China Orders Pro Commie TV Propaganda Blitz

[mr friendly guy]

Really? Why? You'd be happy to be a German in Nazi Germany? I see, I see, hypocrite racist shit. Opression only matters when it's done to Homo Superior. If your nation is only killing OTHERS, that's somehow morally superior to opression of your own citizens. Because... I don't know? How is a British citizen or American citizen worth more than an Iraqi or an Indian? They're not, they're all humans, except in the minds of supremacist idiots.

Take that strawman and shove it right up your ass.

How is this a strawman as opposed to taking your claim to its logical conclusion? If human rights violations fill you with less revulsion because they are done to some other country and not to its own citizens, you should naturally choose the country which treated its citizens well but treated others like shit. Like being a German in Nazi Germany. The fact you run away from this like a craven coward tells me already what I need to know.

Would you rather live, given the choice, in a warlike and imperialist country that gave its own residents personal and political freedom, or a pacifist country that persecuted the fuck out of its own people? The United States, unlike China, doesn't jail or torture people for calling bullshit on its foreign policy.

If the answer you expect is yes, then why do you object to the scenario of being a German In Nazi Germany?

Ok, lets try this then. If China treated its citizens just like the US does, but invaded some other country (for example Vietnam), waterboarded detainees and locked them up without trial, tortured them and distributed the pictures online etc etc. I then ask you, hey Molyneux would you have any particular objection to living China, and if so what are they? What would your answer be?

Putz. Oh, and get this through your thick skull before you bring that baseless bullshit around again: dislike of a country's government does not necessarily mean that I give a goddamn about the ethnicity of the people in that government, you blithering idiot. If you're going to call me racist, come up with some fucking justification first, or go away and let the intelligent people talk.

Given that you apply a double standard, any one who has an IQ above say, 50, is going to wonder what is the difference between human right violations by the government of one country and another. The answer of course is nothing. Then the next step they are going to ask is, is there another reason as to why you find one more worse than the other. The obvious difference is ethnicity, and you can whine all you like, however actions speak louder than words.

To make this absolutely clear: domestic policy does fucking affect whether I'd want to live in a country, more than foreign policy does, for the simple and obvious reason that domestic policy is what most affects the people living in the damn country.

1. So you admit why its better for a country to violate human rights abroad but not in its own backyard is not about the morality of it, and more about your personal comfort. Why didn't you say this earlier? It would have saved us bandwidth calling you a hypocrite and all that jazz.

2. This of course explains perfectly you advocate an embargo of China but won't call for the same to the United States. It also explains your pipe dream of a global police force to enforce regime change in China, but not in your own country. I guess doing something about human right violations only go so far as to affect your personal comfort right? After all if a global police force tried to over throw the US government you might be one of the collateral damages, not to mention the economic damage. But if they did it to China it will be those other guys bearing the brunt of it right? If an embargo was to occcur on the US it might affect your standard of living, but it was done to China it will affect someone else's, not to mention affect the CCP's ability to lift its citizens out of poverty. But thats ok, as long as it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside that you are doing something about TEH EVEL Chinese government. Very charitable of you.

Just to show you I am a good sport, why don't you start boycotting any goods with some connection to China? Lets start with all those smart phones, ipods, MRI scanners, computer hard drives and hi tech gizmos of which China mines provides > 90 % of the essential rare earths for them to work (specifically Neodymium). What? It will affect your personal standards of living? Heaven forbid.

At the end of the day you and I both know you won't do it because you can only talk the talk but won't walk the walk. So you come up with weird excuses like why its less bad to violate human rights elsewhere but not in your own country. Except when you are these people. AM I RITE?

[K. A. Pital]

Would you rather live, given the choice, in a warlike and imperialist country that gave its own residents personal and political freedom, or a pacifist country that persecuted the fuck out of its own people?

Heh, just like I thought, you wouldn't object to being a German in Nazi Germany. Well, you'd object to this more than being a Chinese in modern China, it would seem. As for me, I would stay the fuck away from warlike and imperialist countries, no matter how much freedom they give their own subjects. I would rather suffer opression at the hands of my own government than have my government slaughter untermenschen, Third Worlders and "others", as you aptly called them. I am firmly against dividing people into "worthy" and "worthless". Imperialist nations can fuck themselves with a ten foot pole. Belgium was a nice nation to live in, at the same time they slaughtered a third of Congo. Fuck Belgium, I'm never moving there. I hope I made myself clear, fuck imperialists and racists and supremacists everywhere. I visited the USA and had a chance to stay, but I decided to say fuck you to your nation as well. Maybe I'll face repressions in my own nation or in China, but I wouldn't be a sassy hypocrite like you are.

Because I made those decisions personally, of course.

You voted for your government? I always assumed that the citizens of non-democratic regimes are less accountable for the actions of their government, whereas the ones in democratic countries are more accountable, because the government answers to them (in theory) and is elected by them, reflecting their wishes and desires. If that is not true, tell me why? If you feel disempowered in America, how is that different from a disempowered Chinese person under his government? Why do you want to make him suffer by embargoing China or making China's government collapse? You know that many Muslims want America to collapse and its people to suffer, especially after what America did to Iraq? Is their wish a legitimate one? If not, tell me why?

