of millions of people.

    Only true way to have government that represents people is to have low barrier of entry into it, so everyone irrespective of social status or ancestry can join government and advance in it strictly based on merit.

    False. Government should only serve a minimal role in society. Where's the talent that will lead your society to greatness, if it's squandered in some hidden bureaucracy and worse only validated by its status in that bureaucracy? At least, China has abandoned the full state and allowed its people to excel in business.

  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:50PM (36 children)

    by loonycyborg (6905) on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:50PM (#917326)

    Where's the proof that law is too broad? Can you link actual analysis of the law? Also since PRC already controls the territory with its military it won't need any laws to engage in any possible abuses so it's irrelevant. As it is currently a murderer can't even get prosecuted for that particular crime even though he tried to turn himself in. Resolving this situation should be higher priority than arguing about relative efficiency of government systems.

    False. Government should only serve a minimal role in society. Where's the talent that will lead your society to greatness, if it's squandered in some hidden bureaucracy and worse only validated by its status in that bureaucracy? At least, China has abandoned the full state and allowed its people to excel in business.

    Size of government is irrelevant here. Even representative democracies can and do have huge bureaucracies. So size of government is not related to leader choice method. You frame it like you refuted what I said but you in fact didn't.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:01AM (35 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @12:01AM (#917645) Journal
      The fact that it applies to political crimes originating from China. And I think I didn't emphasize enough the lack of fair trials and such in China. That alone nixes virtually all extradition to China from anywhere in the developed world.

      As it is currently a murderer can't even get prosecuted for that particular crime even though he tried to turn himself in.

      There're standard judicial reforms that China needs to make before that can happen. Making families pay for the bullets isn't cutting it.

      Size of government is irrelevant here. Even representative democracies can and do have huge bureaucracies. So size of government is not related to leader choice method. You frame it like you refuted what I said but you in fact didn't.

      I disagree, of course. Keep in mind the earlier AC asserted that citizen representation somehow is conditional on participation in government. So, for example, should I suppose that China's space program would be more "representative" of its people, if it's employing everyone, rather than merely a subset who happen to have cutting edge manufacturing and aerospace knowledge and experience? Or that the massive participation in government, makework projects, and reeducation camps made for better representation by government back in the genuine Communist days?

      And where have I supported large bureaucracies in democracies? Not seeing it myself.

      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Friday November 08 2019, @12:43AM (34 children)

        by loonycyborg (6905) on Friday November 08 2019, @12:43AM (#917661)

        China itself already has proper extradition treaties with other countries. In this particular case problem existed only because Taiwan was involved and that country isn't accepted by majority of countries in the world. So that Hong Kong law existed solely to try and plug that legal loophole. And it was needed to enable extradition TO Taiwan. It wouldn't extradite FROM Taiwan since Taiwan wouldn't respect PRC laws in any case. It wouldn't endanger anyone in China more than before because it's already controlled by their military and they can apprehend whoever needed already.

        I disagree, of course. Keep in mind the earlier AC asserted that citizen representation somehow is conditional on participation in government. So, for example, should I suppose that China's space program would be more "representative" of its people, if it's employing everyone, rather than merely a subset who happen to have cutting edge manufacturing and aerospace knowledge and experience? Or that the massive participation in government, makework projects, and reeducation camps made for better representation by government back in the genuine Communist days?

        You misunderstood. Anyone should have a chance to become skilled expert irrespective of his ancestry and family connections based solely on work they performs to earn their skills, and have actual power in proportion to their expertise. West, particularly US has problems with this. So it will be bad for everyone if China walks in its footsteps. Way of meritocracy that Confucius promoted is better than silly western religions of communism and capitalism.

        And where have I supported large bureaucracies in democracies? Not seeing it myself.

        You kidding right? You just need to study them better then.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @01:43AM (33 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @01:43AM (#917686) Journal

          China itself already has proper extradition treaties with other countries.

          Like? I found here [scmp.com] Australia mentioned, but they would be evaluated on a case by case basis.

          In this particular case problem existed only because Taiwan was involved and that country isn't accepted by majority of countries in the world. So that Hong Kong law existed solely to try and plug that legal loophole.

          The problem might have "existed" for that reason, but the solution covers political persecution cases in China as well. As I noted earlier, it's far broader than the problem it alleges to fix.

