Slashdot Mirror


Telling the Truth In Today's China

eldavojohn writes "Inside the land of the Great Firewall censorship is rampant although rarely transparent. Foreign Policy has a lengthy but eyeopening recounting of what it's like being an editor for the only officially sanctioned English business publication inside the most populated country on Earth. Eveline Chao of the magazine 'China International Business' writes in her piece 'Me and My Censor' about her censor named Snow, the three taboo T's (Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen), a bizarre government aversion to flags and how she was 'offered red envelopes stuffed with cash at press junkets, sometimes discovered footprints on the toilet seats at work, and had to explain to the Chinese assistants more than once that they could not turn in articles copied word for word from existing pieces they found online.' Anecdotes abound in this piece including the story of a photojournalist who 'once ran a picture he'd taken in Taiwan alongside an article, but had failed to notice a small Taiwanese flag in the background. As a result, the entire staff of his newspaper had been immediately fired and the office shut down.' " (Read more, below.) Eldavojohn continues: "From shoddy CYA maps to language misunderstandings to an elusive 'words group' faxed out by government censors, this article exposes a lot of the internal workings and responsibilities of a 'government censor' inside mainland China but also the ridiculous absurdity of government censorship: 'I was told that we could not title a coal piece "Power Failure" because the word "failure" in bold print so close to the Olympics would make people think of the Olympics being a failure. The title "The Agony and the Ecstasy" for a soccer piece was axed because agony was a negative word and we couldn't have negative words be associated with sports.' The magazine couldn't use images of an empty bowl for its restaurant pieces because it might remind readers of the Great Famine."

157 comments

  1. absurdity by HPHatecraft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All of this is absurd, like a Dada or Surrealist depiction of a repressive government. I'm thinking of the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup" or something similar. It would all be hilarious if it didn't have real, and possibly fatal, consequences. Good luck, people of China.

    1. Re:absurdity by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup" or something similar.

      But the Chinese wouldn't understand it. They still believe the the Marx brothers' first names were Karl and Friedrich.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absurd indeed, given that it's probably more western FUD about China.

      For an organization that purports to be of some significant resources with an international staff, "China International Business" seems to have zero footprint in any search engines.

      And jetsetting senior media heavyweight "Eveline Chao" also seems to be missing in action in search results.
      And unless the now 31-years old "Eveline Chao" has retired, tattletales don't get a whole lot of respect by any prospective employer and not just the Chinese.

    3. Re:absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC.
      "Eveline Chao" as in evelinechao.com has one sentence indicating having managed a "business magazine" in Beijing for five years (just returned doing the math). One sentence for what appears to be the longest job she's had to date.
      Eveline Chao linkedin completely omitted any mention of having been in China.

      Folks, something isn't adding up here.

  2. This is horrible by Quakeulf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just think of all the man hours spent on keeping people stupid and the labour cheap so that we can all have it made in China.

    1. Re:This is horrible by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know, right? Keeping everyone in that mindset so that the people on the top running everything and owning the biggest companies can continue to make gigantic profits while the rest of the workers remain non-disruptive and work for dirt cheap is textbook communism.
      As they say on the internet, Hey China, ur doin it wrong!

    2. Re:This is horrible by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hi, what are you using to write and read these comments? Where is it made?

      See also the Take Back types tweeting "Woo! Down with the corporations, man!" from their iPhones.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:This is horrible by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just think of all the man hours spent on keeping people stupid and the labour cheap so that we can all have it made in China.

      Well, if there's one thing China has in abundance, it's man-hours.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:This is horrible by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      This comment, and that comment, were written using a Dell which has parts assembled in China. Unless there is a worker revolution in China, which currently seems unlikely, it will continue to be like that until we have either fully automatic assembly plants or there is a genocide.

      In no place in my comment did I allude to the hypocrite slactivist worker-solidary type, I just stated the obvious.

    5. Re:This is horrible by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some of the more expensive labor around is woefully ignorant of large parts of science like evolution and most things outside of North America, but it doesn't seem to significantly affect their work performance or salary requirements. China is no longer that cheap, it says "Labour costs have surged by 20% a year for the past four years" - pretty different from what most Americans have experienced the last four years I bet. China is rapidly becoming a modern country, compared to most other countries in South East Asia they are already rich. For example India is poor compared to China. Right now I'd hold Greece and Spain much more likely to have a revolution than China...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:This is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very loosely related. Unless things completely change in China, expect the growing middle class in China to completely implode.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbDeS_mXMnM

    7. Re:This is horrible by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh, the old, "If you've ever bought anything from a corporation, you can't criticize corporations" argument still gets modded up here.

    8. Re:This is horrible by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      The fact that nearly every device we use, every article of clothing, and most of our food comes from companies that in one way or another abuse people and the environment - should not keep us from protesting and fighting back. Rather than demanding purity - we should encourage MORE people to stand up and fight.

    9. Re:This is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i spend a fair amount of time working with a software dev team in Shanghai. they are to a person incredibly smart--your stupid people / cheap labor might apply to the uneducated unwashed masses which of course applies everywhere in the world and not just China (i often shudder thinking of the brilliant folks in the U.S. who watch and believe what they see on Fox News).

      also, anyone with a wifi enabled device (pretty much everyone in every major city) that wants to read uncensored news, or access facebook/youtube from china can do so. if you have access to foreign company corporate network it is trivial as there is no restriction, if not, there are proxies that circumvent the great firewall. The government plays whack-a-mole with proxy sites, but like in the arcade game there are too many to keep up with.

      one of my SH co-workers told me that in every Xinhua news broadcast you get the truth exactly twice: when they tell you the date and then the time. these people are not fools.

    10. Re:This is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful

    11. Re:This is horrible by Omniskio · · Score: 1

      What could possibly be the motive for the up-modding of such an absurd position?

    12. Re:This is horrible by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Willful ignorance, more than likely. Outrage without understanding is incredibly common currently, at least in the US.

      Telling someone they're a hypocrite because they are somehow linked to what they are criticizing is a favorite, so there will be plenty who defend the tactic and promote its use. They especially like to use the logic if the link is a result of something you have little or no ability to reasonably control, like living in the US and avoiding all products with a manufacturing link in China. Unless you withdraw from modern society, or are an obscenely wealthy technophobe, you can't condemn China, because obviously you're benefiting from the situation there.

      Voting is another popular one for this logic:
      "You voted for him, you can't complain."
      "You voted for the other guy, so you agreed to the outcome if he lost. You can't complain."
      "You didn't vote. Maybe if you did you could complain, but you didn't even take part."

    13. Re:This is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping everyone in that mindset so that the people on the top running everything and owning the biggest companies can continue to make gigantic profits while the rest of the workers remain non-disruptive and work for dirt cheap is textbook communism.

      Try actually reading a book on communism some time, kiddo. You'll be mighty surprised.

    14. Re:This is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your " incredibly smart" co-workers in Shanghai are fooling you. China today is run by a small elite crew who is working hard to maintain the plutocracy that secures their position on top of the heap. All others, and this includes your "incredibly smart" co-workers have accepted the lies and deceptions that are being fed to them. There are too many riots and demonstrations happening around China for thinking people to accept your attempt to present China as a paradise on earth

  3. what do you mean "can not" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "had to explain to the Chinese assistants more than once that they could not turn in articles copied word for word from existing pieces they found online"

    sure you can in china, who cares there

  4. Why bothering! by aglider · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You cannot tell the truth (whatever this means) in a number of other countries .
    I wonder whether adding all those population numbers up you'll go higher than China's.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Why bothering! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bothering? You must be Chinese. Shitty English.

    2. Re:Why bothering! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Why bothering? You must be Chinese. Shitty English.

      I believe the word is study.

    3. Re:Why bothering! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The word was "stupid".

  5. The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the official religion of China was atheism instead of Christianity, none of this would be happening.

    1. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uuuummmm..... what?

      Christianity is in about 4% of the population; 42% of people in China define themselves as atheist or agnostic, and Buddhism and Daosim together make up another 48%.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

    2. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed the sarcasm tags

    3. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by boarder8925 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The whoosh is deafening.

    4. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      The official religion of China is loyalty to the Party. Atheism isn't a religion, so yes, if China actually had no religion, none of this would be happening.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    5. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting how loyalty to the officially atheistic Communist Party of China constitutes "religion" while loyalty to atheism itself doesn't. We're talking about worldviews here, not some cherry-picked definition of religion that only includes those views which you disagree with. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/212827/no-religion-chinese-communist-party.html

    6. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's something I always wondered, and I think you can help; is it tiring being retarded?

    7. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine trying to figure something out and it takes you two to three times as long to figure it out than it currently does.

      Yes, being retarded is indeed tiring. Well at least the act of thinking is tiring to a retard, not thinking is not tiring in the least, but the latter is true for non-retards also.

    8. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I can help since I know several mentally challenged individuals myself. It is often very tiring for them to try and have normal, rational conversations with others. Sometimes they give up tying and just resort to ad-hominem attacks and childish insults. In spite of this, we should not be angry with them because they really are trying hard and it's not their fault they can't rationally communicate their thoughts.

    9. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently China's religion is Notruescotsmanism.

    10. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. Atheism isn't a religion. The problem is, people keep finding ways to turn it into one. In the end, "true atheism" ends up being about as likely in reality, as a naked singularity.