One important distinction between the two; hint, hint, one of those two countries stopped doing most of that shit upwards of forty years ago. One of them didn't, and it's the Asian one.

Another important distinction - the US industrialized in the XIX century and became independent in the prior century. China started industrializing after the 1950s and is still continuing that process. But stay on your high horse.

Internet postings are still monitored and censored, and it's still common practice to torture confessions out of prisoners - or at least it was until last year, though the new anti-torture laws may be helping with that.

Quite obviously. It is common for police in poorer countries to use torture, because they are poor and often the humanitary norms common in the First World are not accepted there for quite a long time. There's a great many torture cases mentioned when it comes to Indian police, but India is a democracy. Being a democracy doesn't automatically make you super-cool. Police in India summarily execute prisoners, torture and threaten suspects and arrest people without reason. But hey, maybe you don't know about that. How about embargoing India? Let's embargo them, let those Indians vomit their own government through the lungs! That'll teach them to improve their police!

Forced abortions, sterilization...yeah, one-child policy sure is a barrel of laughs, ain't it?

It isn't, but millions of starving and malnourished children aren't a barrel of laughs either. If you're too dumb to comprehend that... I can only say I'm sorry I'm wasting my time on arguing with you. Counterfeit condoms and abortion quotas - which are an exception rather than the norm, usually high taxes on the second child solve the problem - are surely the greatest objection you can levy.

To make this absolutely clear: domestic policy does fucking affect whether I'd want to live in a country, more than foreign policy does, for the simple and obvious reason that domestic policy is what most affects the people living in the damn country.

Yeah, it shows that you're a self-centered pussy who doesn't care how many "others" are killed so as long as citizens of the METROPOLE are safe. It's people like you who helped to build the British Empire. An unending stream of wealth in the Home Islands, hunger and suffering in the colonies where "others" die and are arrested and assassinated without laws and procedures so dear to your heart.

I've heard enough to conclude that my prior statement is sadly, wrong. You're not a racist, but you're clearly a self-centered asshole.

[Shroom Man 777]

To be fair, if faced with that choice, I'd go with being a fat fuck in America rather than be a starving shit in China too. Except I won't be a pussy about it or claim any moral high ground. I'll totally acknowledge, Shep-style, that my nation is killing other people and doing atrocities to further its own interests and accumulate wealth and prosperity for its own people at the expense of others.

Saying freedom this or happiness that or democracy whatever is just a way for hypocritical pussies and cunt assholes to make themselves sleep at night. It's a big fat lie, but they're not really lying to the people being "freedomized" in the third world countries (because these third worlders don't give a shit about the words that come out of the American's facial clitoris lips). They're lying to themselves.

Imagine if instead of saying "supporting our Saudi Arabian allies" or "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people/stopping WMD threats", they said it truthfully like "propping up a reprehensible religious regime so we can get oil for our stupid fat SUVs" or "illegally invading a nation and killing thousands of people and lying about non-existent WMDs so we can further our geopolitical agendas at the expense of all the people we've killed there" or shit like that.

Oh, those shitpieces would never have the courage to say that to themselves. They'll never say it straight. Not to themselves or their constituents or anything. They don't have the spine.

Incidentally, this is why I like Shep. He won't sugarcoat it. No, he'll just quote USAF song lyrics about how awesome it is to drop napalm on Vietnamese children, or shooting irradiated Arabs in the dark after nuking the entire Middle East. Honesty is a virtue.

So, anyway, in short fuck America and fuck China. But I'd rather be a fat fuck in America than a famished fuck in China.

Because I'm a selfish piece of shit.

You should admit this too, Molyneux. Then your position would actually be unassailable.

Hell, if America would admit this too, I think I would like it better too!

Honesty goes a lot.

[Molyneux]

One important distinction between the two; hint, hint, one of those two countries stopped doing most of that shit upwards of forty years ago. One of them didn't, and it's the Asian one.

Another important distinction - the US industrialized in the XIX century and became independent in the prior century. China started industrializing after the 1950s and is still continuing that process. But stay on your high horse.

And how the fuck is that justification? Quit weaseling. I said "China does X", you said "America did Y", I pointed out that the Y you mentioned mostly died out at least forty years ago while China's still happily carrying out X, and you say..."Well, China's still industrializing!" How does that follow?

Internet postings are still monitored and censored, and it's still common practice to torture confessions out of prisoners - or at least it was until last year, though the new anti-torture laws may be helping with that.

Quite obviously. It is common for police in poorer countries to use torture, because they are poor and often the humanitary norms common in the First World are not accepted there for quite a long time. There's a great many torture cases mentioned when it comes to Indian police, but India is a democracy. Being a democracy doesn't automatically make you super-cool. Police in India summarily execute prisoners, torture and threaten suspects and arrest people without reason. But hey, maybe you don't know about that. How about embargoing India? Let's embargo them, let those Indians vomit their own government through the lungs! That'll teach them to improve their police!