          You misunderstood. Anyone should have a chance to become skilled expert irrespective of his ancestry and family connections based solely on work they performs to earn their skills, and have actual power in proportion to their expertise. West, particularly US has problems with this. So it will be bad for everyone if China walks in its footsteps. Way of meritocracy that Confucius promoted is better than silly western religions of communism and capitalism.

          "West, particularly US has problems with this." It's interesting how my critics in this thread have noted various problems of the US or sometimes more generally of the developed world and then completely missed the obvious - that China has it worse. Hypocrisy/inconsistency? Tragedy of the commons? Tyranny? Biased media reporting? Lowest common denominator? Lying and deception? And now, vacuous claims about having more opportunity. Sorry, China has it worse.

          The only reason China is doing so well now is that its people have the freedom to excel at business. That's it, but it's a huge profound thing. The government itself is just a tapeworm clinging on for the ride. It's time to get rid of the tapeworm.

          • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Friday November 08 2019, @09:34AM (32 children)

            by loonycyborg (6905) on Friday November 08 2019, @09:34AM (#917820)

            Well if you want improvement you shouldn't settle with lesser evil(in this case western pseudo-representative government) when you have a better way: actual meritocracy. Although I'm not asserting that is what China has right now, nonetheless it had it in the past and may have it in the future.

            The problem might have "existed" for that reason, but the solution covers political persecution cases in China as well. As I noted earlier, it's far broader than the problem it alleges to fix.

            Why you're so sure it covers political persecution in China? The law referred to extraditions to arbitrary domains, because it really was targeting Taiwan but couldn't actually name it. And thus it would work by definition on case by case basis. China already controls Hong Kong with its military and if it wants to apprehend someone they wouldn't need an extradition law.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:40AM (31 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:40AM (#918126) Journal

              Well if you want improvement you shouldn't settle with lesser evil(in this case western pseudo-representative government) when you have a better way: actual meritocracy. Although I'm not asserting that is what China has right now, nonetheless it had it in the past and may have it in the future.

              Why do you think a meritocracy is better? Who is deciding what this merit is? Representative government means that the general public is deciding the merit of the top leaders of their societies. And if we're putting people of merit into government, then we're taking them away from productive enterprise in the private world. There's yet another reason I strongly advocate government reduction.

              Second, why speak of "better" systems when you're not comparing the US to an actual better system? China is a deeply flawed system. It's not in any way improved by an irrelevant discussion of US flaws compared to some imaginary system.

              • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:26AM (30 children)

                by loonycyborg (6905) on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:26AM (#918135)

                General public is many people most of whom are too busy doing other things. They don't have time to research things properly so marketing decides who wins. Also it increases barrier to entry to this position. There's no way people would recognize you as a good leader if you just work hard. Because one person can affect only so many people at the same time, this number minuscule compared to total population. So only marketing can convince the rest to vote. And if marketing can do that it can also convince people to vote for bad leaders. As long as they amass enough media support. So it basically amounts to plutocracy: media are in power because they decide who gets elected because they decide what information people will have. While if a leader is chosen and accountable only to his direct subordinates then it offers significantly less scope for abuse. Your position is supported strictly by people who you work with and who know you. Only with complete knowledge is proper decision possible. Leaders should be chosen only by direct subordinates and only via consensus based decision making. And this should apply to all levels. Modern government is complex, so many positions that decide things and only vanishingly small percentage of them can be electable because people have limited time for voting. So it's better if only most local positions are electable, when you elect only people you can know personally. Although being able to elect a president might sound powerful in theory, in practice it nearly does nothing. Since president cannot meaningfully go against wishes of all those lower ranked unelected functionaries. They do most of the work simply due to their sheer number. And making them do something they disagree with will simply grind government to a halt, like with government shutdown caused by disagreement about Trump's wall.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:45AM (29 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:45AM (#918151) Journal

                  General public is many people most of whom are too busy doing other things. They don't have time to research things properly so marketing decides who wins.

                  So what? China has marketing too.

                  There's no way people would recognize you as a good leader if you just work hard.

                  Just working hard is not the sign of a good leader.

                  So it's better if only most local positions are electable, when you elect only people you can know personally.

                  Then why does China suck so much compared to countries with elected leaders?

                  Modern government is complex, so many positions that decide things and only vanishingly small percentage of them can be electable because people have limited time for voting.

                  In case you haven't noticed, in every single democracy the elected positions are in charge of the unelected positions.

                  Since president cannot meaningfully go against wishes of all those lower ranked unelected functionaries.

                  They can in a variety of ways, such as by firing those lower ranked unelected functionaries and appointing new unelected functionaries that obey orders.

