|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:If it's possible to take a guess, probably not all that bad. If his politics are anything like daddy's, Xi is a damned good leader. That's really the question of the day. I'm worried that even if he does take after his father, though, it'll take a lot more than a passive belief in reform to actually bear fruit- he's going to have to really WANT to fight the entrenched interests in the Party that are lined up against meaningful reform. If it's true that the standing committee is going back to 7, with the propaganda and PSB chiefs getting kicked out, that might offer a bit more of an opening. But ultimately it's going to come down to whether or not he and the other new leaders have the commitment to actually fight for this stuff. Maybe its just 10 years of Hu and Wen talking, but I'm starting from a point of skepticism here.
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
The Panchen Lama affair is still the best recent example of a religion choosing its own guy and then Beijing going 'ftfy, he's gone.' Like whichever child the Tibetans chose wouldn't have been just as susceptible to patriotic education or whatever, they had to literally disappear a 6 year old. An impressively lovely thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
flatbus posted:Someone more familiar with religion in China should answer this, but my hunch is that the atheist heritage of the current government lets them play fast and loose with which religions to tolerate. If there are issues with Islam in Xinjiang that can be averted by putting in a state-approved leader, that would explain the difference in treatment. That was pretty close to a rhetorical question, dude. The 'atheist heritage' of the CCP doesn't matter at all, the only thing they care about is how much money they can make from religion and what they have to do to stop religion from being used as an organizing tool or nationalist marker by anyone else. 'Issues with Islam in Xinjiang'?!?! What issues do you think there are with Islam in Xinjiang that the CCP gives half a gently caress about, except that Uighurs might use it as an avenue for expressing prohibited Uighur nationalist sentiment? The 'difference in treatment' comes down to whether or not the Party can use a given religion as a sock puppet by having its leaders talk about 'ethnic unity' and 'upholding the integrity of the motherland' and 'resisting foreign hostile forces,' not some actual issue with religion itself. Basically, what arglebargle said.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:The PLAN's 2008-12 South China Sea swagger has prompted everybody in the neighborhood (India, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, etc) to react, either by buying more submarines, partnering up with the USN, or partnering up with each other. At some point, 'China's Peaceful Rise' went out the window in favor of 'Chinese waters end at your country's shore'-- is it any surprise this has been destabilizing? Japan, on the other hand, has started an impressive domestic carrier program and nobody gives a poo poo. On the contrary, India, Vietnam, Australia and even Korea have made overtures for increased military cooperation with Japan. no no you don't get it, this is all the fault of the scheming imperialist villains in the US, China basically has nothing to do with it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Wow, fracking plus China really does equal complete and total horror. I'd never even considered what would happen when that technology shows up in the PRC. Implementing the rule of law would be the single biggest step they could take towards fixing China's problems, but that would also mean the end of doing whatever you want with only the tiniest chance of consequences for the Party, so good luck with that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Mainlanders don't poo poo on the street. They only do that when they tried to figuratively and literally poo poo on Hong Kong. I don't know about that, I saw a bunch of kids defecating on the streets in Shanghai and Wuhan, and adults weren't exactly shy about peeing in public in a bunch of places either. I mean, really in public. But you really only need a few instances of that happening in HK going viral before they start interacting with the existing tensions between mainlanders and HKers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
flatbus posted:Maybe they will fly to Narita Airport and buy out all Japanese baby formula in the duty-free shops, then engage in traditional street-making GBS threads ceremonies a few meters away from airport restaurants. Please, all of the traditional street-making GBS threads ceremonies were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. These are new socialist street-making GBS threads ceremonies with Chinese characteristics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Chinese universities are good at the very top end. A degree from Beida, Qinghua, or Fudan will get you as far as any non-Ivy US undergrad degree, and possibly farther depending on what you want to do. I kinda wonder how much of that is because of their reputation alone, though. I spent some time at WuDa, which is supposedly to be pretty far up there, and it looked really similar to the podunk school I was teaching at- huge classrooms where everyone was napping/playing games on iphones/doing their nails while the teacher droned on over a canned powerpoint. Especially motivated students could probably get a lot out of the resources the school has, but is the minimum bar set any higher? I mean, I met seniors at my school who were majoring in English and were unable to respond to basic greetings, while some of the more motivated freshmen could have normal conversations with native speakers without breaking a sweat. I had gotten the impression that the same rules were in play for the better schools, too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:
No, you simply don't understand the ways of the inscrutable orient. Now, let me tell you about how Chinese people are incompatible with the practice of democracy thanks to their suzhi...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:the Chinese state/party is sliding down into failure slowly but with tremendous inertia. This is a really good way of expressing the dynamic that's at work here. Reversing this downward slide would require untangling the ludicrously complicated knots that the Party has tied itself into, and I really don't know how they would gather the willpower to even get started. The corruption, the courts, the police, the local governments, the Beijing ministries, the major industries, the Party bigwigs... their dysfunctions all feed on each other, and put anyone trying to fix any particular one into check.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Do you honestly believe people forgot this stuff existed because it was banned for twenty years? How many American books were banned for that long and are now an enshrined piece of the literary canon for that notoriety? I can think of something else that was banned for twenty years and has been pretty much forgotten about by mainstream Chinese society...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm saying if they are concerned about misuse of funds, then send people from Hong Kong to Sichuan to physically oversee the situation. If the CCP says no to this, then okay, then don't send aid. Fuckin' lmao, do you really think the CCP would allow independent monitors in for something like this?! That's why everyone is so skeptical and that's why a huge collage of every lovely thing the CCP does is so convincing for people, because their standard approach to oversight is to tell you to gently caress off and label you part of the anti-China conspiracy. No government is particularly happy to let people see how sausage gets made, but the CCP has set up one of the nastiest slaughterhouses on earth and they know it. That's why you can't monitor how funds move, that's why news orgs get blocked for reporting on leaders finances, that's why they're super mad about independent air pollution monitoring, that's why leaders are slipping their watches off before walking in front of the cameras, that's why foreign news reporters are chased out of Tibet as fast as possible, and that's why they've created a censorship apparatus that is one of the most impressively horrible on earth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, I do really think the CCP can allow independent monitors in for something like this. Ok, we'll I guess we'll see whether or not they do... Fangz posted:- Sichuan disaster relief is not repression of separatists in Tibet. It's not something the CCP considers to *inevitably* look bad for them, and therefore to want as few people to look at as possible. True, these are two different things! But what I was getting at is that the CCP has about the same amount of interest in scrutiny being brought to their finances as they do with their handling of ethnic minorities. They may not think it will inevitably look bad for them- but they sure as poo poo know that it almost always will, and that allowing sunlight in sets a very bad precedent. Fangz posted:- Local Sichuan party officials are not core CCP staff. They are far more disposable and their individual welfare is outside of the interest of the top leaders. No one wants them to have watches. Uh, true? But I'm starting to think you don't see what I'm getting at at all. If you're a Hong Konger and you're thinking about donating money, you want some assurance that it will go towards something worthwhile and that there will be some measure of transparency in what happens to it. But the CCP, from the top down to the bottom, does not allow this transparency and can give no meaningful guarantee about what will happen to your money, whether we're talking about Xi Jinping or some rear end in a top hat local secretary in Sichuan. Fangz posted:- Fear of corruption in Sichuan is not Beijing environmental regulation. There's both a physical and metaphorical distance. It's not the impact of longstanding policy from the people in power being felt in the present, policy that It Has Been Decided that China will not turn away from, whatever the consequences. It's about a thing that is still developing and is not part of any central plan, that even if it were seen to fail could present an opportunity for someone to turn it around and show off how awesome the CCP is. Again, the same cover of darkness is applied to both issues, using the same mechanisms, and for the same reasons. Fangz posted:- Hong Kong is not America. CCP one-china propaganda helps out here - it is more difficult for the authorities to deny the Hong Kong people, because they *are chinese*, and difficult to label as part of the Anti-China conspiracy, without acknowledging that opposition exists to the CCP within China. Which is the one thing the CCP fears the most. Hong Kong may not be America, but it can be a land of "ungrateful dogs" if it doesn't get down on its knees and make sweet love to the Party. If you don't think that it's possible