Absolutely, you dipshit. Any Indian policeman who uses torture should be in prison - or do you not agree? Do you think that it's fine and dandy that Indian police use torture on prisoners?

Forced abortions, sterilization...yeah, one-child policy sure is a barrel of laughs, ain't it?

It isn't, but millions of starving and malnourished children aren't a barrel of laughs either. If you're too dumb to comprehend that... I can only say I'm sorry I'm wasting my time on arguing with you. Counterfeit condoms and abortion quotas - which are an exception rather than the norm, usually high taxes on the second child solve the problem - are surely the greatest objection you can levy.

"Exception rather than the norm" means that they do occur. You defend the enforcement of the one-child policy by ignoring the abuses it engenders, and ignoring the idea that there could have been any other fucking way of curbing China's population growth.

To make this absolutely clear: domestic policy does fucking affect whether I'd want to live in a country, more than foreign policy does, for the simple and obvious reason that domestic policy is what most affects the people living in the damn country.

Yeah, it shows that you're a self-centered pussy who doesn't care how many "others" are killed so as long as citizens of the METROPOLE are safe. It's people like you who helped to build the British Empire. An unending stream of wealth in the Home Islands, hunger and suffering in the colonies where "others" die and are arrested and assassinated without laws and procedures so dear to your heart.

No, you scum-sucking ignoramus, it shows that I'd rather live in a country where I can protest that country's policies without being fucking jailed for it. Or tortured. Or murdered. In the United States, I'm absolutely free to show disgust for our actions abroad, and to agitate for a change - hell, to say that the government is WRONG on something - and wonder of wonders, it's not a crime! You absolute pillock. Where the fuck did I ever say that I agree with the United State's foreign policy? Show me a quote, jackass. Prove me wrong, or prove yourself the null-brained dullard that you are.

I've heard enough to conclude that my prior statement is sadly, wrong. You're not a racist, but you're clearly a self-centered asshole.

Apology accepted, you 屁眼.

[K. A. Pital]

In the United States, I'm absolutely free to show disgust for our actions abroad, and to agitate for a change - hell, to say that the government is WRONG on something - and wonder of wonders, it's not a crime!

Call me when you prevent another war. America's democracy hasn't prevented it from invading other nations. So cry me a river, dipshit. Unlike you, I'm quite okay with protesting against a real authoritarian regime at home knowing full well it might end with my death. Why? Because I don't think people should put their own safety above the lives of others.

I already said, you're the staple case. You'd live in Belgium because that's a cool nation. I wouldn't, because it killed too many Congolese for my senses not to be offended. Just as I wouldn't live in Britain. And even living in Russia is hard because my nation has commited imperialist acts. I feel that "others" have been wronged.

It is much worse to be callous to others than to be brave enough to face repression at home.

[Samuel]

You should admit this too, Molyneux. Then your position would actually be unassailable.

Hell, if America would admit this too, I think I would like it better too!

Honesty goes a lot.

Ah, but if we insist that the United States is better, we can look down on other countries. It is like the prisoners dilemma. Everyone would be better off if all nations acted... civilized, so to speak. However, the best situation is when everyone else is civilized and you aren't.

That is where the miracle of hypocricy comes in- a tool to get others to shape up while still retaining our self-interest. So not only is acting in our self-interest in our best interests, but so is hypocritically defending it and accusing others of being bad. Hypocricy is the gift that keeps on giving!

Heh, just like I thought, you wouldn't object to being a German in Nazi Germany.

He has complained about the restriction of civil liberties. Nazi Germany kicked off its existence by arresting as many leftists as it could get its hands on and banned all opposition parties.

Belgium was a nice nation to live in, at the same time they slaughtered a third of Congo.

The Belgium state wasn't responsible. Congo was the personal property of the king at the time.

If that is not true, tell me why?

Individual power in a democracy is inversely proportional to the number of people in a nation.

[mr friendly guy]

So, anyway, in short fuck America and fuck China. But I'd rather be a fat fuck in America than a famished fuck in China.

Because I'm a selfish piece of shit.

You should admit this too, Molyneux. Then your position would actually be unassailable.

I am pretty sure the average joe in China isn't starving anymore. Unless you are a beggar. But any way, just to head off any problems with famine from global warming and a population which hasn't quite peaked yet, I give you green super rice, developed by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the International Rice Research Institute, coming to a store near you, in 2014 IIRC.

[K. A. Pital]

He has complained about the restriction of civil liberties. Nazi Germany kicked off its existence by arresting as many leftists as it could get its hands on and banned all opposition parties.

Fine, the British Empire is a better example. Rule of law at home, opression abroad. Perfect combination for self-centered assholes.

The Belgium state wasn't responsible. Congo was the personal property of the king at the time.

By his logic, if your government does something, that makes the entire nation responsible. The entire nation should suffer until, like he said, it vomits its own government through the lungs.

So my proposal is that the Congolese should have killed Belgians until they kill a third of 'em, and the Belgians hang their king Leo on a lamp post. His logic makes it perfectly acceptable. Besides, Leopold didn't run Congo without the help of Belgians, or other "civilized Europeans".

