You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder if it has anything to do with PRC's punishment towards citizens who have been critical of their government. Who knows man.
I wonder that too. Do you have proof that it does?
I have shared some links further in the thread, here you go.
Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.
I'm not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there's a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.
While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn't seem that they are addressing your initial claims.
I think you've misread my comment.
"Xi doesn't get the solidarity like Luigi, because his government has a track record of punishing citizens when they show dissent" was the point of my original comment.
I believe this context is important if we're to discuss the likability of a country's leader based on their actions. Additionally, "acting within the defines of state ideology" would permit a national head to practically do anything since they are the ones defining the state ideology.
With due respect, that's quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that.edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don't see how they're related. Criticizing China's crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.
That wasn't his point and he doesn't need to edit his comment because you misunderstood it.
Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you're right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.
The people of the PRC approve of Beijing to a far greater degree than western countries, with an over 90% approval rate. If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say "We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment." This directly goes against claims of "social credit" preventing this, moreover the "Orwellian Social Credit System" hinted at doesn't even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."
Again, unfalsifiable nonsense, both A and the opposite of A are proof that China bad, no need for evidence.
What's more, why do they have to be critical? What are they missing from their lives? Their government actually works lmao. More than 700 million pulled out of poverty, corrupt officials at all levels get jailed or executed, most young people own their house, everyone has a job and very cheap food and cultural activities, as well as the best public transit in the world and well maintained infrastructure, not to mention billionaires keep their fucking mouths shut unless it is to pay lip service to the people's government.
You know who punishes their citizens, verifiably often and viciously? Say it with me: the USA. The Ferguson protesters were murdered one by one in the following months with no investigation, the occupy wall street organizers were detained by Homeland security, the black panther party was infiltrated and their leaders murdered by police whether openly or covertly, the Gaza protests had students beaten, arrested and tried en masse and the US passes new surveillance and protest crackdown laws every other day it seems.
And, on the opposite side, what good does "being allowed to be critical" do, in and of itself? About 30% of Americans approve of the government at any given time, corrupt officials are openly insider trading, passing laws for bribes that they don't even have to hide, and big business is allowed to KILL YOU FOR PROFIT.
You liberals are delusional, you buy that you live in the best country ever and shit is almost impossible to change for the better and assume the rest of us must have it so much worse, facts be damned.
There are people upset enough with Chinese imperialism and rule that they light themselves on fire in the neighboring country as a way to try and get attention and assistance.
That doesn't come from nowhere even if it's not a majority.Multiple things can be true such as different governments can be each doing their own form of abuse. It doesn't excuse one to admit to the other and there can be positives to all relationships.
Be upset with what you have and what's around you but don't use that to imagine a fantasy of greener grass on the other side of the fence. Do it to will a better existence around you.
Chinese imperialism
lmao, libs co opting revolutionary language without understanding a single fucking thing about it will never not be funny to me
Yeah not a liberal and what would you call predatory loans to Africa and export systems of raw goods, or the annexation of Tibet, or the threatened annexation of Taiwan, or the skirmishes in the late 80s for the "South China Sea" which mainly cover reefs that have now been over fished, or even Russian, Tajikistan and Vietnamese land as recently as 2009?
A word you think belonging to you doesn't make it wrong to be used just because you don't like it. It's not even revolutionary just a Latin root word of ruling used for Napoleon using military to gain other counties support, and has been used in lots of ways by lots of people since.
A red lib or a blue lib is still a lib. Even Bloomberg doesn't buy the debt trap idiocy lmao. Washington mouthpiece The Atlantic doesn't either. You want predatory loans? Look at the IMF. China regularly does no-strings-attached loans and regularly forgives hundreds of millions in loans that were interest free in the first place. China has NEVER seized an asset from a debtor. Poor way to do predatory loans, they should ask the US for advice if that's the endgame.
Most debt in Africa is held by western banks and the IMF, who demand you strip your economy for parts like the mafia (who probably got the idea from them). In Sri Lanka, the most quoted example, more than 90 percent of debt is owed to Western countries.
Still not a liberal.
And alright. I understand that other countries are more directly responsible for the economic woes of the world as that is the whole point of them and China is the manufacturer so their issues will be more worker treatment related than economic policy.
You move on to whatever to protect your point of view. You are on a conquest to be self righteous rather than right.
My point is don't seek for other, seek for better. It's not a golden paradise, just another reality that isn't perfect, because it's top busy being a reality.
Still not a liberal
Conservatism is a form of liberalism.
Not that either.