    11. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods. Many of us simply aren't so stupid as to believe that the supernatural exists outside of story-telling, and gods get thrown out with all the other supernatural foolishness.

      captcha:atheism

    12. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      All atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods.

      Not believing in a god (or gods) is not the same as believing that there are no god(s).

      I understand that atheism is the latter.

    13. Re:The problem, of course, is religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I just say I'm not superstitious.

  6. *This* is what big governments *do* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How's this any different from banning Big Gulps?

    Big overweening governments do things like this "for your own good".

    1. Re:*This* is what big governments *do* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're referring to the NYC ban, 7-11, and therefore Big Gulps, are exempt.

    2. Re:*This* is what big governments *do* by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Which, frankly, just makes it even more funny. All they did was make it so that everyone has to abandon other corporations to go to the favored corporation for their fix.

  7. While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One also has to take their culture into context. THis is not the US or anywhere in the "West" for that matter, where our stand is put out all information in whatever form you want, and leave it up to the individual to determine what they want to read and what interpretation of events is correct.

    China's focus is more of an "internal harmony" approach, whereby maintaing social order is a higher priority than things such as freedom of the press. Many Chinese are perfectly ok with the government censoring certain things out of the media as it fits within their belief system of internal harmony (both Zen Buddhism and Daoism maintain this concept of balance) of both the self and society. But i think far more importantly is that here in the West we are taught shockingly little history of China, but if you have ever studied it you'll see that China has been beset 5 or 6 times by massive wars, several of whcih were huge revolutions against the existing regime, and during those wars millions of Chinese were killed. Most people are shocked to think of the destruction and loss of life during World War I and II; China has had several incidents in the past 2,000 years on that scale. The Chinese have a long memory, and they more than any other society are acutely aware of the dangers of revolution and challenges to the social order, and many are quite content to let things be if that means they don't have to go through another period like that.

    Again, here in the West we idolize social disturbance, and in fact I think we've done a good job overall in allowing it to come out so when it does come out now in the 20th and 21st centuries, it typically results in a political revolution instead of a violent one, and my own opinion is the Chinese approach simply represses those feelings which ultimately magnifies them and when revolution comes it blows up harder than it would have otherwise. But that's my own opinion; the Chinese seem to think differently.

    1. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many Chinese are perfectly ok with the government censoring

      The trick here is it's not "many" but "most".

      In a democracy, the majority wins. Even in China, the majority of people either: 1) support the current government, or 2) don't care enough to seek out change.
      In my personal experience, there's a LOT more of #2, but that doesn't change the fact that opposition numbers are low.

    2. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This.

      As one of the somewhat rare caucasian Americans who actually studied Mandarin for 5 years (during which included historical and cultural studies of predominantly mainland China but also Taiwan -- my focus was on the Han dynasty but was seconded by a fairly lengthy study of the Tiananmen incident), and for 6 months lived with a Chinese family state-side who had immigrated to the US, I'm often left shaking my head when reading highly opinionated or "dramatic" articles about China.

      In no way shape or form do I agree with the government's stance or behaviour on most things (especially their approach to handling certain media-oriented items), however stories like the above often seem to lack cultural context. I'm not trying to justify the government's behaviour, I'm saying if you understand the culture, the history, and the thought process that exists in China (both amongst people and government), much of what's considered "shocking and appalling" to the average American no longer applies. For example, the above article made me nod and think "still the same as it was 20 years ago", rather than read in disbelief.

      I can assure readers that there are much more nefarious and awful things that go on in China, just as there are equally horrible things that go on here in the United States.

      TL;DR -- it's important to understand the history, culture, and overall "societal demographic" of any foreign country, no matter if communist or otherwise. Before jumping on the stereotypic anti-communist bandwagon, it helps to get some context first, *then* draw a conclusion.

    3. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One also has to take their culture into context...

      And Muslims have a culture of abusing women, so we must tolerate that as well!

      Just because "its tradition", doesn't make it right.

    4. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by poity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hate when bullshit like this gets modded up.
      Do you also take the Religious Right's culture into context, and implore others to sympathize?
      Do you also take the racist rural white culture into context, and implore others to sympathize?
      When confronted with domestic abuse, do you say "well maybe she likes it, who are we to judge?"
      When conservatives say "don't disturb the social order" do you pipe up in their defense, because they too have a culture of their own?

      In your over-enthusiasm to be tolerant, you've embraced a type of paternalistic prejudice. You judge, albeit with a well-meaning heart, an entire nation of people with broad assumptions and meaningless generalizations. I find posts like yours only slightly less intolerable than overt racism.

      I'll tell you this as a Chinese person: The majority of Chinese aren't followers of the same organic vegan yoga-studio interpretation of Buddhism that you might be enamored with -- they follow a mixture of traditional local paganism that has been intertwined with figments of Buddhism over hundreds of years. They are not "ok" with government censorship, but through years of being powerless in the face of the government, the majority have taken on the attitude of "there's nothing to be done, so just cope."

      As you say, China has indeed been the geopolitical victim for much of its modern life, but having been bullied by foreign nations is not a argument for or a rational explanation of Chinese apathy. In fact, the government and nationalist groups/individuals have consistently relied on China's history of victimhood as a rallying cry for activism, though always for rights of the state and respect for the country, yet rarely if ever for rights of the people. There's a sentiment common among majority of Chinese internet users which I've noticed, and can be summarized as "no matter who's in charge [Imperial/foreign/GMD/CPC] we're always the downtrodden rabble." They're are not content, they merely deal with it the best they can since business, marriage, and finding a house they can afford are far more urgent matters. But that doesn't mean accept censorship, or embrace it as you imply.

      And no, people in the West don't "idolize social disturbance" either. In every nation there are conservatives who want stability above all. In the US, we have at least half who are adamantly conservative, and half again more who are nominally liberal but don't dare rock the boat. Your propensity to generalize the unfamiliar I've seen in friends and family back in China. When they ask me "Do Americans really do/believe/think this?" I have to explain to them "No, American attitudes are diverse, just like Chinese attitudes here are diverse."

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    5. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahem - for someone whose sig is "your thin skin doesn't make me a troll", you have remarkably thin skin yourself. The OPs post wasn't about tolerance, it was about context. The context here is that freedom of speech isn't nearly as important a concept to the Chinese as to us, and that the context in China therefore isn't "we like to be evil, therefore we censor", but rather "we value stability over free speech, therefore we censor".

      Now, is free speech more important stability? That's an entirely different question, as is whether free speech is a similar right as no being abused.

      Finally, you also have remarkably thin skin when it comes to generalizations. They're called generalizations for a reason, and they're a fine way to operate in this world - as long as you are aware that you are making generalizations. Not every posts needs to delve deeply into the subtleties of Chinese thought. Otherwise, every post would be about 200 pages long.

      I appreciate the context that you bring - but geez, lay off the hyperbole.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I say /fuck/ their culture.

      I'm going to categorically assert that western thinking is better. (At base level It leads to greater efficiences and more progress.)
      Sure, Eastern culture is 4000 years old. It's 4000 years of pissing around and naval gazing.
      China's recent success is direct result of their adoption of westernization. In 50 years they've gone from dirt farmers (literally thousands of years of zero progress) to a world power.

      Good people won't let Chinese citizens accept that it's their lot in lives to be shit on by the powerful. "Harmony" is a euphemism for "lay down and let the powerful exploit you"

      The Chinese politicians are terrified of information because someday soon the public will realize that they'll do a whole lot better simply by taking fate in to their own hands.

      They're one literally one recession away from complete and total revolution. They've had a taste of good life. Life where hopes and expectations can be fufilled and actual hard work can make your life better. Just one generation ago you could expect to be worked to the bone on some shit farm out in the middle of nowhere and that would be your life weather you liked it or not. Now, those farmer's kids have apartments in the cities, flat screen TVs, and the internet. 1 generation from iron age to modern civilization.

      When the recension hits, it will hit hard. China's finances are a house of cards built on more houses of cards, which in turn all lay on a shifting sandy earthquake prone ground that is also somehow made out of cards.

        All the benefits of modern life will go away, but the people will not accept their fates because the party tells them too. Heads will roll. The PRC will come to a bloody end.

    7. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by poity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems Chinese (and "distant" foreigners like other Asians, Middle Easterners) have to deal with two sides of prejudice -- one end regards us as soulless and less than human, the other fetishizes us to irreproachable heights.

      Chinese thought process is not much different from the thought process of anyone else around the world. Their desire for comfort, for love, for every bit of freedom they can get to live without encumbrance is no less than yours. When housing prices are astronomical, they blame speculators and mafia-connected developers; when street cops beat up unlicensed vendors trying their best to survive, they blame the uncompromising inhumanity of the law; when there is melamine in milk and kids get sick, they blame greedy companies and regulatory complicity; when government waste stares at them in the face, they shake their heads and wonder where the country is headed; when the rich do as they please without regard they take offense; when they see heartlessness towards the common man they stand with him in anger, when they see the weak treated with indecency they offer their most heartfelt sympathy.

      But they cannot do any of those things too loudly, you see. They cannot desire too loudly, blame too loudly, wonder too loudly, take offense too loudly, gather together too loudly, show anger too loudly, or sympathize too loudly. It's not because they don't want to express themselves to that degree, it's because there are consequences for doing so -- consequences not only from the government, but from society itself which has normalized towards repression. Think of it this way: how publicly and how vociferously can a church member dissent within his congregation and still be regarded as faithful? He wouldn't dare, he would only do what little he can while bending over backwards to not be ostracized. It is not culture, it is a social disease, and by elevating it to culture in a pretense of tolerance and understanding you give it legitimacy.