Though extremely disliked by his subjects at the end of his reign — his funeral cortege was booed — Leopold II is remembered today by many Belgians as the "Builder King" (Koning-Bouwer in Dutch, le Roi-Bâtisseur in French) because he commissioned a great number of buildings and urban projects, mainly in Brussels, Ostend and Antwerp.
Leopold II commemorative coin

These buildings include the Royal Glasshouses in the grounds of the Palace at Laken, the Japanese Tower, the Chinese Pavilion, the Musée du Congo (now called the Royal Museum for Central Africa), and their surrounding park in Tervuren, the Cinquantenaire in Brussels, and the 1895-1905 Antwerpen-Centraal railway station. He also built an important country estate in Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat on the French Riviera, including the Villa des Cèdres, which is now a botanical garden. These were all built using the profits from the Congo. In 1900, he created the Royal Trust, by which means he donated most of his property to the Belgian nation.

After the King transferred his private colony to Belgium, there was, as Adam Hochschild puts it in King Leopold's Ghost, a "Great Forgetting". Hochschild records that, on his visit to the colonial Royal Museum for Central Africa in the 1990s, there was no mention of the atrocities committed in the Congo Free State, despite the museum's large collection of colonial objects. Another example of this "Great Forgetting" may be found on the boardwalk of Blankenberge, a popular coastal resort, where a monument shows a colonialist bringing "civilization" to the black child at his feet. In 2004, an activist group cut off the hand of a Congolese bronze figure, one of a multi-figure group in a 1931 sculptural monument to Leopold II on the beach in Ostend, in protest against the Congo atrocities.

I love that. "The Great Forgetting" is an excellent term. It's this funny self-censorship in the heads of First Worlders - whenever they do something really bad, the best idea is to forget, forget, forget until it has vanished from public memory in any meaningful sense.

Individual power in a democracy is inversely proportional to the number of people in a nation.

Blah-blah. In other words, his right to civil protest, his personal opinion and his right to free exercise thereof is actually mostly relevant for himself. It is powerless to prevent anything. All his "democratic rights" haven't prevented a single war; they just gave him, a First World citizens, a comfortable existence, but nothing else.

I said "China does X", you said "America did Y", I pointed out that the Y you mentioned mostly died out at least forty years ago while China's still happily carrying out X, and you say..."Well, China's still industrializing!" How does that follow?

Poor nations tend to have a shittier human rights record. Rich nations' poor human rights record is usually further away in the past.

Absolutely, you dipshit. Any Indian policeman who uses torture should be in prison - or do you not agree? Do you think that it's fine and dandy that Indian police use torture on prisoners?

I see. Like I said, you're fine with starving people to make them "learn a point". You probably don't even understand that if you embargo China, India, embargo all poor nation where policemen torture people, you'll make people suffer and possibly die, not the government. That's why you're a total idiot.

You defend the enforcement of the one-child policy by ignoring the abuses it engenders, and ignoring the idea that there could have been any other fucking way of curbing China's population growth.

I'm not ignoring this idea - you proposed it, so how about you defend it? Your idea is to...?

[Molyneux]

The Belgium state wasn't responsible. Congo was the personal property of the king at the time.

By his logic, if your government does something, that makes the entire nation responsible. The entire nation should suffer until, like he said, it vomits its own government through the lungs.

No, I didn't, you asshole. Go read my post again, and try some reading comprehension this time. Actually, I'll quote myself, so you don't have to bother, you thick-headed twit:

I would barely shed a tear if their entire political structure spontaneously vomited up their lungs.

How the fuck does that translate to "ALL OF CHINA IS EVIL"? I hate the Chinese government because they oppress their populace. Learn to read.

Individual power in a democracy is inversely proportional to the number of people in a nation.

Blah-blah. In other words, his right to civil protest, his personal opinion and his right to free exercise thereof is actually mostly relevant for himself. It is powerless to prevent anything. All his "democratic rights" haven't prevented a single war; they just gave him, a First World citizens, a comfortable existence, but nothing else.

So did you seriously just discount the value of political protest? Really?
Funny thing; I don't think MLK Jr. or Gandhi would agree with you on that.

I said "China does X", you said "America did Y", I pointed out that the Y you mentioned mostly died out at least forty years ago while China's still happily carrying out X, and you say..."Well, China's still industrializing!" How does that follow?

Poor nations tend to have a shittier human rights record. Rich nations' poor human rights record is usually further away in the past.

Still waiting for anything actually relevant. Why the fuck should we give China a pass?

Absolutely, you dipshit. Any Indian policeman who uses torture should be in prison - or do you not agree? Do you think that it's fine and dandy that Indian police use torture on prisoners?

I see. Like I said, you're fine with starving people to make them "learn a point". You probably don't even understand that if you embargo China, India, embargo all poor nation where policemen torture people, you'll make people suffer and possibly die, not the government. That's why you're a total idiot.

Thanks for the leap in logic, asshole. "Indian policemen shouldn't torture!" is somehow equivalent to "I DON'T CARE IF POOR PEOPLE STARVE". Do you really think anyone is buying that bullshit?