for people in HK/TW to get labeled anti-China tools despite being parts of the Sinosphere, I don't know what to tell you. Fangz posted:All of these things people have mentioned have separate reasons. You can't throw up a giant collage, and say, THEREFORE THE CCP IS EVIL and EVERYTHING IT DOES IS EVIL. Appreciate the internal flows and pressures of the party, here. The core issue is corruption, right? What's the prevailing narrative that the CCP wants to promote with the new change of leadership? That the corruption is about rare bad apples distant from the sight of the party? Ergo, the interest of the CCP is in proving that with the new regime they are serious about tackling the corruption issue, and they want this to be both visible and credible. Hence an opportunity exists. They have separate reasons, but a lot of the same factors flow through all of them. The anti-corruption drive is about tackling the appearance of corruption, not corruption itself since that's the bread and butter of the Party. And while sure, there might be an opportunity, I haven't seen any sign of such openness appearing on this issue, and neither have the people of HK apparently, which is why we're talking about this in first place. It'd be cool if they would be transparent here, but that doesn't mean we should pretend it's already happened, or that it's even likely to happen at all. Fangz posted:You cannot simplify the situation to 'the CCP is reaally mean!' I think you can simplify it to 'the CCP has a constant and deep-rooted problem with corruption and transparency, which permeates all levels of government and many major non-government institutions inside China,' though. Is some of that stuff marginally related? Sure, but what argument do we have for the safety of these donations other than that "I don't know, maybe this time things will be much better"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:Does "the 50 cent party" refer to paid commenters on blogs and stuff, and the amount they get per comment or whatever? That's the origin of the term, you probably shouldn't take it literally though. Some people are paid to help 'guide public opinion,' but the numbers and amount of pay are hard to gauge overall.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Hmmm, volatile fuels, hazardous substances and a good chance to get wrecked by disasters? Sounds like Fukushima all over again, except that had the necessary precautions taken. Seriously, if the Fukushima plant had been built with China levels of safety regulations, there'd be a good chunk of Japan missing today... ... and Chinese crowds would still be going crazy with sheer delight.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:China has regulations. Lots of them. And an economy dominated by state-owned giants. Those state-owned companies can do whatever they want because they're by definition well-connected, and then there's the private sector leaders who can do what they want because they bribed enough people or are related to enough people (usually both). Right, but that's sorta the thing- saying "there are lots of regulations" but then admitting that they aren't really in effect on a practical level cuts back to Vladimir Putin said- if the government can't or won't enforce these regulations, we end up with this weird nightmare libertarian world, where companies are doing whatever the gently caress they want, public good be damned. China can have all kinds of awesome regulations on the books, but if they exist mainly on paper then what exactly is the point?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:The point is if you're a budding entrepreneur, even one with a good idea and business model that deserves to succeed, you will get hosed by regulators who finally see a chance to make a token example. Although you probably won't be able to raise any capital to begin with, because the lenders in China only lend to state-owned businesses or other massive organizations. Right, but this still isn't meaningful enforcement of regulations, especially when enormous state-run industries and enormous industries with enough money to purchase regulators are the ones doing so much of the damage. Hell, even your example admits that regulators aren't looking to enforce regulations, they're looking for a kickback. This is why regulations aren't enforced and why we can't say that "China has a lot of regulations" like that phrase means anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Alright, I mean 'state capitalist kleptocrat hellhole' is a better description for the whole system, so as long as we can agree that "regulations" in China aren't really regulations then I think we're in accord here.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Why they would want to do that in the heart of Hong Kong's financial and tourist district I have no idea. To paraphrase Tsering Shakya, authoritarian regimes have a love of ceremonial displays of their authority. If the space was way out in the boonies then they wouldn't be able to impress their power and control on random bystanders, would they?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