      With that said, however, those who are not Chinese cannot do anything themselves to help. Change has to come from the Chinese people. But know that when you unwittingly make excuses and give support to the illnesses that afflict China, you make the job of those Chinese who wish to cure it that much more difficult.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    8. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by shadowofwind · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hate when bullshit like this gets modded up.
      Do you also take the Religious Right's culture into context, and implore others to sympathize?
      Do you also take the racist rural white culture into context, and implore others to sympathize?

      I think these are both good examples. Americans outside the religious right mostly do not understand the religious right, and see only a caricature of it. Likewise for rural racists. I'm strongly against both the religious right and against white racists. However, I still think its worth trying to see them for what they are, so as to deal with them more realistically, rather than attributing characteristics to them that they don't actually have.

      Of course people who try to 'explain' China are going to be annoyingly wrong about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean its not worth trying to understand better anyway.

      I used to work in the drone/surveillance/defense industry. I left it, at some sacrifice, because it became clear to me that it was wrong. My Chinese friends and family had no arguments against my views about what that industry is, but all argued against my actually doing something about my part in it. To them, financial advantages for one's own family always trump all other considerations. I realize that Chinese people I know are not a representative sample of Chinese people in China. And I see Americans of European descent to be self-serving, amoral, and cowardly in a similar sort of way. But a significant minority of white Americans at least understand what I did, whereas I haven't interacted with a Chinese person who seems to understand at all.

      There's a difference between resenting censorship and actually being willing to do what it takes to change it. And it appears to me that Chinese reflexes about harmony and pragmatism do partially account for why there is censorship, even though there are a lot of other reasons also.

      Sadly, I don't think modern American's have enough of what it takes to fight for certain kinds of civil liberties either. I think we're where we are mostly for historical reasons, and as we do loose our freedom there isn't much will to get it back.

    9. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      "Harmony" is a euphemism for "lay down and let the powerful exploit you"

      No, that's "Democracy".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    10. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Internal harmony?" What, like apartheid, slavery, the concentration camps? "Internal harmony" at what expense? If you suppress free speech and impose draconian punishments, you will get your "internal harmony" at least on the surface. That's the Chinese model.

      That thousand years of "Chinese" history is just another form of psychological shackle, drilled into the minds of very "Chinese" citizen since birth. It's an artificial memory implanted by the government propaganda office. The ethnocentric "Chinese" world view is a fallacy. If you look at the historical map of China, the ethnic composition, and genetic make up of the "Chinese" people there is no one unifying commonality, other than the fact that all those people live under the rule of the current Beijing government and most of them do not have the choice to be anything but "Chinese" with its government imposed thousands year old history.

      The bottom line is, the "Chinese" people are no different from any other people. Like most people, they want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That historical mystical eastern Chinese thinking is just a government smoke screen.

    11. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about the only reply on here that speaks the truth. The two words I heard the most in China over my several years there was "nimen". My eyes roll Pavlovian style whenever I hear the phrase now.

    12. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Original poster here; I rarely post on slashdot so I just throw in the occasional AC).

      Wow, what a horrible response. I so rarely encounter a liberal bigot, although sad to say it's not my first time.

      1) I never asked for sympathy, as another responder mentioned, I simply provided context. I thought by mentioning that I had a different opinion would provide readers with own perspective that I don't agree with it.

      2) I'm white, non-denominational Christian, and I'm actually not enamored with Buddhism; I find it has some severe flaws religiously and philosophically. I have spent 15 years working in and with Asian nations, China in particular but also Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. My undergrad was in Chinese History with a minor in Mandarin. I worked in CHina for several years, and have numerous friends on both sides of the Pacific, both Asian American, Asian immigrant to America, and still living in Asia. I speak strictly from my experience and what I've heard from the people I know, as well as numerous cultural analyses written by both Western and Eastern social scientists. I've met and spoken with people in the cities and in the countryside (many countryside workers in our factories), which might as well be two different cultures at this point. So i know a little something about what I'm talking about.

      3) You are more bigoted than I am. The "racist rural white culture"? The Religious Right? I take an approach where all people generally consider themselves good, and have logical or moral reasons for the views they hold, whether I agree with those reasons or not. I generally try to avoid name-calling and stereotyping. So I actually attempt to understand where people are coming from, because you make a lot more progress on issues when you understand those who oppose your issues.

      A poor translation but: "He who knows his enemy and himself well will not be defeated easily. He who knows himself but not his enemy, will have an even chance of victory. He who does not know himself and his enemy, is bound to suffer defeat in all battles." -Sun Tzu

      Also, for the record despite being non-white it's still racist to label an entire class of white people as racist, when many who live in rural areas are just normal folks. Take out "rural white" and input "suburban black" or "Chinese immigrant", if it then sounds racist, then it's racist.

      You have a lot of hatred in you. You read a post and automatically assume it's some sort of overtolerant racist crap, and jump down and post all sorts of slanderous meaningless jargon such as assuming I blame the victim of domestic abuse, which has no bearing on the context of this discussion. Considering you wrote this and didn't say it, so you actually had a chance to calm down and speak logically, and chose to post anyways, states that you do not know the hatred in yourself, and view it as logic. As a right leaning (socially moderate) semi-religious Christian over-tolerant-to-the-point-of racism white male, I pray for you to find happiness.

    13. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Your argument isn't internally self-consistent. You can't cite a history of unrest, civil war, and warlordism as proof of an inherent tendency toward orderliness and complacency in the Chinese character. Neither Buddhism nor Taoism (or Islam for that matter - there are many Chinese Muslims) has stopped people from being revolutionaries in the past. So what accounts for Chinese the current complacency toward the government?

      The history of China is a history of bureaucratic inertia, court infighting and official corruption squandering China's abundant native resolution and ingenuity. Officials have always tried to hide bad news, either from their superiors or from the people, and the communist party is simply practicing more of the same. They get away with it for now because over the last generation the material welfare of most people in China has gotten better. People don't overthrow regimes when they feel like there is progress, even if the regimes are somewhat corrupt and self-serving. At present people badly served by the party can be marginalized -- rural provincials, Uyghurs, religious minorities -- all can be swept under the rug of up-and-coming urban masses. At present.

      The Communists have had control of China for just over 60 years now. That's not very long in the history of China. When the party faces a serious crisis of confidence, you'll see exactly how complacent the Chinese people are. If there were a society where everyone was always on time, that society wouldn't have a word for "punctuality". In a world where nobody lied, "honesty" wouldn't be in the dictionary. The fact that "stability" is such an important part of the Chinese political lexicon should tell you something.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has indeed been the geopolitical victim for much of its modern life, but having been bullied by foreign nations is not a argument for or a rational explanation of Chinese apathy

      Granted, this is offtopic, but I hope it is also interesting.

      Could someone point out the above to, oh, I don't know, Israel? One of the religions in that state have been geopolitical victims (before the creation of the state, at any rate), but that is not an argument for apartheid!

    15. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by coma_bug · · Score: 1

      China's focus is more of an "internal harmony" approach, whereby maintaing social order is a higher priority than things such as freedom of the press.

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK

    16. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read Orientalism from Edward Said? It is groundbreaking book that explains how your first statement:

      "It seems Chinese (and "distant" foreigners like other Asians, Middle Easterners) have to deal with two sides of prejudice -- one end regards us as soulless and less than human, the other fetishizes us to irreproachable heights."

      is an opinion more founded in your idea about the East than what actually happens in East.

      I appreciate your comments and feel that you are a smart guy, so I wanted to share what I feel is missing from these kind of discussions every time they come up. Not just on Slashdot but in general. The book is better than I write so I won't say further.

    17. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

      I have an idea, why doesn't the U.S. and other western countries apply a tarrif against any product from China that is made by workers making 75% or less of the U.S. minimum wage? This would raise a powerful middle class in China which may, just may, be able to challenge all the B.S. censorship their Communist leaders/overloards are heaping on them! I know this sounds idealistic, but, don't 2/3rds or so of the worlds population diserve better?

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    18. Re:While I don't agree with China's censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe this focus on "internal harmony" is the reason the Chinese are always lamenting about not being creative and innovative.

  8. @article by Ruede · · Score: 0

    well that sounds like any other press room on this planet where the journalists are questioning the official and signed off "truth". but why again is it bad in china and necessary in our homelands?

  9. No Innovation by shawnhcorey · · Score: 1

    China's censorship will suppress ideas and reduce innovation. They are currently enjoying an economic boom but that will slow down as wages increase (and they will). How does China expect people to innovate when they're afraid of collaborating? Censorship never helps an economy.

    --
    Don't stop where the ink does.
    1. Re:No Innovation by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Censorship never helps an economy.

      It's not designed to. It's only desinged to do one thing: protect those in power. Those in power would gladly trade off a little economic growth for more government stability. History has shown that the PRC government fears 2 things: looking bad and dissent. You could see this during the Olympics, and you can really see it right now with the upcoming power transition. Just like the USSR before it, they have to maintain the illusion of power and superiority. By maintaining control on certain things such as the media, it indoctrinates the people to accept government control in other parts of their life, whether the government actually has control or not. From the view of an authoritiarian government, the illusion of control is jsut as good, if not better, than actual control, because people and society eventually start controlling themselves, reducing the burden of control on the state.