You defend the enforcement of the one-child policy by ignoring the abuses it engenders, and ignoring the idea that there could have been any other fucking way of curbing China's population growth.

I'm not ignoring this idea - you proposed it, so how about you defend it? Your idea is to...?

Oh, let's see...condom education and distribution programs, family planning, or hell, how about a one-child program that doesn't include forced abortion and sterilization? You know, one that includes the taxes on second children that you mentioned but doesn't take a shit on human rights in the process? Just saying.

[Lusankya]

Oh, let's see...condom education and distribution programs, family planning, or hell, how about a one-child program that doesn't include forced abortion and sterilization? You know, one that includes the taxes on second children that you mentioned but doesn't take a shit on human rights in the process? Just saying.

So by this you mean... the one child policy that is actually in place. Forced sterilisations and abortions occurred, however the people who did so were not acting in accordance with policy, and were punished. They no more represent China's one child policy than Sheriff Joe Arpaio represents American law enforcement policy.

[mr friendly guy]

As Lus mentions, forced abortions are illegal in China and as of modern times most places follow that law. However Beijing's power tends to be less .. rigid further out from the capital. According to the Washington Post they did however detain the officials they believed were involved. Granted they also did a Bradley Manning on the activist who broke the news (IIRC officially it was on an unrelated matter, done by the local government who most likely wanted to punish him), but that by itself shouldn't bother Molyneux enough to NOT want to live in that country based on his own statements.

Part of the problem appears to be that the family planning commission appears under funded for a country of China's population. Source Financial times.

Now back to the original spat, we will just see people continue to apply double standards. That is its perfectly ok to use a gross generalisation on China, but not on America. Heavens forbid that.

[K. A. Pital]

I would barely shed a tear if their entire political structure spontaneously vomited up their lungs.

How the fuck does that translate to "ALL OF CHINA IS EVIL"? I hate the Chinese government because they oppress their populace. Learn to read.

You were wishing for an embargo on China coupled with the above, which is clearly advocating spontaneous collapse of their government. You're clearly an idiot, because I merely noted that the effects of your proposals would be spread to the entire population and would hit the poorest first; in essence, this means that you espouse collective responsibility and you'd be glad to force hardship on the Chinese (embargo and government collapse) to get at the Chinese government which is opressing the Chinese. If I'm wrong and you don't desire the above... correct me.

So did you seriously just discount the value of political protest? Really? Funny thing; I don't think MLK Jr. or Gandhi would agree with you on that.

I said your protest has not stopped a single war. That is true? Besides, sadly enough for your point, MLK and Ghandi did not stop a single war, too.

Still waiting for anything actually relevant. Why the fuck should we give China a pass?

Why the fuck should we give America a pass? Simply because it opressed people in the past and nobody had enough power to destroy American government in the past? That can be corrected. Let's destroy the American government first. Then we'll get on with the Chinese, Indian and many other governments.

Thanks for the leap in logic, asshole. "Indian policemen shouldn't torture!" is somehow equivalent to "I DON'T CARE IF POOR PEOPLE STARVE". Do you really think anyone is buying that bullshit?

Yes, because I asked if you'd support an embargo against India due to the torture, and you said "absolutely". Go recheck your replies.

Oh, let's see...condom education and distribution programs, family planning, or hell, how about a one-child program that doesn't include forced abortion and sterilization? You know, one that includes the taxes on second children that you mentioned but doesn't take a shit on human rights in the process? Just saying.

Actually that's the OCP minus the abuses, just as Lusy said. So your problem is...?

[mr friendly guy]

You know, wanting to embargo a country to destroy a government for oppressing the people is like blowing up a building where a hostage taker and his hostages are so you can protect the hostages. The aim of protecting the victims ends up playing second fiddle to the need to punish the offender. But thats ok. Screw them, as long as I feel great about myself that I have done something good. Yes sirree.

[Lusankya]

Interestingly enough, China doesn't even have the same proportion of its population in prison as the US. If one has the life goal of not going to prison, it's actually much easier in China than it is in the US, since in China what I have to do amounts to "don't go around saying blogging about stupid shit", which is actually pretty easy. In the US, on the other hand, I can get arrested for something as simple as being black Mexican "reasonably suspicious".

Now of course, nobody here in this thread has gone around using something a single simplistic measure such as "portion of the population behind bars" to go around saying that the US is oppressive and should be punished until its entire political structure spontaneously vomited up their lungs. This is because some people in this thread recognise that there is an entire spectrum of governments that ranges from "Best government EVAH " to "Deserves to spew out their lungs", and that it doesn't take just one single factor to move a country from the first to the second. And in spite of the Chinese governments shortcomings, is does largely work to increase the quality of life for its citizens - and in some cases it outperforms its more democratic neighbours.

Foe example, the CCP has actually done a very good job of improving women's rights, all things considered. As a woman, I am far more likely to become a self-made billionaire working on the Chinese mainland than anywhere else in the world. Chinese men (especially young, southern Chinese men) are also far more likely to do housework than men in other East Asian countries. There is little disincentive for Chinese women to enter the workforce either, which results in Chinese women being able to contribute an equitable share to household income - which is a massive change from the 1950s, and an even more remarkable feat given that the practice of foot binding was stopped less than a century ago. This is aside from the large scale alleviation of poverty that the Chinese government has played a very major role in (and which Molyneux apparently decided to ignore when I mentioned it earlier).