Why is that I must belong to either of those ideologies? Is it so you can have pre conceived notions a our who I must be in the other side?
As I if can't disagree on the minutia and still be in general in agreement?It never ends and it's never so simple.
I base my opinion on multiple people I personally know who moved from China to SG, because they were unhappy with the kind of control government maintained over any public criticism. I won't pretend that I remember all the instances they've mentioned, but I know better than to reject the claims of the countries citizen when they have some concerns. I won't pretend that I know better than the people living in the damned country.
We all know Chinese people, dude, there's 1.4 billion of them lmao. That doesn't make you an authority on their opinion and the sample size is negligible to say the least. 95 percent of them, according to Harvard, are happy with the government.
I never claimed to be an authority, and there's a reason I mentioned it was my opinion.
And again, it's not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
And again, it’s not like there could be selection biases in a Harvard study. That absolutely never happens.
Jesus dude, just admit that nothing could ever be enough to change your mind.
I have shared some articles on China's crackdown on dissent here. Will you will change your mind after reading them?
Change my mind that the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government? Why would your articles cause me to do that?
Thanks for admitting that nothing could ever be enough to change your mind.
Lol, you were so eager to drop that, that you didn't even bother to read what I said
The only biases that Harvard could pull would be AGAINST the interests of the CPC, that's the point. You wouldn't accept a Chinese poll because of racism/chauvinism so I provide overwhelming proof even on your terms and the answer is "em, uh, nu uh".
My friend, you're the one who's actively denying the opinions of the Chinese people I know, while pushing a Harvard study on my face. And then calling me racist/chauvinistic. I am not sure how that helps your case, but I guess just spouting random nonsense is your idea of a conversation.
To help you out, I have taken some time to find some of the articles from the time I was in SG, and cases I discussed. These are the articles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-64592333
https://www.economist.com/china/what-peng-shuai-reveals-about-one-party-rule/21806441
Most of the people I talked to related with these incidents, and acknowledged that while they may not the be the norm, they're certainly not anomalies. And a lot of people dont come out because the government reacts in such dracnonian ways.
The people I talked to were not representative of all of China, it would be ridiculous to consider that. However, ignoring multiple unrelated people sharing similar stories would be an asinine thing.
If your response is going to be a an aggregate study about economic development, and ask me why would people be unhappy with that, then you need some sort of help to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom in the world.
He specifically doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't confirm his world view and in being loud about it it's getting him likes from his in-group which he thinks is all he needs and makes him superior.
You can see it in the way he responds to everyone with either the idea they fully agree with him or are deserving of indignation.
Wait till he finds out even his echo chamber doesn't pass the purity test and God forbid he ever fail it himself.
Also I swear the amount of small business owners I know in Singapore who agree they live there for a better life is wild if you know anything about the authoritarian lean of Singapore. Grass is always greener and all that.
Who gives a shit about purity tests? Y'all are literally all over the thread going "oh but is it perfect? Thought so, tankies".
Also I swear the amount of small business owners I know in Singapore who agree they live there for a better life is wild if you know anything about the authoritarian lean of Singapore.
Maybe because what business owners consider "less authoritarian" is being better able to exploit your workers? I don't know how many different ways one can explain this to you
You do.
You go around saying anyone that disagrees with you, even on minor details, is a liberal and insisting that China is a fantastic Communist state. You are setting the bar on purity with no room for disagreement
withoutwith taking to insults and acting poorly.The purity is that which you are insisting in others not even on the country. I have not even called you or anyone else in here a tankie once but you insist that I did so it okays you to "react" appropriately.
And how would a local business with a single employee be thinking they could better exploit themselves? Do you not see how you aren't even cooperating in the conversation? You barge in to shout a lot and see the discourse as productive even if it's just loud nonsense.
You don't even know that I have a 10 year work visa in China and have spent a generous amount of time over there, you have no knowledge of my detainment for giving out a VPN nor do you know about my detainment in Singapore for the same thing. There is nuance and more to the world than just one thing such as workers or economics on broad scale, but it's easier for you simplify for the sake of the fantasy you wish to have.
I'm arguing against people saying that china isn't perfect ant isn't communist because it has billionaires, by pointing out the class character of the state and the political apparatus that regularly clamps down on the capitalists (unlike any capitalist state).
I'm also arguing against libs saying big gubmint bad bc it's too communist. China is a socialist country, I never claimed it's a perfect utopia, you just don't have any angle of attack with facts so you have to put up a fictional one you can throw your "nuanced" platitudes at.