One thing that drives me crazy about how China presents its history is (you guessed it!) how they streamline shaosu minzu into Han historical terms. My work involves Tibet and I'm stuck reading pretty much everything that China prints about Tibet, and if I have to read one more thing about how the Guge kingdom developed during THIS chinese dynasty, or the Pelkhor Choede was built during THAT dynasty, I'm pretty much gonna lose it. We're talking about a people with their own distinct historical periods, and the people building the Pelkhor loving Choede probably couldn't have cared less about what was going on a thousand miles away in China. There is no Tibetan history, or Uyghur history, or Mongolian history, there is only Chinese history, and that is very specifically and exclusively Han history. Oh, but China is a multi-ethnic state, not a Han-only kleptocracy!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Wow, another bombing? This time in Shanxi at CCP HQ if Boxun/Twitter are to be believed: http://www.boxun.com/news/gb/china/2013/11/201311060916.shtml#.UnmnGeWj_uY
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Those are all traditional Chinese territories though (Tibet being the most recent and they were conquered in ~1720). Having an amban stationed in Lhasa while the Kashag rules central Tibet (and much of the rest of Tibet doesn't even have that much Chinese presence) is such a completely different arrangement that it doesn't really make sense to call Tibet "conquered in ~1720" in the context of current Chinese rule. If by "traditional Chinese territory" you mean territory that China has occasionally considered its own, sometimes nominally ruled, and rarely directly administered, then I don't think that term really makes sense either. And if you don't consider Chinese adventures in Tibet interventionalist, you should talk to some Tibetans. Electro-Boogie Jack fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The situation reminds me of the Kurds, so yes there is a distinct cultural group that China oppresses to one degree or another but the general Western idea is that the Communists up and conquered Tibet in the 50s with no historical precedent which is patently false. Luckily the "general Western idea" is mostly held by people who have literally no influence on Tibet. Far more important (and relevant to our discussion of Chinese education) is the patently false idea that Tibet has always belonged to China, and the mostly false idea that Tibet can really be considered "traditional Chinese territory," which is promoted as the truth by the Chinese government, taught in schools, and unfortunately believed by the majority of Chinese people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The discussion wasn't about Chinese education I guess it wasn't, as long as you have Arglebargle, Glasseye-Boy, Tom Smykowski, Fojar83, and dilbertschalter on ignore and think this is still solely about Japanese textbooks and doesn't involve China and larger issues of historiography. computer parts posted:but if we're talking in that vein then I guess it's just an issue of how long something has to be controlled by a country to be part of its "traditional territory"; places like Tibet or Xinjiang were annexed (at least claimed to be) into China relatively recently, but still long enough ago that everyone involved is long dead. This makes it a slightly different issue from (e.g.) the Israel-Palestine conflict which is only a generation or two off. The claim may be that Tibet and Xinjiang were annexed long ago enough that everyone involved is long dead, and yet there are still plenty of Tibetans alive now who may have never seen a Chinese person before they fought against the rGya mag in the 1950s. This is why it's actual far more similar to the time-frame of the Israel-Palestine conflict than you seem to think. Chinese control prior to the 1950s is a very different thing than you seem to be giving it credit for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, this may be true from a real perspective, but not from a political perspective (e.g., the US's testimony regarding the ROC's claim on Tibet here). I'm not disputing that China (both pre and post PRC) have done horrible things to Tibet, I'm more disputing the (what I'm assuming you're advocating based on the I/P comparison you're accepting) independence movement for Tibet based on the fact that there's historical precedent from nations around the world that Tibet belonged to China. Personally I'm not advocating independence for Tibet so much as self-determination- if they want to stay in the PRC that should be up to them. I suspect that a Tibetan referendum between status quo, great autonomy, a part in some theoretical federal China, and complete independence would leave China and Tibet completely separated, but it's not really my call and after the way the last few decades have gone I couldn't really blame them. I see what you mean about real perspective vs political perspectives, but these two are so completely divergent in this case that we really need to note that before saying that Tibet was annexed in the 1720s or something like that. Chinese claims to Tibet existed mostly on paper before the 1950s, and this conflict really doesn't make sense if we accept Chinese political claims at face value. It's certainly good cause for neighbors to be alarmed about Chinese interventionism, especially when the same claims that justify their rule over Tibet also lay equal claim to Bhutan, Mongolia, and chunks of India and Nepal among others. See Mao and his talk of Tibet's 5 Fingers, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