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh my god so their communist government actually improved certain aspects of their society, and previously prior to the PRC things like women's rights were actually far worse? I am gasping so hard that even if I vomited out my lungs, I may end up inhaling them again due to my gasping! Hai!

[Zed]

He has complained about the restriction of civil liberties. Nazi Germany kicked off its existence by arresting as many leftists as it could get its hands on and banned all opposition parties.

Fine, the British Empire is a better example. Rule of law at home, opression abroad. Perfect combination for self-centered assholes.

The Belgium state wasn't responsible. Congo was the personal property of the king at the time.

By his logic, if your government does something, that makes the entire nation responsible. The entire nation should suffer until, like he said, it vomits its own government through the lungs.

So my proposal is that the Congolese should have killed Belgians until they kill a third of 'em, and the Belgians hang their king Leo on a lamp post. His logic makes it perfectly acceptable. Besides, Leopold didn't run Congo without the help of Belgians, or other "civilized Europeans".

You seem to be ignoring the very fact that Samuel mentioned: the government of Belgium had no immediate relation to the Congo Free State. The Congo Free State was the private property of Leopold II, in his capacity as a private person, and not in his capacity of King of the Belgians. Certainly, the fact that his atrocities aren't widely taught in schools is a failure of our school system, but it's not as though they aren't widely known among the educated population.

[Samuel]

Fine, the British Empire is a better example. Rule of law at home, opression abroad. Perfect combination for self-centered assholes.

Not really. The bad things in India mostly happened under the control of the East India Company for example. Before the Great Reform Act of 1867, only a fifth of the male population could vote. The government also had a tendency to crush protests violently- witness the Battle of Peterloo.

If you mean the latter half of the 19th century, England was more free at home, but I'm not so sure about how heavy the oppression abroad was. One of their rationales for colonization in Africa was eliminating slavery for example and wasn't one of the causes of the Boer Wars how badly the settlers were treating the natives?

So my proposal is that the Congolese should have killed Belgians until they kill a third of 'em, and the Belgians hang their king Leo on a lamp post. His logic makes it perfectly acceptable. Besides, Leopold didn't run Congo without the help of Belgians, or other "civilized Europeans".

The majority of Force Publique was locals. It would have been impossible for the state to function without them.

Also, I'm unsure how individuals are responsible for private actions of government officials. There were accusations that several members of Congress where implicated in forced labor on Guam. While horrific, I don't see how it would be considered the fault of the American people.

Blah-blah. In other words, his right to civil protest, his personal opinion and his right to free exercise thereof is actually mostly relevant for himself. It is powerless to prevent anything. All his "democratic rights" haven't prevented a single war; they just gave him, a First World citizens, a comfortable existence, but nothing else.

You don't understand. Remember when there was the article about someone trying to go after a company in China and the government had decided enough had been done so they arrested him? And you thought something might happen in the United States?

Civil liberties ensure things like that do not happen in America. That is why they are important. Because if something goes wrong, people can try to correct it without fear of retribution. Hundreds of thousands to millions protested the Iraq War without fear that the government arbitrarily arrest them. I don't have any power, but non-governmental organizations do.

Also you declare that democracy haven't prevented a single war... because what? We can't tell what wars have been prevented because of public opinion because said wars didn't happen!

[mr friendly guy]

Oh my god so their communist government actually improved certain aspects of their society, and previously prior to the PRC things like women's rights were actually far worse? I am gasping so hard that even if I vomited out my lungs, I may end up inhaling them again due to my gasping! Hai!

When one judges governments, we should note their failures and their successes. If we point out America's failings, a typical jingoist would fire back well we stopped imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and communism. Strangely enough people are quite happy to point out Beijing is TEH EVEL but totally ignore its successes, leading to a one sided analysis. This isn't to say that the CCP doesn't violate human rights, but that people apply a double standard when judging them as opposed to judging the West. Which ties in to what fgalkin mentioned earlier. I trust I don't need to explain why a double standard is bad.

Besides the footbinding shit Lus mentioned earlier, I am sure if we were to ask old Tibetans who were child slaves serfs how they felt about being freed by the evil Communists, their response would be largely positive. Oh wait, Chinese television had the same idea. Which brings me back to Stas Bush's first comment. They are now copying the West in propaganda tactics like in the above documentary. Instead of just stating "mind your own business", they make docos in English and actually interview people. Now you might ask why I bring Tibet slaves up again? For one thing not once in Australia media during the Tibetan riots was it mentioned that old Tibet was a slave holding theocracy. Fuck, Penn and Teller had more information on that. When the Free Western Media TM is less accurate than the censored Chinese media in this case, one has to wonder why? Oh wait, the Western themselves are subjected to the forces driving propaganda, but you wouldn't think that by reading this thread.