                  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:52AM (28 children)

                    by loonycyborg (6905) on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:52AM (#918203)

                    They can in a variety of ways, such as by firing those lower ranked unelected functionaries and appointing new unelected functionaries that obey orders.

                    People are not interchangeable cogs. It may not be possible to find efficient replacements for many of them. And if they all are in clash with president this will just lead to a crisis. President is just figurehead whose job is to justify his unconditional alignment to bureaucracy that actually does the job. Thus if people want to change something they have to join government themselves, rather than vote for president that won't be able to change anything. All in all I know near nothing about China. I know a lot more about governments in Europe and US. They originally imported concept of meritocratic government from China as part of cultural exchange. And used it better than China for a time. But later meritocracy got sidelined by dogmatic adherence to ideologies based on fetishization of economic concepts: communism/socialism and capitalism. And even managed to bring China itself in this camp. Better society cannot be built on blind adherence to anything. Current situation in China is caused by western empires trying to teach Chinese their own philosophy after mangling it so it looks like it got fed to to chinese->english and then english->chinese automated translator. True progress is possible only if Chinese are allowed to think for themselves. If we managed to conquer China it doesn't mean our western ideas of governance(and communism/capitalism bullshit) are superior. After all Mongols managed to conquer China too yet nobody has much respect for Mongol teachings now. Same fate awaits European groupthink too.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:17PM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:17PM (#918242) Journal

                      People are not interchangeable cogs.

                      Replacing disloyal with loyal is not merely interchanging cogs.

                      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:51PM (1 child)

                        by loonycyborg (6905) on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:51PM (#918258)

                        "Loyal" and "disloyal"are subjective concepts and proper name for "replacing disloyals" is witch hunt.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @07:50PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @07:50PM (#918368) Journal

                          "Loyal" and "disloyal"are subjective concepts

                          With the subjectivity well defined.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:38PM (24 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:38PM (#918251) Journal

                      All in all I know near nothing about China. I know a lot more about governments in Europe and US. They originally imported concept of meritocratic government from China as part of cultural exchange.

                      Doesn't sound to me like you know much about the history of governments in Europe and US either. Meritocracy, such as it existed in Europe and the US evolved by necessity, not because of exposure to China, which was pretty broken by that time. For example, a lot of meritocracy (and other management/leadership ideas and processes) evolved during the Industrial Era due to the advances of technology (particularly the logistics of mass production) and business. At that time, China was a basket case, merely useful as a market for opium and such.

                      True progress is possible only if Chinese are allowed to think for themselves.

                      Hence, the need for democracy. In its absence, you don't get people thinking for themselves.

                      Current situation in China is caused by western empires trying to teach Chinese their own philosophy after mangling it so it looks like it got fed to to chinese->english and then english->chinese automated translator.

                      The Western "empires" got that way through better ideas, processes, technology, and processes. And China has learned despite your assertion of the futility of the process. I'm merely observing that it's time to complete the process and get rid of the tyrannical dead weight of the present Chinese government and implement democracy and rule of law - both clearly superior to what China has now.

                      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:58PM (23 children)

                        by loonycyborg (6905) on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:58PM (#918262)

                        They only managed to unseat China's domination of trade via military force followed by application of unequal trading treaties, a refinement of viking raiding campaigns. As far as actual philosophy west never had and will never have a particular advantage. China shouldn't adopt western fads. Communism is a western fad too. And capitalism. What will be next? Chinese have no time for this bullshit.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:16PM (22 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:16PM (#918374) Journal

                          They only managed to unseat China's domination of trade

                          China wasn't dominant in trade in most of the world. There's Africa, New World, and Europe/Middle East, for example as huge areas where Chinese trade wasn't dominant.

                          followed by application of unequal trading treaties, a refinement of viking raiding campaigns.

                          And how did that demonstrate transfer of meritocracy ideas, asserted a couple posts back?

                          As far as actual philosophy west never had and will never have a particular advantage.

                          Democracy is the obvious rebuttal to that. And that goes back to the Hong Kong protests at the core of the present story. Chinese government via the state media is calling for a harder line. Throw away the parasitic government and then the need for the hard line goes away. There's no unjust attempts at extraditing people for imaginary crimes against the state. Democratic societies work have protests all the time without this sort of drama. The problem resolves itself by ceasing to be a problem.

                          As for "philosophy", my take is that philosophy is more about learning about and questioning of beliefs than in forming or implementing them. Authoritarian societies are notoriously weak at that.