      What's ironic is that communism is supposed to be about the power of the people, how the people govern themselves. Yet the actions of the PRC government, and indeed the actions of most Communist governments, show through the fear they have of their own people how strong teh people really are, and how weak the system is. They are like a house of cards that they claim is glued together but are afraid people will realize how easy it is to remove a card. If they start removing those cards eventually they will remove the wrong one and the whole house will come crashing down.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:No Innovation by shawnhcorey · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's ironic is that communism is supposed to be about the power of the people...

      Communism has become Newspeak for totalitarianism. Just like the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Bad governments can change the meaning of words faster than you can think.

      --
      Don't stop where the ink does.
    3. Re:No Innovation by Guppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Communism has become Newspeak [wikipedia.org] for totalitarianism.

      And the Newspeak was right in the names of the countries; the more often you saw "Democratic" and "People's" on the label, the more oppressive you could bet the country would turn out to be:

      West Germany: "Federal Republic of Germany" vs. East Germany: "German Democratic Republic"
      Taiwan: "Republic of China" vs. Mainland China: "People's Republic of China"
      South Korea: "Republic of Korea" vs. North Korea: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

      "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'The People's Stick.'" --Mikhail Bakunin

    4. Re:No Innovation by Ltap · · Score: 1

      Ignoring that the "Republic of China" and "Republic of Korea" were both military dictatorships at various times.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    5. Re:No Innovation by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      "History has shown that the PRC government fears 2 things: looking bad and dissent."

      Not just dissent. But anything that can leads to dissent, including extreme nationalism.

      The current anti-Japan movement caused by the dispute of ownership of Diaoyu Islands is actually not very welcome by the PRC government. This is because, the PRC don't want anything that can be used against their own. The PRC don't want any trouble with Japan because of economic relations, but if they let the people riot against Japanese establishments, sooner or later they will turn their head against their own (PRC) government for being too "chicken". The PRC exactly doesn't want to see it happen.

  10. "footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillies" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Informative

    >> sometimes discovered footprints on the toilet seats at work

    Some context here - "normal" toilets in China don't have anything to sit on, so you squat over the hole or bowl, depending on your location. I believe this phrase was meant to indicate that this woman had to work in the same office as some unsophisticated Chinese citizens.

  11. The next article on China needs a positive spin by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    "How to Circumvent Censorship and live to tell about it"

    And then spread the word globally.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My first thought was that she meant there were people hiding in stalls to spy on people, as in listening to people talk in the bathroom. But your comment makes more sense. I guess I'm just paranoid.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  13. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite common to see instructions on how to use a western toilet in western companies who expect to get chinese visitors from time to time.

  14. No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambiguous by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How's this any different from banning Big Gulps?

    Well, the ban on big gulps is not a ban on soda or even how much soda you can buy, it's a ban on the convenience of selling massive amounts of soda in the interest of public health. Also, the ban is clearly defined and written into law. If you read the article, you would get a taste of the ambiguity and the surprising way that censorship in China can bite you in the ass. It's neither codified nor tested in a court of law, it just happens.

    Big overweening governments do things like this "for your own good".

    Big overweening governments also require you to have car insurance and wear seat belts and now it's illegal to smoke in bars almost everywhere and dump your fecal matter in rivers -- on top of a number of other things that you're not bitching about. You are free not to live in NYC where Big Gulps are banned but if that experiment turns out to have a positive effect on health, you'll see a lot of other cities follow (similar to no smoking in public restaurants and dumping fecal matter in rivers). That fine line may be felt out by governments but at least it's well defined when they tell you what is and is not legal.

    Are you really comparing your rights to buy soda in 64 oz containers with your right to free speech and free criticism of the government? Really? You see those as two equivocal "overweening" acts? Please.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  15. Flags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aversion to flags is understandable if you remember that, according to the PRC government, Taiwan is a rogue province and not a separate country. Taiwan is part of the PRC (according to Beijing). Sovereign nations have flags, provinces don't. Showing a Taiwanese flag reminds people that there is a government in Taiwan that does not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC, and that government has enough control so that those flags are flown throughout the province of Taiwan.

    I'm posting as an AC because I don't want to be slammed because someone didn't bother to read my post carefully. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the PRCs or Taiwan's stance on this issue. I'm simply stating the situation as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the PRC and has discussed the whole Taiwan issue with numerous PRC citizens.

    1. Re:Flags by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

      The aversion to flags is understandable if you remember that, according to the PRC government, Taiwan is a rogue province and not a separate country. Taiwan is part of the PRC (according to Beijing). Sovereign nations have flags, provinces don't. Showing a Taiwanese flag reminds people that there is a government in Taiwan that does not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC, and that government has enough control so that those flags are flown throughout the province of Taiwan.

      I'm posting as an AC because I don't want to be slammed because someone didn't bother to read my post carefully. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the PRCs or Taiwan's stance on this issue. I'm simply stating the situation as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the PRC and has discussed the whole Taiwan issue with numerous PRC citizens.

      I'm not going to slam you for talking about Taiwan, I'm going to slam you for not reading the article. From the article:

      In addition to the uptick in phone calls, her emails, too, grew more expansive and personal. She had told me once that we couldn't put a Chinese flag on the cover (I still don't understand why), and so I wrote her to ask if we could run a cover image that suggested a flag more abstractly, with yellow stars against a wash of red. She wrote back in Chinese:

      Dear Little One,

      Stars are definitely not okay either, please please do not take the risk.

      I once published, in a newspaper, a picture of a book put out by the German embassy, introducing China and Germany's investment cooperation. The book's cover had a big stream on it, half of it the colors of the German flag, half of it red with yellow stars. I decided since it wasn't a flag it was okay, and sent it to print. Our newspaper office was slapped with a fine of 180,000 yuan [today, around $28,000] and I had to write a self-criticism and take a big salary cut.

      Quite a lesson, yes? Sigh -- we must remember it well.

      Could you please explain to me why the Chinese flag couldn't be on the cover? Or why some elements of the German flag cost them around $28,000 in fines? Are they not recognized governments by the Chinese governments?

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Flags by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Could you please explain to me why the Chinese flag couldn't be on the cover? Or why some elements of the German flag cost them around $28,000 in fines? Are they not recognized governments by the Chinese governments?

      The Chinese flag is the property of the Chinese government, in the name of The People. They decide how, when, and where it shall be used, like the federal seal. Using elements of the German flag might imply Germanization of China, or even that Germany is an equal to China, either of which would clearly be unacceptable as China always has been, is, and always will be the greatest nation on Earth, etc etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Flags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using elements of the German flag might imply Germanization of China, or even that Germany is an equal to China

      What? Okay, now you're just making crap up. A story about German companies in a magazine on business showing a landscape of Germany with elements of the Germany flag surrounding it is worthy of a $28k fine because ... you claim the Chinese government thinks it implies Germanization of China? Uhhhhhhhh right ....

    4. Re:Flags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eldavojohn,

      No, I can't explain that. The only remotely reasonable explanation would be that having elements of the Chinese flag would be interpreted as the publication being official from the government, but I doubt that's the reason, so no, I can't explain it. It makes no sense. I was only trying to explain the problem with the photo that contained the Taiwan flag. You're right. It makes no sense.

      And you're also right - I did not read the article.

    5. Re:Flags by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      All Australian states have their own flags. China should just create provincial flags and stop worrying about it. :)

      Of course, Australia is a federation, like the US... And China certainly doesn't want its provinces to start thinking secessionally. (Do Autonomous Regions get flags?)

    6. Re:Flags by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Sovereign nations have flags, provinces don't.

      You should see some of the flag poles around here. Besides the US flag, you often see the flags for Pennsylvania and Montgomery County as well. I never knew we were such a hotbed of secessionism.

    7. Re:Flags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese flag is the property of the Chinese government, in the name of The People. They decide how, when, and where it shall be used, like the federal seal.

      So it's owned "by the people" yet the people can't use it as they see fit? Instead a central authority has to grant permission in order for you to use it? My oh my how public domain has become twisted in China!

    8. Re:Flags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sovereign nations have flags, CHINESE provinces don't. The idea is that a province should not have its own flag, especially one that is flown without the presence of the national flag - the PRC flag. In the US, I have never seen a state flag flown unless there was a US flag in very close proximity, and the US flag was at least as high as the state flag if not higher.

      I never new that counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had their own flags. Thanks. I learned something new today.

    9. Re:Flags by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What? Okay, now you're just making crap up.

      So are you, if you have a point, then make it.

      A story about German companies in a magazine on business showing a landscape of Germany with elements of the Germany flag surrounding it is worthy of a $28k fine because ... you claim the Chinese government thinks it implies Germanization of China?

      If it doesn't promote China then it's bad, mmkay? If it promotes any other nation then it's bad, mmkay? You just have to think the way they think.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was wondering about that... was she saying they didn't know to keep their legs wide? I would think any female adult would learn that pretty quickly (men not needing to worry about that specific issue)

    If i stand up here, i'm a whole 2" higher!!! Noone will EVER see me...

  17. absurdity is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Not sure if you noticed, but the absurdity is global. The major difference is that the Chinese have no access to decent info through censorship, whereas the majority of Westerners have no access because the sheer flood of junk info that is coming our way.