[Samuel]

Actually I think a better explanation is the Tibetans who left are the ones who hate the regime (otherwise they would have stayed) and so they have been the public face of Tibet in the west. It doesn't help that China was closed off letting them monopolize the conversation. That and the Dahli Lama makes a story that fits into a neat little morality tale. You have an evil empire, exotic asian philophies, a child ruler, etc- all the stuff to make a good movie. So the image gets started and then repeated until it is "common knowledge" which doesn't get questioned.

Never assume malice when incompetance is sufficient.

Strangely enough people are quite happy to point out Beijing is TEH EVEL but totally ignore its successes, leading to a one sided analysis.

I think a better comparison isn't its success, but its successes compared to the alternatives. Comparing China to India...
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- ... l=en&dl=en

Since 1976, when Mao died, China has grown faster than India for all but 3 years. Maybe China simply has better human capital, but from what I have seem the government has pursued policies that massively increased growth. Or the India government really sucks.

[Lusankya]

Besides the footbinding shit Lus mentioned earlier...

To be fair, the ending of food binding began during the first Chinese Republic, however the CCP did put a lot more effort into promoting gender equality than the Nationalist government in Taiwan.

Actually I think a better explanation is the Tibetans who left are the ones who hate the regime (otherwise they would have stayed) and so they have been the public face of Tibet in the west. It doesn't help that China was closed off letting them monopolize the conversation. That and the Dahli Lama makes a story that fits into a neat little morality tale. You have an evil empire, exotic asian philophies, a child ruler, etc- all the stuff to make a good movie. So the image gets started and then repeated until it is "common knowledge" which doesn't get questioned.

Lots of people don't actually know that the Dalai Lama's brother was actually involved in a CIA-sponsored terrorist plot against the Chinese government, which was the incident that actually prompted his flight from China. I guess that telling people about CIA Communist Hysteria would ruin your crappy Brad Pitt movie or something.

[K. A. Pital]

...If you mean the latter half of the 19th century, England was more free at home, but I'm not so sure about how heavy the oppression abroad was. One of their rationales for colonization in Africa was eliminating slavery for example and wasn't one of the causes of the Boer Wars how badly the settlers were treating the natives?

"Not really"?

The British swiftly responded with mass detentions. Over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging.

That's 1942. "Rule of law". I'd love it if Indians arrested hundred of thousands of British and then flogged demonstrators.

The majority of Force Publique was locals. It would have been impossible for the state to function without them. Also, I'm unsure how individuals are responsible for private actions of government officials. There were accusations that several members of Congress where implicated in forced labor on Guam. While horrific, I don't see how it would be considered the fault of the American people.

So when a more developed nation takes over a less developed nation and then is found to be opressive, using forced labour there or even mass murdering people there, that is nobody's fault. Oh no. It does not work that way.

You don't understand. Remember when there was the article about someone trying to go after a company in China and the government had decided enough had been done so they arrested him? And you thought something might happen in the United States? Civil liberties ensure things like that do not happen in America. That is why they are important. Because if something goes wrong, people can try to correct it without fear of retribution. Hundreds of thousands to millions protested the Iraq War without fear that the government arbitrarily arrest them. I don't have any power, but non-governmental organizations do.

I said that the scenario will be different; when legal means disallow opressing within the law, you just turn to extralegal means. Call your nearest mobster, pay him to kill the person you want dead and voila. As for "hundreds of millions protesting the Iraq war", they failed to stop even that single war. So pardon my cynism, but we judge by the outcome. It was a most useless protest.

Also you declare that democracy haven't prevented a single war... because what? We can't tell what wars have been prevented because of public opinion because said wars didn't happen!

I declare that public protest has not prevented a single war. Also, if a public protest has prevented what might had been a war, do tell me about it. Perhaps those million-strong protests prevented Iraq? No, they didn't. It was clear that the US was preparing for war; so if there's a similar situation where public protest prevented war, show me.

[Samuel]

[quote='Stas Bush"]That's 1942. "Rule of law". I'd love it if Indians arrested hundred of thousands of British and then flogged demonstrators. [/quote]

Yes, 1942. When the IJA was in Burma, the IJN had entered the Indian Ocean and there was a fear that people would join the Indian National Army.

So when a more developed nation takes over a less developed nation and then is found to be opressive, using forced labour there or even mass murdering people there, that is nobody's fault. Oh no. It does not work that way.

You said that because Force Publique was comprised in part by Europeans, Europeans are responsible for its atrocities.

If responsiblity was decided by composition than the Congonese would be the most responsible.

I said that the scenario will be different; when legal means disallow opressing within the law, you just turn to extralegal means. Call your nearest mobster, pay him to kill the person you want dead and voila.

If you have to use extralegal means something is fucked up about the legal system!

As for "hundreds of millions protesting the Iraq war", they failed to stop even that single war. So pardon my cynism, but we judge by the outcome. It was a most useless protest.

What do you expect? The US isn't revolutionary France where every protest works.

I declare that public protest has not prevented a single war. Also, if a public protest has prevented what might had been a war, do tell me about it. Perhaps those million-strong protests prevented Iraq? No, they didn't. It was clear that the US was preparing for war; so if there's a similar situation where public protest prevented war, show me.

