Incredible: leaked directive for 50-centers re. Taiwan

A reader tipped me off to China Digital Times’ translation of a leaked internal memo instructing China’s Internet commenters how to counter the influence of Taiwanese democracy and guide the public on this issue. Absolutely priceless. Here are the specific guidelines:

(1) To the extent possible make America the target of criticism. Play down the existence of Taiwan.

(2) Do not directly confront [the idea of] democracy; rather, frame the argument in terms of “what kind of system can truly implement democracy.”

(3) To the extent possible, choose various examples in Western countries of violence and unreasonable circumstances to explain how democracy is not well-suited to capitalism.

(4) Use America’s and other countries’ interference in international affairs to explain how Western democracy is actually an invasion of other countries and [how the West] is forcibly pushing [on other countries] Western values.

(5) Use the bloody and tear-stained history of a [once] weak people [i.e., China] to stir up pro-Party and patriotic emotions.

(6) Increase the exposure that positive developments inside China receive; further accommodate the work of maintaining [social] stability.

My personal favorite is No. 5 — China as perpetual victim. How many times a day does the antiCNN clique turn to that one?

In all seriousness, this reads like a laundry list of what my site’s trolls do, to the letter. Even those I don’t think are 50-centers, like yourfriend. In fact, was there any reason to issue these guidelines to begin with? I think they’re already common knowledge among those assigned to make mischief in blog and portal comments.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 109 Comments

some valid points about america and it’s “democracy” .. can you imagine the insanity unleashed in china if the corporatocracy that american party politics has become were adopted here? yikes. they are smart to avoid it, evolve something new. it will come.

June 26, 2011 @ 4:45 am | Comment

Tough call, American “corporatocracy” vs. Chinese plutocracy. I’m afraid I have to go with the former, repellent though it may be, if only because of rule of law, freedom of expression and the right to vote. Some of these rights have been weakened since 2001 But still….

June 26, 2011 @ 4:50 am | Comment

This certainly can’t be a new directive. As Richard notes, these points have been part of the playbook of every CCP apologist I’ve ever come across. Maybe they’ve just “declassified” it now cuz it’s already common knowledge.

But I must say, CCP apologists adhere to the playbook extremely well. Thems some well-trained and disciplined dudes.

June 26, 2011 @ 5:11 am | Comment

yawn.

June 26, 2011 @ 6:12 am | Comment

Tough call, American “corporatocracy” vs. Chinese plutocracy. I’m afraid I have to go with the former, repellent though it may be, if only because of rule of law, freedom of expression and the right to vote. Some of these rights have been weakened since 2001 But still….

One way of putting it, but would you prefer a world full of Americas or of Chinas?

Hint: The planet doesn’t have the resources to sustain two Americas.

June 26, 2011 @ 6:13 am | Comment

These directives are often made in response to something topical thats happening in the real world or online. Possibly this stuff was related to calls for democracy that came from the release of The Glorious Revolution Cause or whatever that movie was called.

June 26, 2011 @ 6:41 am | Comment

Ummm…the planet doesn’t have enough resources to sustain two Chinas either. Further, can you prove the direct causal link you imply between resource consumption and system of governance? What a dumb try at a “gotchya” point.

I don’t understand how someone can claim that China’s government is free of corporate influence. Politicians and policies are bought and paid for here as much as they are in the USA, the links are just more tightly interwoven and thus less visible due to the Party system. You have to be pretty naive or just willfully ignorant to not see that.

It is funny how the first few response fit beautifully into the guidelines above though…

June 26, 2011 @ 8:39 am | Comment

Hey, man’sbestfriend is back! But as he suggested in #4, he already knew those talking points like the back of his hand long ago.

June 26, 2011 @ 9:02 am | Comment

@ yourfriend

“yawn”

(7) If your cover is blown as resolute defender of the Motherland, feign disinterest.

Looks like you’re the full package, old sport.

June 26, 2011 @ 12:34 pm | Comment

“The planet doesn’t have the resources to sustain two Americas.”

That would be #4, right?

To make life easier, you can now make your replies in single digits, old sport.

June 26, 2011 @ 12:39 pm | Comment

Richard, I guess that every newbie 50 center has to get some sort of training.

June 26, 2011 @ 6:33 pm | Comment

In retard logic, resource consumption is interference in foreign affairs.