                          China shouldn't adopt western fads.

                          China is adopting successful western ideas like capitalism whether or not you think they should.

                          Communism is a western fad too. And capitalism. What will be next? Chinese have no time for this bullshit.

                          Sure, they do have the time. It's not like they are employing better ideas after all.

                          • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Sunday November 10 2019, @09:45AM (21 children)

                            by loonycyborg (6905) on Sunday November 10 2019, @09:45AM (#918566)

                            Democracy is the obvious rebuttal to that. And that goes back to the Hong Kong protests at the core of the present story. Chinese government via the state media is calling for a harder line. Throw away the parasitic government and then the need for the hard line goes away. There's no unjust attempts at extraditing people for imaginary crimes against the state. Democratic societies work have protests all the time without this sort of drama. The problem resolves itself by ceasing to be a problem.

                            Hong Kong protests will resolve exactly like french yellow jacket protests. Only difference that french protests were larger in scale. Imposition of western customs on china is cultural imperialism. Period. Those ideologies do nothing. Only actual implementation matters. Underlining idea behind imposing "democracy" upon Chinese is cultural superiority. It requires replacement of whole cultural fabric to make things work. All will be for nothing because it's nothing more than color of your flag.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 10 2019, @12:57PM (20 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 10 2019, @12:57PM (#918579) Journal

                              Imposition of western customs on china is cultural imperialism. Period.

                              Even when it's done by the people themselves?

                              Only actual implementation matters. Underlining idea behind imposing "democracy" upon Chinese is cultural superiority.

                              Which is true here. Democracy is a superior culture here.

                              It requires replacement of whole cultural fabric to make things work.

                              So? I see no problem with that.

                              • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Sunday November 10 2019, @01:54PM (19 children)

                                by loonycyborg (6905) on Sunday November 10 2019, @01:54PM (#918586)

                                The only problem that is useless as there can be no such thing as superior culture. Whole notion is idiotic. Promoting it is empty waste of time.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 10 2019, @02:57PM (18 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 10 2019, @02:57PM (#918602) Journal

                                  The only problem that is useless as there can be no such thing as superior culture.

                                  And yet, we have counterexamples to that all over the place, particularly in China. Some cultures persist and others die out.

                                  When discussing matters that aren't critical to us, like which behaviors are considered polite or not (burping during a meal or wearing white between two dates of the year aren't actions that make or break society), to speak of the superiority of one culture would be folly. But when it comes to survival or the prosperity of a society, culture matters a great deal. For example, I've noticed that a lot of extant Chinese philosophy starts with the idea that normal people can't take care of themselves and discussion of the need for strong leaders. I think that's more because that's what books will survive millennia of authoritarian society than because it is somehow appropriate or right for Chinese culture. Similarly, Chinese culture has been shaped by those millennia of feast and famine.

                                  But we're no longer in that era. Those cultures which suppress human individuality and free thought are inferior because they can't change fast enough to keep up with the world. Where are the innovations and adaptations going to come from? China is much better in this light than it used to be, but it still has a ways to go.

                                  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:35PM (17 children)

                                    by loonycyborg (6905) on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:35PM (#918612)

                                    Such observations like you did are possible only with extreme amount of cherry-picking. Chinese themselves have own history of individualism too, in fact for most of their history they were ahead of western monarchies in that regard. Only problem that Mongol, Manchu and Western invasions slowed down their development. As long as individualism is associated with the West they will not increase individualistic component in their ideologies because Westerners are jerks. So to promote this among them we need to convince them that Westerners themselves are not individualistic. Otherwise it's a doomed idea.

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:57PM (16 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:57PM (#918617) Journal

                                      Chinese themselves have own history of individualism too, in fact for most of their history they were ahead of western monarchies in that regard.

                                      And they did quite well during those times.

                                      Only problem that Mongol, Manchu and Western invasions slowed down their development.

                                      China rotted from within.

                                      As long as individualism is associated with the West they will not increase individualistic component in their ideologies because Westerners are jerks.

                                      Their loss. And as we see in the Hong Kong example, there are much bigger jerks out there than Westerner stereotypes.