Since the Vietnam war the government had an intense desire not to enter into foreign wars because of the danger of the civil unrest that it caused in the 60s and 70s. The US avoided major armed conflict for the next 20 odd years until the first gulf war. Even after that, we didn't get involved in an extended war until 2001. All the other previous conflicts the US was involved in during this time were short. The only additional large scale one would be our invasion of Panama.

So comparing the 30 years after 1970 with the 30 years before it (ignoring ww2) we were involved in alot less high intensity conflicts, I'd call that a success.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, 1942. When the IJA was in Burma, the IJN had entered the Indian Ocean and there was a fear that people would join the Indian National Army.

Yeah, which is relevant how? The British also massacred unarmed Indians in 1930, when there was no IJN entering anything. Please, spare me from reviewing the British policies in India in the first half of the XX century - those were hardly the same treatment as British citizens enjoyed in the Home Islands. My comparison is more than apt - people protest peacefully, people get shot.

You said that because Force Publique was comprised in part by Europeans, Europeans are responsible for its atrocities.

Yes. You seem to think that the Europeans were not occupying top positions in the Congo Free State and weren't the organizers of the whole thing. That's not true.

If responsiblity was decided by composition than the Congonese would be the most responsible.

Bullshit. By that logic, low-rank Germans were most responsible for the Nazi genocide than the Nazi leadership. One can clearly see that this logic is full of shit.

If you have to use extralegal means something is fucked up about the legal system!

No, nothing. If you have to use extralegal means to remove "undesireable" people that means your legal system is better than the Chinese one, which allows for legal removal of the same.

What do you expect? The US isn't revolutionary France where every protest works.

I expected nothing. Their protest has been shown to be unworkable and useless when it came to stopping war.

Since the Vietnam war the government had an intense desire not to enter into foreign wars because of the danger of the civil unrest that it caused in the 60s and 70s.

Which foreign wars the US could enter at the time? It did not enter foreign wars, but it aided and sponsored the Sukharto genocide during the same years. Perhaps there were no wars the US could enter in the 80s?

The US avoided major armed conflict for the next 20 odd years until the first gulf war. Even after that, we didn't get involved in an extended war until 2001. All the other previous conflicts the US was involved in during this time were short. The only additional large scale one would be our invasion of Panama.

Wow, that's a huge admission! Well thank you, you at least acknowledged the invasion of Panama. Let's remember the US getting involved in the Yugoslavian wars, too.

So comparing the 30 years after 1970 with the 30 years before it (ignoring ww2) we were involved in alot less high intensity conflicts, I'd call that a success.

Really? Maybe there was no relevance to public protest - there were simply fewer conflict opportunities for the USA to get involved in. End of story. Overall intensity of conflicts also decreased since World War II, hasn't it? So where's the "protest" bit?

However, if you are sure you're right, show me wars in 1975-1990 that the US could get involved in, if not for "fear" of "civil protest". Find me at least one such war.

[Samuel]

Yeah, which is relevant how? The British also massacred unarmed Indians in 1930, when there was no IJN entering anything.

That would be a better example. Using war years is a shitty barometer.

Yes. You seem to think that the Europeans were not occupying top positions in the Congo Free State and weren't the organizers of the whole thing. That's not true.

Besides, Leopold didn't run Congo without the help of Belgians, or other "civilized Europeans".

Wow, it looks like it is about composition, not responsibility.

No, nothing. If you have to use extralegal means to remove "undesireable" people that means your legal system is better than the Chinese one, which allows for legal removal of the same.

... the example I gave was where there was no legal option for the man to work inside the Chinese system.

Which foreign wars the US could enter at the time? It did not enter foreign wars, but it aided and sponsored the Sukharto genocide during the same years. Perhaps there were no wars the US could enter in the 80s?

30 years is 70s, 80s and 90s. You keep this up and there is no point in responding.

Well thank you, you at least acknowledged the invasion of Panama.

Which killed less than 5,000 people.

Let's remember the US getting involved in the Yugoslavian wars, too.

Under the unbrella of NATO. This wasn't a unilateral US military adventure.

Really? Maybe there was no relevance to public protest - there were simply fewer conflict opportunities for the USA to get involved in. End of story.

However, if you are sure you're right, show me wars in 1975-1990 that the US could get involved in, if not for "fear" of "civil protest". Find me at least one such war.

Vietnam, 1975.
Nicaragua, 1985

[Samuel]

I just realized something!

1991 Soviet Union collapses, territories gain freed. A million die over the next decade. Stas wishes protesters were crushed by tanks.

1947 India and Pakistan gain independence. In one year a million people die. Stas attacks British government for attacking protestors.

Remember, the Metropole is bad for using harsh measures on the outskirts. Also it is okay for the CCP to be brutal to brutal measures are needed in poor areas. Poor areas result in brutality, which is a property of their wealth and not the fault of authorities. Brutality by the metropole in poor areas is wrong because everyone should adhear to standards of human rights.

I'm sorry Stas, could we clear up your position?