    The amount of people who choose not to consume any useful information is staggering.

    1. Re:absurdity is everywhere by arpad1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure if you noticed, but it's absurd to compare voluntary ignorance resulting from having too much information from which to choose to mandated ignorance that helps keep in power an authoritarian elite trying to hang onto that power a little longer even though their decrepit ideology has been repudiated everywhere people have the option to do so.

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:absurdity is everywhere by fredprado · · Score: 0

      No it is not, because in the end the results are very similar.

    3. Re:absurdity is everywhere by Millennium · · Score: 1

      The outcome may be similar in some ways -though in truth, I think it's less so than you believe- but at least in the West it comes through a more just process. Outcome isn't everything.

    4. Re:absurdity is everywhere by fredprado · · Score: 2

      Outcome is actually everything. Allowing you a delusion of freedom is even more effective than controlling you by fear.

    5. Re:absurdity is everywhere by arpad1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not even close to similar. Nothing in common at all and to suggest there is is evidence less of a desire to illuminate then to obscure. Or to find excuses for a failed and brutal ideology.

      The Chinese leadership is trying to keep a lid on popular dissent by trying to enforce ignorance of factors which might lead to popular dissent and answers to no one on that score. In representative governments censorship is always a lively issue with those in favor of this or that convenient form of censorship finding themselves very often on the recieving end of unwelcomed attention and not infrequently losing their bid to impose censorship and just occasionally their position of political influence as well.

      That's why the results are also not remotely similar. A Chinese citizen who wishes to educate themselves on some contentious issue is very likely to find their way as thoroughly blocked as the strenuous efforts of the Chinese government allows. A British, French or American citizen who wishes to remedy their ignorance on a previously ignored topic will find no such impediments in their path and, as like as not, find information on the topic from government officials.

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    6. Re:absurdity is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outcome is actually everything. Allowing you a delusion of freedom is even more effective than controlling you by fear.

      That's just what the terrorists want you to believe!

      Romney 2012, bring back the zombie apocalypse!

    7. Re:absurdity is everywhere by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Please explain ... how is a society where the majority are apathetic and ignorant versus an oppressive government that uses 1984 as their handbook to stifle creativity, truth, and just outright murder people they find inconvenient?

      --
      Free "Ai Weiwei"
      * http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2012/10/taking-great-firewall-china
      * http://www.newstatesman.com/media/media/2012/10/ai-weiwei-if-someone-not-free-i-am-not-free

    8. Re:absurdity is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you're trolling, or just stupid.

      I could pay for a TV or radio ad saying "Hey everyone, look up X information, located at Y web address", and it would be perfectly legal. Provided X information and Y address are actually legal. If it's a site about how to smuggle children across the border or something, that's obviously promoting and encouraging illegal activity. But if the information is say... whatever that site is that lists what promises the president kept/broke... that'd be perfectly legal. In China... not so much.

      People chosing to be stupid, but are still capable of obtaining information if motivated to do so, is a far cry different than being forced to remain stupid, with no legal way of changing that fact.

    9. Re:absurdity is everywhere by fredprado · · Score: 1

      No it is not. When most people willingly choose to remain stupid it is exactly the same in the end. Induced apathy and disinformation are much more efficient means of control than censure.

    10. Re:absurdity is everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese have every reason to distrust capitalism. After what they suffered from the colonial powers, including the USA, in the 19th century, and from the Japanese then and later, it is a wonder that they even talk to us today. What they have works for them. Our way is better for us, but not necessarily for them. Propaganda works. We call it advertising

    11. Re:absurdity is everywhere by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Having lived extensively in both places I would like to say two things:
      1) Censorship in China is real and SUPPORTED by most Chinese people. They truly do not want to know, they don't want outside opinions that would complicate their world view and their world. They just want to buy more stuff, that is all. The minority that wants censorship to end is educated activist and dedicated to their idea of freedom. But they are part of a self-focused minority that can be rolled up and thrown away whenever the government chooses to get tough.

      2) I've been back here for almost a year and a half, and you ought to be embarrassed. I mean, really, FOX FUCKING NEWS????? CNN, MSNBC????? When I was in China I went to Al Jaziera to get real and reliable news, here in the US, I have to go to Al Jaziera again to get real decent news. This is not freedom, this is tyranny and censorship by commercial interests. You are blinded by the sameness of the crapola you are allowed to watch on TV into believing that it must be true. It is not, it is all bullshit on your TVs, and while Chinese TV is no better, it is really no worse. either

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  18. Re:But capitalism sucks... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But capitalism sucks and socialism is the way to go!

    What part of the article indicated or led you to believe that this is a problem of socialism or capitalism and not one of basic human rights and government corruption?

    Also, can you tell me which country is more socialist and which is more capitalist, USA or China? Both are working hard to meet each other in the middle.

    Representation can be achieved in capitalism as well as socialism. Ethical versus morally corrupt politicians can arise in either system with ease. Why do you change the focus from one of criticism of abuse of universal human rights to some bullshit political thing?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  19. Read TFA! by bobetov · · Score: 1

    Most of the stuff that gets posted to SlashDot these days is blogspam, advertisements... junk in other words. This is not. It's an excellent read that offers a real picture of life in the new China.

    RTFA is kind of a joke, but in this case you won't regret it.

    --
    Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
    1. Re:Read TFA! by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      I read TFA. Now where is my diploma? You said there would be a diploma!

  20. Corrupt Cronyism's the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've done business in China, all of these low level censorship things, they're just garbage. If you wanted to print that empty bowl picture, you would just hand him 100 yuan and 'Snow' would suddenly change his opinion.

    I had an official at immigration raise all sorts of problems, she was highlighting a paper in front of me and I could see a list of foreigners names and how much they'd paid (the stamp I was after is normally only a few $). She would carefully highlight the price paid with the currency, one after the next, all big numbers. Eventually I suggested a 100 yuan, it was accepted and all the problems mentioned just went away.

    It's an interesting bargaining position, the numbers she was highlighting was ridiculous, like equivalent to $800. I don't think anyone actually paid that, it's just to push the price up you offer as the bribe to make the problems go away. Of course you could argue and argue, and maybe get it for the real price, in a month or two.

    Oh, but you wanted to make a political point. China sucks, I'm glad to be out of it, and it is not communism or socialism, it's corrupt DICTATORSHIP run by self serving greedy cronies. 'Romneys' if you want a label for them, they're Romneys, and they have their propaganda very similar to Fox News.

    1. Re:Corrupt Cronyism's the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of immigration problems did you have? I've been to China 10 times since 2007 and I have never, ever had a problem with immigration, and I am of European ancestry, not Asian. (It helps that I speak Mandarin.) In fact, as amusing as this sounds, it's easier for me as a US citizen to enter China (once I have a visa, of course) than it is for me as a US citizen to re-enter the USA after returning from any foreign country.

  21. Just think by AntiBasic · · Score: 1, Troll

    Just think that Krugman and Friedman want America to be more like China.

    1. Re:Just think by saihung · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is that a comment you can explain, or does your mommy not know you're using her ./ account again?

  22. Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In sweden the 3rd largest political party still get bullied by the mainstream media.
    Their main message is to stop immigration until we solve the problems we have with the immigrants who have not been properly integrated with swedish society yet. Also to avoid rising unemployment rates due to importing unemployable (illiterates) people by the truckload.

    Complaints by smaller counties who get overrun by immigrants they can not take care of get silenced.
    Police does not give a description of a criminal if it is an immigrant.
    Any offence against an immigrant get blown out of proportion, recently a somalian woman claimed some kids had poured a glass of milk on her kid. Media covered it for 2 weeks, a rally supporting the somalians in the tiny community which had had 200 somalians to take care of. After all this, turns out noone had poured a glass of milk on her kid and all of a sudden all was silent again.
    Meanwhile, gangrape at gunpoint of a swedish girl by 3 immigrants gets silenced for a year.

    Until censorship in my own country gets taken care of, I don't think I am in any position to judge china.

    As a sidenote, censorship in china is probably a bit complex, I am here right now and every day there is some controversal news with quite graphical material being shown, yesterday there was a big piece about teachers for 4-8 year olds who abused their students. One clip showed a teacher slapping a kid 10 times in a row, another a teacher throwing a kid around and 3rd some photos of a girl whose ear was cut off by her teacher, yes they showed the cut off ear too. I am fairly certain that would not have been shown at home, and I could see from the faces of the 100 people in the restaurant everyone was pissed off.

  23. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't find this unsophisticated. i pee the same way to avoid germs and bacteria. it only makes sense to avoid contact with the shit bowl....

  24. Re:But capitalism sucks... by houghi · · Score: 2

    Socialism and capitalism are not exclusive. Where capitalism talks about private ownership socialism talks about ownership of a group.
    This means that it can even be a private group.

    Where they differ is where the profits go to. Capitalism is more directed to the individuals, like the CEO. Socialism is more for the people, by the people (See what I did there?)

    And no system by itself will be good without at least a bit of the others. For all systems there can be failures found. The reason is that people will go overboard in one direction, no matter what that direction is.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  25. Plagiarism in China? SHOCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And had to explain to the Chinese assistants more than once that they could not turn in articles copied word for word from existing pieces they found online.

    Oh God, it's like grad school all over again.