#1 in the fenwai failbook, use bad logic

June 27, 2011 @ 4:27 am | Comment

Well…they are products of unimaginative rote learning after all…

June 27, 2011 @ 4:39 am | Comment

Well…they are products of unimaginative rote learning after all…

Rote learning is better than no learning.

June 27, 2011 @ 6:18 am | Comment

Both (rote learning and no learning) are pretty awful. Just because no learning is worse doesn’t at all justify rote learning, which is the pathway to robotization.

June 27, 2011 @ 6:55 am | Comment

I’d say the rote learning does help the average person stay out of trouble and do OK in school. The typical person in any country is just going to be a drone anyway, may as well cut costs in the process. It’s very conducive to an industrial society. China really needs a program for gifted children though.

conducive to productivity *

June 27, 2011 @ 8:02 am | Comment

“China really needs a program for gifted children though”

They do. It’s called America.

June 27, 2011 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

Notice how quickly the comments here devolved into duelling China.-versus-America sound bites. No mention is made of the subject China censorship officials were trying to bury: Taiwan’s democracy.

Even the people who oppose the 50-cent propaganda effort fall for its distractions.

Democracy in China. It will happen. The revolution has already begun.

June 27, 2011 @ 3:44 pm | Comment

“China really needs a program for gifted children though”

They do. It’s called America.

Which explains why Chinese Americans consistently score lower on IQ tests than Chinese in China or Taiwan.

June 28, 2011 @ 2:07 am | Comment

Democracy in China. It will happen. The revolution has already begun.

It’d be hilarious if they voted in an ultra-nationalist candidate which proceeded to lead an anti-Western coalition of nations in a economic/financial war of reparation against the West.

Kinda like how Iran’s elections turned out pretty badly if you recall.

June 28, 2011 @ 2:09 am | Comment

To Freebird:
although the missive from the CCP is ostensibly targeted at Taiwan, the usual CCP apologist rolodex of talking points is broadly applied in response to just about any criticism of the CCP. They’re certainly not unique to the question of Taiwan alone.

Besides, Taiwan is a democracy. The lingering issue is that of her statehood status. I agree that the CCP crew do try their level best to change the subject when the subject doesn’t suit them…which is to say most of the time.

June 28, 2011 @ 2:52 am | Comment

To 19:
“Which explains why Chinese Americans consistently score lower on IQ tests than Chinese in China or Taiwan.”
—all the more reason for you to go back to the mother ship. What could you possibly be waiting for?

To 20:
“It’d be hilarious if they voted in an ultra-nationalist candidate…”
—that seems to be precisely the type of hilarity that you would deeply enjoy. All the more reason that Chinese people should get to vote, no?

June 28, 2011 @ 3:53 am | Comment

“Kinda like how Iran’s elections turned out pretty badly if you recall.”

Yeah. You see, those with actual memories will remember the Iranian people taking to the streets to protest the results of the election as being rigged, leading to a month of demonstrations against the ultra-conservative ‘winners’ which they then put down with violence, but why let something like the truth mess up good propaganda . . .

June 28, 2011 @ 4:42 am | Comment

They do. It’s called America.

The 2 nightmares of Chinese parents in America are: their son becoming a gay and their daughter marrying a black.

Hhahahahahahaha.

June 28, 2011 @ 8:54 am | Comment

Wow, Red Star has a sense of humor! That’s really hilarious.

June 28, 2011 @ 9:11 am | Comment

Tomorrow I’ll post the instructions given to the American 50 centers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

June 28, 2011 @ 10:37 am | Comment

Very old news, discussed and condemned in an earlier thread. Does this justify China’s 50-centers program?

June 28, 2011 @ 11:00 am | Comment

Very old news, discussed and condemned in an earlier thread. Does this justify China’s 50-centers program?

China’s 50 centers are new news? You never discussed it before?

June 28, 2011 @ 11:07 am | Comment

You’d think that the article date of March 17, 2011 might lead Red Star to suspect that he is dealing with old news, if not the fact that it had already been discussed on this blog. Alas, the CCP apologist mind works in weird and wonderful ways sometimes. And that’s not taking into consideration the awkwardness that comes from Red Star quoting from “western media”, which as we’ve all been told ad nauseum is “biased”. I guess it’s “biased” but still very much acceptable when it suits him, as opposed to “biased” and unacceptable when it doesn’t. These guys are a gift from the heavens, and they’ve earned every penny.