sincx posted:As has already been aluded to by others, the exact same situation applies to Tibet. No matter how objectively just or unjust the PRC's treatment of Tibet is, no one's going to do anything about it. China's yoo powerful and Tibetans have nothing to offer. You might be right, but on the other hand 30 years ago a lot of people thought the exact same thing about all the countries occupied and puppeted by the USSR. Current issues aside, today they're back on the map and the USSR is gone. Different cases, sure- but these one-party states have a habit of looking invincible until a week or two they keel over and die. Who will live longer, CCP single party rule or the Tibetan teenagers growing up and hating the Party right now? I'm not entirely sure, and I'd be skeptical of anyone who says their crystal ball is 100% on this one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Uyghur professor Ilham Tohti has been detained by police, with his apartment searched and a number of his (Uyghur) students disappeared as well. Earlier this week Xi called for a new focus in how Beijing handles Xinjiang, and it seems like this new focus is going to be "the same, but even shittier." Up until recently Ilham was an example of how China does occasionally tolerate extremely mild-mannered critics, but now he's an example of a darker turn in how the PRC handles minority issues. Global Times seems pretty rah-rah and gung-ho about this, and the arrest was apparently made by Xinjiang police working in Beijing with the cooperation of local authorities, so there's a good chance that the decision to shut him up was made at a reasonably high level. Welcome to the newly refocused mafia state, everyone! http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/838112.shtml#.Utl-lqgk1kN
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
I played a very, very tiny role in helping to make this happen, and yeah- it's all about message-sending, with a secondary emphasis on restricting the travel of these guys and giving the people who fill their shoes now a little reason to think about their choices. Obviously retired Chinese leaders aren't really prone to doing much international travel anyway, but just the slight fear of being Pinochet'ed is probably enough to make them cancel their vacation plans in any country that has extradition treaties with Spain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Do you really think this is a thing that would actually happen? Maybe Spain should focus more on its own oppression of Basque culture. Glass houses etc. They probably should focus more on that, yeah- but I'm sure if they wanted to pursue both they could find enough courtrooms to do it. Personally, my vision of the future is one in which everyone is called out constantly for their human rights abuses, not one in which people quietly mumble about it because of the skeletons in their own closets. That isn't really good for anyone, except maybe for the human rights abusers themselves. Would it actually happen? It has in the past, but it's one thing to go after Pinochet and really another thing to go after China. Certainly worth a try, though. Fall Sick and Die posted:Wow, can you talk more about this if you took part? Extremely minor role- the judges asked the lawyers and activists who were the major movers behind this to come up with more evidence supporting their case. They came to a few organizations, including the one I work for, and asked us to write amicus briefs helping to lay out the answers to questions asked by the judge. We worked on one detailing specific abuses committed by the people named in the trial, and I personally wrote a bit about the structure of the Communist Party. The idea was that the Party could say "hey, it had nothing to do with us in Beijing, the T.A.R. is an autonomous region so take it up with their governor!" or something like that, so we wanted to make it clear that the Party, not the government, has the power, and that that power is exercised from the top down, while the "autonomous" regions are mostly fictional in the sense that the minority nationalities aren't exercising any meaningful degree of self-determination there. The lawyers and activists- people like Alan Cantos and Thubten Wangchen- know exactly how little chance they have of getting Jiang Zemin in court, but they also understand the symbolic power that this case could have, and they also are keenly aware of how mad it makes the CCP. From day one the Party has been greatly concerned about the legitimacy of their rule over Tibet, and things like this keep poking holes in it. They called in witnesses like Palden Gyatso (spent decades in prison for a ludicrously minor offense, was tortured, wears false teeth today because police stuck an electric cattle prod into his mouth and turned it on, causing his teeth to fall out) to give testimony, which finally gave some Tibetans the venue they deserve to lay out their grievances and show how abusive the Party has been. Given how useless the ICC is for stuff like this, it would almost be crazy for them not to have tried.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Has there been any kind of backlash or difficulty for Spaniards in China over this? I haven't heard of any. Did individual Norwegians face much backlash after Liu Xiaobo? IIRC the government added in some extra visa weirdness for them, but on a personal level that's all I've heard of for them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