    But seriously, what do you expect? It's a culture built on shameless plagiarism and copyright abuse. You need look no further than the huge Cisco parts scandal to see my point in all this.

  26. Re:Plagiarism in China? SHOCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And had to explain to the Chinese assistants more than once that they could not turn in articles copied word for word from existing pieces they found online.

    Oh God, it's like grad school all over again.

    But seriously, what do you expect? It's a culture built on shameless plagiarism and copyright abuse. You need look no further than the huge Cisco parts scandal to see my point in all this.

    (made in china)

  27. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

    True but the toilets she mentioned obviously had seats, because she told us they did.

  28. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    I'm a moron, I misunderstood what you were getting at. The experiment to cut back on caffeine is looking to be a failure. BRB getting more coffee.

  29. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They use squat toilets a lot in Taiwan and China and Asian countries.

    They're great for public toilets because you don't have to touch anything.

    Sometimes people are a bit retarded and stand/squat on the sit-down toilets... in Taiwan it's like 50/50 squat/sit, so anyone that isn't fucking dumb should know not to stand on the goddamned toilet, but people do, because they are idiots.

  30. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Are you really comparing your rights to buy soda in 64 oz containers with your right to free speech and free criticism of the government? Really? You see those as two equivocal "overweening" acts? Please.

    One step at a time. The argument is that it's good for public health for them to tell you what you're permitted to put into your body. Sound familiar? Maybe this is good for public health. It's still a real slippery slope based on the historical evidence. This might be an entirely benign attempt to improve life, but if history is any guide, it will have negative repercussions when others take advantage of the situation to push their own agendas for reasons which have nothing to do with public health.

    Government's job in commerce should be to prevent fraud. If they want to ban substances for the good of public health, they should start with alcohol. We know how that went last time. Prohibition is essentially wrongheaded whether it's about alcohol, coca-cola, or cocaine.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and dump your fecal matter in rivers

    Directly affects other people, and not just through mere tax dollars.

    You are free not to live in NYC where Big Gulps are banned

    You're also free not to live in the US. Doesn't make it right to infringe on people's rights.

    Funny how some people are called whiners when they say that they don't want to pay more taxes, but when it comes to banning 'unhealthy' things in order to avoid paying more taxes, that's perfectly okay. I for one would be more than willing to pay more taxes if it meant not having a nanny state.

  32. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The argument is that it's good for public health for them to tell you what you're permitted to put into your body.

    It's not a ban on soda, it's a ban on the size of soda one can buy in one purchase. Like the ban on the number of bullets a gun can hold. Or the ban on the amount of alcohol you can drink before you get behind the wheel of a vehicle!

  33. moral equivalence by argStyopa · · Score: 0

    For those that love to play the moral equivalence card, please keep this in mind when equating the US and China over whatever whine you have today.

    The US has MANY, many things wrong with it; some are things it neglects to do, some are things it does or has done (there seems to be no statute of limitations on historical grievances against the US); some things it's responsible for that are downright morally repugnant.

    But without a doubt, the US is nowhere in the same league as China on pretty much any moral scale you care to measure. (I'd have thought that was clear since the revelation that China sells felons' body parts, but hey...)

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:moral equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the difference- it really is far worse in China than it is here.

      What I disagree with is the way your post comes off- "shut up and eat your gruel and be thankful for it."

      The reason the USA is better off than China is because we can fight when things are bad. NOT because things aren't bad here- they are.

      What is great about our country is that we can and do criticize our government, corporations, religions, and culture.

    2. Re:moral equivalence by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I'm genuinely sorry if I implied that in words or tone.

      Stating that there are some things that the US has done that are "morally repugnant" was meant to acknowledge that in the strongest terms possible.

      What I object to are the people - common in the internet wilderness - who demonize this country and its leaders, usually to validate their own political beliefs. (FWIW, neither Bush nor Cheney were "Hitlerian", nor is Obama a 'secret muslim bent on destroying our country' nor 'a cryptocommunist'. Democrats aren't modern-day Jacobites looking to decapitate everyone making more than $40k/year, nor are Republicans all top-hat-wearing Monopoly guys hoping to exploit "just one more sweatshop", nor are they all frothing born-again evangelists trying to extirpate anything against their creed-of-the-day.)

      In my mind, it's like regarding as equivalent someone who agonizes over and then turns himself in for shoplifting, and a sociopathic serial murderer. Yes, both did "something wrong", but orders of magnitude different in both scope and context.

      The "Trail of Tears" (4000 dead) was shameful, but honestly *nothing* in comparison to (for example) the Chinese 'Great Leap Forward' (18-32 million deaths), the Holocaust (5-16 million) or even Russian anti-Jewish pogroms (70-250k). To even suggest it in the same breath of equivalence is frankly mendacious.

      The US internment of Japanese during WW2 was a blot on our national character both in execution and in principle, but (almost) laughable when compared to industrialized and continual internment programs like the Soviet Gulags or even more recent Balkan efforts at ethnic cleansing through genocide and institutional rape.

      And the US implementation of slavery is perhaps the most indelible and persistent moral accusation against the US, one that the Founding Fathers 'punted' on and which thereby resulted in the bloodiest US war ever. To criticize the US on it, one has to begin with an almost amnesiac disregard for the historical context of the previous centuries, and simultaneously disregard the sacrifice of nearly 400,000 Americans who gave everything to end slavery (as much as the war may have technically been about state's rights, the overwhelming motivation of the Union soldiery was to 'end slavery').

      There is definitely a place to criticize the US's conduct and policies; I daresay our system REQUIRES that we do so. I think some of the things we've done are reprehensible.

      But let's try just a teensy bit to keep it in perspective, and not blow everything out of proportion just to get "our guy" in office, yes?

      --
      -Styopa
  34. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how some people are called whiners when they say that they don't want to pay more taxes, but when it comes to banning 'unhealthy' things in order to avoid paying more taxes, that's perfectly okay.

    Where in the post you replied to did the poster call people whiners for not paying taxes? Do you always win arguments by constructing straw men and then knocking them down with ease?

    I for one would be more than willing to pay more taxes if it meant not having a nanny state.

    Lookout everybody, Anonymous Coward is taking a stand!

  35. No idea by axehind · · Score: 1

    After reading the article, I have to admit, I had no idea it was that censored in China. I had heard about it, but did not know it was that extensive.

  36. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One step at a time. The argument is that it's good for public health for them to tell you what you're permitted to put into your body. Sound familiar?

    Yeah like that time they wanted us to wear seat belts! Now we have to have airbags and we are chained to our seats in straight jackets with restraints on our foreheads and our eyes are peeled open so we're forced to watch the road and ... oh, wait, that didn't happen. I guess sometimes they can take little steps and never cross the line into absurdity.

  37. Three T's my ass by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jeez, not a mention of what China actually censors. Did she actually run a magazine? I ran an English magazine in China. Here's what my censor told me:

    The forbidden topics are in three categories, color-coded for your convenience. The colors have cultural significance, if you're in to that sort of thing. The first, YELLOW. Yellow is pornography (think of "blue movies" and you'll get the color reference). Don't print anything too sexy. This one's pretty easy. Moving on: RED. Anti-government activity. Falun Gong, Tibetan separatists, Xinjiang separatists, talking about local unrest, protests, etc. Anything that makes the government look bad, basically. BLACK, mafia and crime. As the mafia competes with the government for authority and taxes, this one seems a no-brainer as well. Don't report about the gambling den that takes up an entire floor of a local 5-star hotel and you'll be fine.

    For all other topics not covered above, follow the lead of Xinhua News.

    I know I'm going to get some dumbass in here saying something like "but Chinese publications break these rules all the time!" Yes. Chinese publications. Foreigners in China, especially those in communications, have this obsession with overthrowing the system...in English. Basically, nobody cares about what's written in English, and few people read it. Even foreigners don't usually read English magazines. The Chinese government doesn't care too much about what happens in foreign languages. In fact, they're more worried about foreign influence spoiling Chinese culture than any revolution sparked by an angry ABC managing editor. "Zhong shang Ying xia" was how they put it, "Chinese up and English down" literally, or in the American vernacular "G's up and hoes down". And you ain't the G's.

    I was more disturbed by the article and how the lady was just determined to hate her censor. Why? Her Western mindset, of course, and the ingrained "hero journalists vs. mustache-twirling government villains" mentality. Censors aren't evil. They're just government workers, that's all. Actually, having a censor is GOOD because if anything goes wrong, you can point to her and say, "but she APPROVED it!" Trying to dehumanize such a person as "teh CoMM13z"...well, it's just not what I would expect from a journalist. And the part at the end where she thinks the lady is looking for a "lifeline"...bah. I've done the exact same thing before, I call it "planting the seed." You see someone who's obviously going on to bigger and better things in life and you give them a nod and say, "call if you need anyone like me." Hey, it could work, right? I've had some longshots pay off before. But this journalist is so eager to be utterly depressed by seeing her tormentor exposed with feet of clay, she never bothers to question her preconceptions.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Three T's my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said:
      Actually, having a censor is GOOD because if anything goes wrong, you can point to her and say, "but she APPROVED it!"