June 28, 2011 @ 11:09 am | Comment

“Tomorrow I’ll post the instructions…”
—oh come on, Hailey’s Comet. Why do tomorrow what you can do today?

June 28, 2011 @ 11:12 am | Comment

I’m sorry, but I didn’t realize that this blog has never talked about CCP having 50 centers before, must be news to everyone today.

June 28, 2011 @ 11:12 am | Comment

oh come on, Hailey’s Comet. Why do tomorrow what you can do today?

your mother made another appointment with me today.

June 28, 2011 @ 11:14 am | Comment

Red Star, the news is the directive, you birdbrain.

June 28, 2011 @ 11:48 am | Comment

Red Star, the news is the directive, you birdbrain.

I guess the American 50 centers using that software receive no training, no guidelines, no talking points, nothing. Looks like the CIA needs to improve its work and budget.

June 28, 2011 @ 12:04 pm | Comment

The inability of pieces of trash like Red Star to offer a logical argument, or to grasp the logical progression of someone else’s argument, really bespeaks the flaws of his training, the dearth of a proper upbringing, or the suboptimal lineage of his genetic endowment.

June 28, 2011 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

Red Star, as soon as the directive is leaked I’ll post about that, too. For now there’s nothing.

June 28, 2011 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

That 3-month-old article speaks of computer programs to be used by military personnel to spoof multiple online personalities. So unless Red Star and his peeps are PLA members, it’s again apples and oranges.

If the US military is going to spend money on that type of thing, one hopes that they have a reasonable basis for expecting the results to be superior to Red Star et al. Cuz Red Star’s unequivocal success and compelling persuasiveness should inform them that trying to influence online opinion often does not go very far.

Lately Red Star is trying to compare an actual CCP directive to an imaginary CIA one, and can’t seem to understand the difference. And naturally his response to the CCP directive itself is a comparison, cuz that seems to be all that he was trained to do. Perhaps it’s time for him to dock onto the mother ship and get a software update, cuz the old protocols are not having the desired effect (though they are obviously not without extremely amusing side-effects).

June 29, 2011 @ 2:30 am | Comment

Red Star is simply sticking to the directive pasted in the post:

(1) To the extent possible make America the target of criticism.

June 29, 2011 @ 2:51 am | Comment

The 2 nightmares of Chinese parents in America are: their son becoming a gay and their daughter marrying a black.

Damn right! There aren’t any gay people in China and blacks know their place!

June 29, 2011 @ 6:22 am | Comment

The 2 nightmares of Chinese parents in America are: their son becoming a gay and their daughter marrying a black.

Hhahahahahahaha.

Okay, HongXing, you might have a point when you bring up CIA and military disinformation programs. They definitely exist. I’d argue that the difference is there is still a free flow of information in the States and if you can distinguish truth from propaganda, it’s possible form a pretty good picture of what’s going on on most topics. Still, IMO, your point about these programs is a valid one on this topic.

But then you just flippin’ sink any kind of credibility when you post racist, homophobic garbage like this.

June 29, 2011 @ 1:34 pm | Comment

When Chinese argue their cases based on the era of unequal treaties, they are labeled perpetual victim. S.K.Cheung even called those Chinese seeking fairness on behalf of China as “CCP apologists adhere to the playbook extremely well. Thems some well-trained and disciplined dudes.”
Historical fact is fact, every Chinese argues based on the historical fact inevitably will quote the same narrative, but they were all labeled CCP apologists because they are brainwashed to use the similar narratives.
In one stroke Richard and S.K.Cheung discredit Chinese historical facts as CCP propaganda material, and every Chinese argues on behalf of China as CCP apologists or mouthpiece. From now on Chinese no long have any historical truth that can be used to establish any argument, hence to Richard and S.K.Cheung, all arguments from Chinese are lies and propaganda. Now they can lecture Chinese with western moral authority, and their self-righteous hypocrisy is protected.
Richard and S.K.Cheung may have the skill to call a deer a horse, but they cannot change the historical truth and facts.
What Richard and S.K.Cheung should call themselves, predicatory imperialist enthusiasts?