It's not like Beijing doesn't get some mileage out of ignoring their so-called principles of non-interference when it comes to Russia: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=11493 In order to come to Russia Dalai Lama must quit politics - Lavrov Seliger, Tver region, August 28, Interfax - The visit of the Dalai Lama to Russia requires that he fully give up politics, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. "If it is a pastoral visit, the pastor should definitely withdraw from political activities. Unfortunately, we observe that this has not happened yet," Lavrov told participants in the Seliger-2014 youth forum. He said the Russian authorities "are actively interested in cooperating closely with key traditional religions of our country in our domestic life and foreign policy activities," he said. "In this case we have issues relating to the problem of Tibet and problems of the Dalai Lama's political involvement in these processes. And they cannot be disregarded," Lavrov said.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:It's almost as though China's stance on non-interference in internal affairs isn't entirely consistent Or even a little bit consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:I remember when the Chinese ambassador the UK publicly criticised of the UK's policy directions just before Li Keqiang's visit. I really enjoyed pointing out to my cadre class how he was interfering with UK internal affairs and hurting the feelings of the British people. Aha, that must have gone over well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:Only a few of those examples are from 50 years ago. Most of them are from the past few years and one's directly relating to Ukraine, which you asked for. My point was just that there's a strong disconnect between most Chinese people's ideas of how China has behaved in the past and is behaving now, and how they actually behaved and are behaving. b.. but America!! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Look, Democracies are granted the privilege to be hypocritical every 4 years. That's one of the reasons why we have elections, and why the world puts up with sudden changes in policy eminating from democratic conscensus. At least, if you're a large enough power, you have some leverage to sway elections in democracies. I was trying to preemptively cut off the tu quoque argument we frequently hear after talking about China in this, the China thread.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
I have a coworker whose niece from Qinghai was kidnapped and taken to work in Shanghai. It took months to sort out even after she managed to get word back to her family because the Shanghai police refused to help her and wouldn't get involved for some mysterious reason (business owner has guanxi or stacks of cash? probably? definitely?). So she was pretty much a slave for a bit but yeah, you can drink in public, so... sure. Manchild Freedom.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Oh boy those wacky ching chongs and their herbs why can't they take real medicine for real people!!!!! See, I don't even get what you're trying to do here. This is a small enough thread that the only people who are gonna read your misrepresentation of what people just said is... the people who just said it! Who are you trying to fool here? e: maybe you aren't trying to fool anyone, you're just trying to gratuitously insult people? but who's gonna be insulted by your straw-post argument?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
I know it's already been covered but man, the Ilham Tohti conviction is a load of poo poo. This is the most reasonable fuckin critic you could ask for, and wham, life in prison. Also for more on the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama thing, the dudes own statement from 2 or 3 years ago covers his options pretty well: http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/753-statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation It's important to note exactly how bad Beijing's handling of the Panchen Lama was- they essentially have a useless figurehead now rejected by the Tibetan public, while the real guy is languishing somewhere, hopefully not dead, since 1995. The lineage is pretty much hosed, which is a huge loss for Tibet considering how important the 10th Panchen Lama was in helping Tibet recover from the worst of the Mao years. The Dalai Lama would be crazy to allow Beijing to do that to his lineage, especially with Tibet on the ropes like it is now. The Dalai Lama is an extremely reasonable person and Beijing could sow this up pretty easily if they wanted, but today of all days I think we can all agree that Beijing doesn't want or care about being reasonable, especially where the ethnic minorities are concerned. I just don't think they understand that the death of the Dalai Lama still in exile isn't the end of their problems, but rather the start of new and in some ways much harder to manage problems that won't ever have a clear endpoint. This thing about Beijing wanting him to come back and go on pilgrimage to Wutai Shan is interesting, and would be a good way to start mending their relationship... if it were true. For now it's all just rumors and anonymous blog posts: http://www.savetibet.org/blog-on-dalai-lama-china-talks-posted-in-prc-prompts-speculation/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:What's the benefit to Taiwan to reunify with China? There's a ton of risk and absolutely no reward. uh if you recall from a few pages back the PRC has Real Freedom so obviously the people of Taiwan yearn to get their hands on a piece of that
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
fart simpson posted:It's amazing how badly you guys react to someone saying that there are some aspects of China that aren't 100% bad. Nah I'm down man, PRC Real Freedom is the poo poo and obviously Hong Kong is psyched as hell to get some of that action.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 04:28
|
|