      That is a lazy, uncaring, and morally bankrupt statement. You think having a state-appointed fall-man is desirable? You think that pointing fingers and shifting blame are good things? Not to mention, you completely gloss over the vital issue of your whole premise when you say "if anything goes wrong". What, specifically, might "go wrong"? Are you talking about publishing the truth, is that what you mean by "goes wrong"? You twist the words around very skillfully, but your statement boils down to "censorship is good because it keeps the peace". From what I just read, you are either evil, willfully ignorant, duped, or a troll.

    2. Re:Three T's my ass by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was more disturbed by the article and how the lady was just determined to hate her censor. Why?

      Did you miss this part of the article:

      This was not the relationship I wanted to have with Snow. I believed in free speech. I‘d spent a summer interning at the ACLU. I was beginning to question the morality of my paycheck, of playing any part, no matter how incidental, in a system of which I disapproved. Thinking of her as my adversary allowed me to feel I was fighting the system. But my adversary wanted to be friends.

      I don't think the ACLU cares if you have a Western mindset or Eastern mindset, I think they see their values like freedom of the press as a universal human right (as I happen to as well). And when you start to challenge universal human rights, that's the point in time where I throw your politics and socialism/capitalism crap right out the window and tell you you're wrong.

      Also, you might have glossed over the context this piece was written in:

      This was easier back then; the August 2008 Beijing Olympics were a year-and-a-half away, and it behooved China to demonstrate that it was an open country.

      So perhaps back then your color coding system was subdued to make Beijing look more appealing to the west and they concentrated on the merely the three T's. Do you mind revealing when (I don't want anyone losing their job) you ran an English magazine in China? Or where you operated? I'd imagine Beijing would be harder to operate in. If you're not afraid of releasing more details and proof, I'm almost certain the Foreign Policy magazine would be interested in talking to you -- I fine censorship around the world very interesting so you can spot it and reference ailments in other nations before it happens to your own.

      But this journalist is so eager to be utterly depressed by seeing her tormentor exposed with feet of clay, she never bothers to question her preconceptions.

      Odd, I read this whole piece as willful exposure of her preconceptions. She chose to keep those parts, you know. I think she disclosed all of this in an effort to be transparent. This wasn't written in an a absolutist "I'm 100% right and they're 100% wrong" way although that seems to be how you read it ... It is what it is, it happened how it happened. She's not going to make herself look 100% righteous in this piece because there are things she can't rectify in here. A good person can work for a really shitty government. A bad person can work for a really good government. Etc etc etc, this is the spice of life and makes things interesting and worthy of discussion.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Three T's my ass by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      I was more disturbed by the article and how the lady was just determined to hate her censor.

      I didn't get that out of it at all. What I read was that she didn't want to be buddies with her censor. She understood that she would want to push back against the censorship at times, and that's a hell of a lot easier to do if you aren't going to meet up for dinner after work. You see the same thing in most companies. Development and QA aren't generally too close, or QA starts ignoring minor bugs rather than pestering Dev. Sales can cause huge problems if whoever is in charge of product requirements doesn't feel like they can say no to requests because they go golfing with the sales guy. That's not to say there isn't mutual respect and a common goal, just that the individual people need some professional detachment in order to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

    4. Re:Three T's my ass by locust · · Score: 2

      Talk about the banality of evil.

      Your censor, the police officer beating the crap out of you, the intelligence officer who orders your arrest, they're just doing their jobs. They're not evil. They're just doing a job. They're nice people really. If you're nice to them, maybe you'll change them.

      Lets not even start talking about the blatant racism behind: 'Chinese up and English down'.

      We in the 'west' have a lot of recent experience with this sort of thing, and experience has shown the consequences of that behavior. I promise you every argument trotted out by the communist party in china was trotted out by some tinpot soviet puppet, if not the soviets themselves. (or south american, or african, or wherever dictator). In the same way, you can replace White/Aryan with Chinese and get all the crap about up with China down with everyone else. We've seen it all, heard all the arguments, seen the results and come to the conclusion that the behavior is unacceptable.

      We don't always live up to our ideals,real politic gets in the way, and we screwup - a lot. But those are the facts, and that what we try to stand for. China is not special, just another country where all the old tropes are trotted out to try to maintain power.

    5. Re:Three T's my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censors aren't evil.

      Let me make this clear for you: Censoring is evil.

    6. Re:Three T's my ass by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It seems that you share her preconceptions and are familiar with the narratives. Typical Westerner - come to China to save it from itself. Believing that ACLU values are "universal" when they are anything but.

      The mag was before, during, and after the Olympics. The color code thing came straight from Beijing. I'm not interested in talking with Foreign Policy magazine - one thing I learned from my foray into publishing was just how much journalists lie and cherry-pick your quotes to support the story they already wrote. Been there, done that, no thanks.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Three T's my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one "etc." bro. Two is redundant and three or more is just obnoxious.

    8. Re:Three T's my ass by redlemming · · Score: 1

      I don't think the ACLU cares if you have a Western mindset or Eastern mindset, I think they see their values like freedom of the press as a universal human right (as I happen to as well). And when you start to challenge universal human rights, that's the point in time where I throw your politics and socialism/capitalism crap right out the window and tell you you're wrong.

      Calling freedom of the press a "universal human right" has a lot of potential for creating nice sound bites, but, to me, seems like sloppy thinking. How do you define freedom? How do you define "press"?

      For example, advertising is often treated as a form of press activity. After all, the ad mailings that are sent to people's homes are certainly being printed on presses. If we accept that advertising is a form of press activitiy, then should publishing false advertisements be allowed as freedom of the press? What about misleading-but-not-actually-false advertisement? What about touching up the faces of women in advertisement photos? That's certainly showing a false view of people (after all, they don't actually look like that) but is it something that should be considered false advertising? Where is the boundry between false advertising and fraud?

      What about sending unsolicited advertisements to people's homes, otherwise known as junk mail? What about making unsolicited phone calls to publish a particular political party's views prior to an election? Should these be a legitimate form of press activity, or should a more fundamental human right, such as a right to not have one's time wasted or a right to not have unwanted intrusions into one's castle (home), apply?

      Do people need to be members of some officially recognized group that we call the "press", and if so, who determines membership, or can anyone be a member? When do we allow people who are engaging in some sort of press activity to bypass police lines or enter areas the government has set off limits? Should these people be subject to search, or other limitations of entry into such areas?

      Then there's the issue of taking people's statements out of context: should there be limits as to when is that reasonable? For example, should there be limits on the attacks politicians are allowed make on opponents, especially during campaigns, or should some sort of rules of courtesy and honorable conduct apply? Should we allow lobbying to be concealed as a form of press activity (for example, using "publication" of a book as a means to transfer money from group A to group B by having group B publish a book and having group A buy many copies of the book -- without any actual intention of reading them -- as a means of disguising a money transfer aka bribe)?

      Should there be trademark, copyright, or patent laws, and if so, to what extent do we permit these to interfere with freedom of the press? The creation of open source software is certainly a form of publication, but if we allow patent law to interfere with this than we also are permitting patent law to interfere with freedom of the press: is this ever reasonable?

      Should criminals be able to publish their life stories and make money from doing so? What about libel or slander?

      To what extent and when does freedom of the press apply in, or with respect to activities of, the courtroom? Do we allow judges to throw people in jail on a theory of "contempt of court", for expressing their views on Facebook? Do we allow judges to physically sequester people to prevent them from talking to the press?

      To what extent should the press be able to report on military matters or police investigations? What about press organizations that are funded by foreign intelligence agencies for the express purpose of attempting to overthrow or undermine a government or nation?

      Then there's the issue of how privacy rights interact with freedom of the press. To what extent do we allow public oversight over government, or businesses, or the legal profession? Long term oversight of all

  38. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Unless someone is so fat they risk falling through the floor onto the person below them there is literally no harm they do which is not voluntarily taken on by society.

    Drunk driving has a direct and likely INVOLUNTARY cost. You don't have to pay for obesity if you dont want to.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  39. US Parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US the only difference is that most censorship is not dictated by government powers. However, self-censorship in the media and the use of self-imposed "speech codes" in various organizations is quite prevalent. Witness the exclusion of the "jumpers" from the September 11 media coverage. Witness the automatic rejection of any topics critical toward feminism or homosexuality. Witness the mandatory replacements of the pronoun "he" by "he or she." There is no doubt that censorship has become deeply ingrained in our cultural fabric and this condition is perhaps far more dangerous than any government imposition. If the people themselves are not willing to exercise freedom, then there is no need for any forced repression.

    1. Re:US Parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...you are missing the point.
      No one is stopping anyone from covering those things. If you think that it is important to show people leaping off buildings, or to criticize homosexuals, or use profanity, there is every opportunity for you to do so. You might have a little bit of trouble getting a business to publish/broadcast your work if it offends them or if they think their customers would be offended, but again, there is nothing to stop you from forming your own company and doing it yourself...in the US.

      You can criticize the US for some prudish attitudes in our mainstream culture, but if you look deeper I think there are enough objectionable and hateful things being said, that your point falls flat.

    2. Re:US Parallels by RobinH · · Score: 1

      That's because US new organizations are only interested in profit. Those things make viewers yell at them, stomp around with signs in front of their building calling for a boycott, etc. It's bad for business, so they don't do it. On the other hand, sensationalism sells, so that's what they print.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    3. Re:US Parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >
      > Those things make viewers yell at them, stomp around with signs in front of their building calling for a boycott, etc.
      >

      In a truly free society, such protests would not ever happen because all the people would recognize and accept that free expression requires toleration of differing points of view. The fact that such intolerance is so prevalent supports my original point. The people are not willing to exercise freedom and this fact poses more danger than any government impositions.