June 29, 2011 @ 11:17 pm | Comment

I’m baffled. In what way do we “discredit Chinese historical facts as CCP propaganda material, and every Chinese argues on behalf of China as CCP apologists or mouthpiece”? You are totally wrong. I totally support the truth being told about “Chinese historical facts,” be they its remarkable ability to remain in one piece with the same language after thousands of years, its once great ships, its contributions to science, its stunning economic rise. I also support the truth being told about the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward and the utter disaster Mao was for China, and how it only recovered after Deng’s reforms. I am in no way imperialistic — that is flat-out nonsense, unsupported by you. It’s a childish and typically fenqing-type outcry, based on the simplistic and false worldview that Americans mean harm to China and China is always being bullied by imperialists. Thanks for living up to the spirit of this directive.

June 29, 2011 @ 11:40 pm | Comment

Completely off-topic. Go here, read the background and keep on scrolling. I haven’t laughed so hard in weeks.

June 30, 2011 @ 1:25 am | Comment

Take care here. John Chan is a real heavy hitter from over The Diplomat way. He is a take no prisoners, eat the wounded type of guy.

June 30, 2011 @ 1:57 am | Comment

He sounds like an angry man. No idea where this wrath is coming from. All this post does is throw the CCP’s words back at them. Not sure where the “hypocrisy” is.

June 30, 2011 @ 2:44 am | Comment

I am baffled too. I just tried to explain how the Chinese bloggers felt; they felt that China has been portrayed unfairly by the media in West and its allies. Right away I was lectured “It’s a childish and typically fenqing-type outcry, based on the simplistic and false worldview that Americans mean harm to China and China is always being bullied by imperialists. Thanks for living up to the spirit of this directive.”

No wonder the world is not peaceful. Unless the West can see thing thru Chinese point of view, there will be a lot market for self-righteous and inflammatory sites like pekingduck.org, the-diplomat.com, etc.

June 30, 2011 @ 4:24 am | Comment

To John Chan:
I don’t call people “CCP apologists (who) adhere to the playbook extremely well. Thems some well-trained and disciplined dudes.” merely by reciting historical facts. I call them that when they “Use the bloody and tear-stained history of a [once] weak people [i.e., China] to stir up pro-Party and patriotic emotions.” (If I may direct your attention to point #5 in the latest edition of said playbook). There is nothing wrong with using historical facts to inform. Different story when people are encouraged to use historical facts to incite. I am sure you can appreciate the difference.

I don’t seek to discredit historical facts. But as Richard suggests, you might want to ask the CCP why they would choose to do so (about certain parts of history, at least). People don’t become CCP apologists in my mind based on their stance on China; they become so based on how they try to make their argument. In my observation, the vast majority do so extremely poorly.

BTW, since you are big on historical facts, what argument would you like to propose based thereon?

It is also amusing to note that most CCP apologists primarily direct their venom against the US (just as they are told to do in point #1). What historical fact of US aggression against China would have led to that, I wonder?

It is also interesting when folks like you bemoan the appearance of someone else having laid claim to any moral authority. I certainly have no such impression of CCP apologists. One wonders why you would have that perception of others. For that, you will have to look inwardly, and that process almost certainly exceeds the mandate of this blog. But good luck with that.

One thing is clear to me though. If you don’t yet have the playbook committed to memory, what you’ve said here suggests that you would be a quick study.

June 30, 2011 @ 4:37 am | Comment

“I just tried to explain how the Chinese bloggers felt; they felt that China has been portrayed unfairly by the media in West and its allies.”
—I’m not sure where you did any of that, based on #41.

It is more than a bit ironic that you accuse people of being “imperialist enthusiasts”, then try to describe this as an inflammatory site. Is there any one among you that can say something approaching logical?

June 30, 2011 @ 4:45 am | Comment

John, my dear, no one is forcing you to read this “self-righteous and inflammatory site.” There are plenty of other sites you can hang out at.

You write, “I just tried to explain how the Chinese bloggers felt.” This is false. Here is what you actually said:

In one stroke Richard and S.K.Cheung discredit Chinese historical facts as CCP propaganda material, and every Chinese argues on behalf of China as CCP apologists or mouthpiece. From now on Chinese no long have any historical truth that can be used to establish any argument, hence to Richard and S.K.Cheung, all arguments from Chinese are lies and propaganda. Now they can lecture Chinese with western moral authority, and their self-righteous hypocrisy is protected.