                                      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Sunday November 10 2019, @08:30PM (15 children)

                                        by loonycyborg (6905) on Sunday November 10 2019, @08:30PM (#918686)

                                        West has it worse now. It would be more convincing in times of Abe Lincoln but now not anymore. So making Hong Kong more West like would be like curing plague with cholera. Humanity's social institutions always need improvement but adopting external aspects of foreign institutions is never a good idea. It's along the lines of "Lincoln was a great leader so if I'm going to wear same top hat as him I'll be a great leader too!". Same thing with elections. They're not panacea. Some great leaders managed to come to power via them like.. Adolf Hitler! Whoops!

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 10 2019, @09:29PM (14 children)

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 10 2019, @09:29PM (#918690) Journal

                                          West has it worse now.

                                          What? You and others have mentioned several such problems. Each case China had it worse. So what's the problem that China doesn't have worst that makes the difference?

                                          Humanity's social institutions always need improvement but adopting external aspects of foreign institutions is never a good idea.

                                          You would, of course, adopting the working aspects of foreign institutions, not the external aspects.

                                          Same thing with elections. They're not panacea. Some great leaders managed to come to power via them like.. Adolf Hitler! Whoops!

                                          Without elections, China managed to get Mao Zedong, one of the few people in history who killed more people than Adolf Hitler. Sure, elections aren't panaceas, but they're great for preventing the sort of widespread injustice and abuse that the two governments are trying to impose in China.

                                          • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Sunday November 10 2019, @10:00PM (13 children)

                                            by loonycyborg (6905) on Sunday November 10 2019, @10:00PM (#918703)

                                            And this is exactly what I'm asserting: that general elections are an external aspect, not working aspect. It's nothing more than a PR ploy to feel people represented while in fact hereditary aristocracy(Bush I, Bush II) is still in power.

                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 11 2019, @12:42AM (12 children)

                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 11 2019, @12:42AM (#918761) Journal

                                              And this is exactly what I'm asserting: that general elections are an external aspect, not working aspect. It's nothing more than a PR ploy to feel people represented while in fact hereditary aristocracy(Bush I, Bush II) is still in power.

                                              Except that they aren't still in power and hereditary aristocracy is a nonsense term even for the political families - they still have to get elected.

                                              And once again, since this is a comparison rather than just considering the US in a vacuum, China doesn't do it better. You might detect a theme here.

                                              • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Monday November 11 2019, @06:37AM (11 children)

                                                by loonycyborg (6905) on Monday November 11 2019, @06:37AM (#918840)

                                                It's simply irrelevant what's going on in China. It's another country with language from another language macro-family, it has own cultural context that's most likely cannot be understood properly for anyone not immersed in their culture. As far as actual evidence goes, "they have it worse" is nothing more than ideological statement which is taken as axiom. Cherry-picked facts aren't needed to prove it, since you don't need to prove axioms.

                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 11 2019, @01:51PM (10 children)

                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 11 2019, @01:51PM (#918924) Journal

                                                  It's simply irrelevant what's going on in China

                                                  To you. Allegedly. Yet we get all sorts of interesting narratives from you every time they pull something like this.

                                                  It's another country with language from another language macro-family, it has own cultural context that's most likely cannot be understood properly for anyone not immersed in their culture.

                                                  Ah yes, talk about how we can't ken their ways and wiggle the fingers mysteriously.

                                                  As far as actual evidence goes, "they have it worse" is nothing more than ideological statement which is taken as axiom.

                                                  Or truth.

                                                  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Monday November 11 2019, @04:02PM (9 children)

                                                    by loonycyborg (6905) on Monday November 11 2019, @04:02PM (#918971)

                                                    It cannot be truth in general since it's not a truth-apt statement. It merely reflects compliance to memes mandated by your local government. It doesn't reflect anything happening in objective reality. It's modern variant of the christian Trinity doctrine, it blatantly makes no sense yet it's still exchanged like meme in order to establish a feeling of commonality and justification for hostile raiding of other communities that don't share same nonsensical ideas.

                                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 11 2019, @09:26PM (8 children)

                                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 11 2019, @09:26PM (#919094) Journal

                                                      It cannot be truth in general since it's not a truth-apt statement. It merely reflects compliance to memes mandated by your local government.

                                                      I like how you contradict yourself in the second sentence. "It" can't be truth-apt except then you provide a context "memes mandated by your local government" that indeed makes it truth-apt. Good job.

                                                      It doesn't reflect anything happening in objective reality.

                                                      Not what truth-apt [wikipedia.org] means:

                                                      In philosophy, to say that a statement is truth-apt is to say that it could be uttered in some context (without its meaning being altered) and would then express a true or false proposition.