    4. Re:US Parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that so many anonymous complainers about "censorship" seem to be upset that their racist and sexist views just aren't broadly acceptable anymore?

      That's not censorship, it's just that you're on the wrong side of history. Sorry. Bad ideas die.

    5. Re:US Parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's not censorship, it's just that you're on the wrong side of history.

      The Chinese communists will invariably say the exct same thing about Western capitalism. It is a whimisical justification, but, for their irrationally biased minds, it succeeds.

  40. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're trying to make a nonpoint here. Any rights violation is bad. There doesn't need to be a contest. If anything, it just shows how petty the US has become when it comes to individual rights.

  41. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You don't have to pay for obesity if you dont want to.

    Ok, I don't want to pay for obesity, so let's see how we can make this work.

    I've got it, we'll start by making a list of all the obese people in the country so we can be sure not to roll the ambulance when one of them has a heart attack or stroke. We'll also be able to check the list in the ER and be sure they only receive treatment to the limits of their own bank accounts. That should be a good start...

    Anyone else see any problem with this line of thinking?

  42. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where in the post you replied to did the poster call people whiners for not paying taxes?

    Where did I say he said that? Right back at you. I was speaking in general.

    However, the 'health' argument makes no sense. Or rather, it's anti-freedom and is what enables the drug war to continue. If your only argument is that people shouldn't eat unhealthy things, you might as well just give up.

  43. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His name is
    eldavojohn@gmail.com
    eldavojohn@gmail.com
    eldavojohn@gmail.com
    eldavojohn@gmail.com

  44. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I live, you can buy 85 oz bottles of soda, cola, pepsi, whatever, also ... beer, though only some very cheap brands. It's been happening for so long, that I was really shocked to see foreign tourists taking pictures of themselves with those bottles.

    As someone who knows he's drinking excessively soda, yeah, I can understand their concerns, I'm trying to stop myself too.

    Back on topic, the chinese have bigger issues than freedom of speech. They have no real understanding of economy, they're going for a fast growth, and as any economist can tell you, after going up, you always go down. Also, their political model won't allow them to regulate the economy the right way, and when it happens, they'll have a completely different set of problems compared to Europe's deadbeats.

  45. Re:Plagiarism in China? SHOCKER!!! by firewrought · · Score: 1

    It's a culture built on shameless plagiarism and copyright abuse.

    Um, I think the usual explanation is that, in China, knowledge is seen as something that is received from an authority, and the goal of an educational exercise is to regurgitate that knowledge faithfully. Wheras, in the West, knowledge is a skill that is built by personal practice (like sports). Or something like that...

    However, copyright abuse is not necessarily an outgrowth of this: it seems more like the logical consequence of everyone being able to forge a "currency".

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  46. Re: by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    She didn't hate her censor, she was tired and disgusted with the system, and decided to not support it in any way. I've changed several jobs in my career for the same reason. For example, I wrote tax software for a decade, but eventually became tired and disgusted with how rigged "the system" is, and found work for a better cause. Perfectly understandable.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  47. Re:But capitalism sucks... by Loosifur · · Score: 1

    Right on, eldavojohn. Capitalism and socialism are economic models. You can have a totalitarian state that allows the private ownership of capital, and you can have a democratic system with state ownership of capital. And certainly capitalism has never been a proof against corruption.

    Granted, capitalism tends to go well with an open society and individual liberties simply because it's tough to keep a system going over the long run where citizens have economic freedom without political freedom, and because the success of a capitalist system depends on a legal system that protects private ownership, which is undermined when a government can seize property by fiat. And on the other side of the coin, socialist systems lend themselves to greater government involvement in daily life if for no other reason than that societies which see government involvement in ownership as appropriate, they also tend to find government involvement in other aspects of life as perfectly acceptable. But you don't have to look any further than the UK or Sweden for a good example of socialist economies with democratic systems, or China for something pretty close to a capitalist dictatorship.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  48. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    Round here in the UK you see 2L bottles all the time and occasionally 3L ones. BUT they are clearly designed to be bottles you pour into cups for multiple people to drink, not bottles that are designed to be drunk from directly.

    Are these 85 oz (that is roughtly 2.5L afaict) designed to be drunk from directly?

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  49. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Stiletto · · Score: 1

    Bingo, I work for an American company that is mostly Chinese, and always has tons of Chinese visitors, and all the bathrooms used to have signs that say "Please do not stand on the toilets". It's a Chinese thing, nothing weird.

  50. Re:But capitalism sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's endearingly naive. i can see why someone with little experience in reality would feel that way. it's easy to hate the big bad CEO when you don't truly understand how things work.

  51. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Loosifur · · Score: 1

    Oh, lord, not this argument again. Ok, so you think that, because you pay taxes and/or a health insurance premium, you should be able to tell people that they can't engage in potentially risky behavior that could result in their taking advantage of any public services or insurance.

    Well, they also pay taxes, and may very well pay insurance premiums as well, but let's just set that aside.

    You've convinced me. It's perfectly reasonable that, since I pay for a tiny, tiny fraction of the public services used by everyone, then I should have some say in personal behavior that could impact those services. Also, since I pay for health, car, and homeowner's insurance, the behavior of other people affects me within those contexts.

    So, we'll go ahead and limit the amount of soda you can sell at once. Also, SUVs are top-heavy, so we'll ban those too; when people get into accidents, it affects my premiums. Ditto for people who live on the California coast, along the Gulf of Mexico, and Tornado Alley; not only do these people impact my homeowner's insurance, but federal money goes to bail those dopes out whenever weather happens. Since I'm paying for them, they shouldn't be allowed to live in dangerous places like Oklahoma.

    Anyone else see any problem with this line of thinking?

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  52. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me paranoid, but when I read that, the first thing to go through my mind was some Chinese laborer being ordered to electronically bug the restroom. Something along the lines of placing something in the plenum above the ceiling tiles.

    When you want to make a private phone call, you usually do it outside where it's very noisy, or in a small restroom.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  53. The old, sick & paranoid governments by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    China is and has always been a totalitarian dictatorship, and in it's current form continues to be an abomination!

    We (the USofA) are trying our damnedest to catch up!

    IMHO!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  54. Re:Plagiarism in China? SHOCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And had to explain to the Chinese assistants more than once that they could not turn in articles copied word for word from existing pieces they found online.

    Oh God, it's like grad school all over again.

    But seriously, what do you expect? It's a culture built on shameless plagiarism and copyright abuse. You need look no further than the huge Cisco parts scandal to see my point in all this.

    (made in china)
    (made in Taiwan)

  55. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Quila · · Score: 2

    I guess sometimes they can take little steps and never cross the line into absurdity.

    Seat belts are a good example of this government creep. They were initally sold to the public in most states on the idea of don't worry, it's not a primary offense, you can't be pulled over for it. Once people got used to seat belt laws it changed to be a primary offense, you can get pulled over for it. Once people got used to that, we started to have "Click-it or Ticket" campaigns to specifically go after this as a primary offense.

  56. Re:No, It's Way Over the Line and Abusively Ambigu by Quila · · Score: 1

    it's a ban on the convenience of selling massive amounts of soda in the interest of public health

    And the censorship is in the interests of public order.

    Big overweening governments also require you to have car insurance

    Different purpose: When you are on a public road you will not subject others to the damaging economic consequences of you not having insurance.

    wear seat belts and now it's illegal to smoke in bars almost everywhere

    Other examples of government encroachment. Smoking bans spread from government offices, required non-smoking areas, then more and more, and eventually into total bans within private establishments. You don't like smoke in a bar or restaurant? Don't patronize it or apply to work there. That's freedom.

    and dump your fecal matter in rivers

    Direct health hazard to others in a public area where others likely do not know you are doing it, and therefore be harmed. This is not equivalent.

  57. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work for a company in SF that employed almost all Chinese. The founder was from China. They prefer to squat to crap and will tell you it is better for you in their opinion. The other thing they do (at least the men) is to take off their pants and hang them over the stall (while leaving their shoes on.) You walk into the bathroom, see a pair of pants hanging over the stall and no feet underneath and you have a Chinese guy shitting in there.

    They will also cough in your face and spit on the floor right in front of you. They don't seem to understand the theory of transmission of disease.

  58. Re:Plagiarism in China? SHOCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHOOSH!

  59. Re:"footprints on the seats" = "Chinese hillbillie by Stud+McPeckChest · · Score: 1
    I went to school with quite a diverse group of people and every so often we would run into other students that were used to pit toilets. Seat or not, they tried to use the toilet as if it were a pit toilet. I have definitely heard of many westerners in the far east grossly (in more ways than one) misunderstanding the plumbing system.

    With that in mind, I found that statement rather confusing. It sounded ominous but I could interpret it in two different ways.

  60. Re:Plagiarism in China? SHOCKER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a culture built on shameless plagiarism and copyright abuse. You need look no further than the huge Cisco parts scandal to see my point in all this.

    This phrase contains so much ignorance and malice I don't know where to begin with... If you knew anything about history, you'd know all up and coming superpowers have done exactly what China's doing now. They do it because they can, there is nobody with the power to stop them. The last one to do this obviously was the United States. Crack open a history book, it's interesting and educational. Just remember that history is written by the winners.