                                                      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Monday November 11 2019, @09:43PM (7 children)

                                                        by loonycyborg (6905) on Monday November 11 2019, @09:43PM (#919108)

                                                        There is no contradiction. Government more than can mandate you to spew nonsense. Those memes don't carry truth-apt statements, they're merely information tags, they function kinda like smells for territorial animals like cats. They have no other purpose other than friend/foe determination. And multiple meme macrocosms cannot be superior one to other, just like one colony of cats is not inherently superior to other.

                                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:26AM (6 children)

                                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:26AM (#919168) Journal

                                                          There is no contradiction. Government more than can mandate you to spew nonsense.

                                                          Still stand by what I said before. Plus, mandate means coercion. Chinese government has that power.

                                                          And multiple meme macrocosms cannot be superior one to other, just like one colony of cats is not inherently superior to other.

                                                          I can think of plenty of ways a cat colony can be superior to another: lower population density, less disease, no psychopathic kids in the neighborhood, more food, etc. So far you've named one way Chinese culture is superior to Western culture - namely, it's a bit easier for someone immersed in Chinese culture to understand Chinese culture.

                                                          • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:32AM (5 children)

                                                            by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:32AM (#919298)

                                                            I've never tried to even look for advantages of Chinese culture. The point that the whole idea for looking for them is fallacious. It's pure idiocy. In case of cat colonies each one can cover limited territory so many of them can exists at the same time, whatever fine points they have over each other change over time and what can be considered advantage or not is in the eye of beholder. Probably even cats themselves have enough brains to understand that. I see human macrosocieties like this too: they have things in which they're different, they have things that they share. You utterly failed to prove that there is any need to establish an order relation on their set.

                                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:18PM (4 children)

                                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:18PM (#919382) Journal

                                                              I've never tried to even look for advantages of Chinese culture.

                                                              I think it would be a healthy exercise to try contrary to assertion.

                                                              The point that the whole idea for looking for them is fallacious. It's pure idiocy.

                                                              Unless, of course, it's not.

                                                              In case of cat colonies each one can cover limited territory so many of them can exists at the same time, whatever fine points they have over each other change over time and what can be considered advantage or not is in the eye of beholder.

                                                              And yet, none of the conditions I mentioned was subjective like that.

                                                              I see human macrosocieties like this too: they have things in which they're different, they have things that they share.

                                                              False. None of the societies present now share the facet of nonexistence with the ones that have gone away.

                                                              • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:52PM (3 children)

                                                                by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:52PM (#919397)

                                                                All of the above is nonsense. Justify why would anyone look why one society is superior than other or concede that you have no point. Any advantages or disadvantages are so subjective that any way about proving advantages/disadvantages would involve insane amount of cherry-picking and will not be falsifiable [wikipedia.org].

                                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:08PM (2 children)

                                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:08PM (#919401) Journal

                                                                  Justify why would anyone look why one society is superior than other or concede that you have no point.

                                                                  I already answered [soylentnews.org] the question.

                                                                  But when it comes to survival or the prosperity of a society, culture matters a great deal.

                                                                  You're just not paying attention.

                                                                  Any advantages or disadvantages are so subjective that any way about proving advantages/disadvantages would involve insane amount of cherry-picking and will not be falsifiable.

                                                                  Except of course, by its presence or absence in the future. The future will happen.

                                                                  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)

                                                                    by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:59PM (#919505)

                                                                    Your reasons are just cherry-picking. If you look at it objectively currently Chinese are better at surviving than rest of humanity if population numbers are taken in account. Even your theories about relative importance of "strong leader" are unconvincing and unsubstantiated. Like there are people emphasizing different aspects of strong leadership both in China and outside of it. Sweeping statements can be once again only made by cherry-picking. But you still evade my question. Not why is China superior/inferior but why you want to answer this question in the first place? Why even try to grade it on some scale? Why do it? After all your points are driven by a wish to find some advantage so if you find them then it's not admissible proof due to fine-tuning and cherry-picking(They are better in some thing? Then it's irrelevant. They're worse at some thing? Then it's all-important). Only justification is your wish for it to be so. Thus it is circular reasoning. Many of unfortunate things in China are directly caused by Western policies aimed at achieving purely mercantilist aims. Thus it's also self-fulfilling prophecy.

                                                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:16PM

                                                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:16PM (#919516) Journal

                                                                      Your reasons are just cherry-picking.

                                                                      Just cherry picking a couple of really important ones. You don't need a thousand reasons to own a cat, you just need a good one.