This is a direct attack, not some explanation about how Chinese bloggers feel. It’s also patently false. I encourage comments from Chinese readers and in no way label all their arguments as “lies and propaganda.” Only the comments from trolls like Red Star and now, sadly, you.

SK, I doubt if you’re going to make much headway using rational arguments with this angry guy.

June 30, 2011 @ 5:02 am | Comment

John Chan, whose name rings a bell, suggests that the special directive is almost superfluous to certain subset of PRC folks who have imbibed a a full patriotic education. The talking points and special logic come naturally.

June 30, 2011 @ 5:19 am | Comment

John Chan’s the guy you see writing over at World Socialist Workers etc. occasionally. Boy, this post really has brought all our favourite fenqing out, hasn’t it?

But here’s the truth – there’s a perfectly good chance that this communique is actually a fake. ‘Secret’ documents get published all the time, but not all of them are genuine, and CDT has never been too circumspect about what it publishes so long as it is critical of the CCP. My vote it it’s a fake – there’s just way too much in it that is bog standard for CCP propaganda and not particular to Taiwan.

June 30, 2011 @ 5:36 am | Comment

FOARP, thanks for reminding me — John Chan of the WSW website used to comment here a year or two ago and now he’s back. He was one of the most persistently obnoxious commenters ever, and that says a lot. Welcome back, John.

One if his classics was a fond reminiscence of the Cultural Revolution:

When I was a kid, we had extra-curricular activities where we were given the frequencies of the song played from the on-board radio of East Is Red I. At night, we’d gather in our backyards to get a faint listen of a simple tune in our radio. What wonderful times.

I think we all know what kind of commenter John Chan is going to be.

June 30, 2011 @ 5:45 am | Comment

Thanks FOARP for the reminder. In John’s 3 part piece in the Trot journal, we have the following in Part 3.

After talking about the savage exploitation of workers and peasants post-Deng Xiao Ping, we arrive at the following conclusion:

“It is these historical lessons that Beijing has been trying to prevent the Chinese working class from knowing and understanding. Beijing is terrified by the massive growth of the Internet in China. It is trying to prevent the spread of “dangerous” political ideas through censorship and the establishment of a so-called cyber police force to monitor the millions of Internet users”.

Also liked this one:

“Beijing is desperately trying to fill the ideological vacuum with Chinese nationalism and other conservative ideologies such as Confucianism, which, by the way, the founders of the CCP declared war on”.

I enjoyed scrolling thru his big picture analysis as it reminded me how useless and very old fashioned Trot political analysis was and is. Always being in the vanguard can be a dispiriting experience. Little wonder many Trots finally abandon ship, and end up becoming arch supporters of whatever political order that previously pissed them off.

That said, Marx and some near recent treatments of his conceptual schemata are still of significant value today. John should have abandoned his Trot doctrinal purity and updated his reading list. If he had done so, he would not have abandoned the ship altogether.

June 30, 2011 @ 7:11 am | Comment

When I was a kid, we had extra-curricular activities where we were given the frequencies of the song played from the on-board radio of East Is Red I. At night, we’d gather in our backyards to get a faint listen of a simple tune in our radio. What wonderful times.

Why is that absurd? Even if the Mao’s era was a disaster, you could still have fond childhood memories during that era. During the satellite launch, it WAS a fun activity to catch a faint tune in a radio from music sent from the sky. How is that related to Mao’s era? That’s just an episode from a person’s childhood. Are you saying that he should be lying to himself, and convince himself that even if his memory of that activity was great, it was only an illusion, and he should force himself to not remember this fondly?

Do not understand, totally do not understand.

June 30, 2011 @ 7:30 am | Comment

Anyway, after discovering the Philosophy section (which very no likes any variant of post-modernism) in the WSW I’am going to thank John.

June 30, 2011 @ 7:32 am | Comment

In free non-propagandist nations, a country countless trillions of debt can be rated AAA, a recession is a blip, depression a recession, detaining people for “state secrets” clauses (Manning) and CIA/Military task forces built around lies and smear campaigns are not actually on the gov’t payroll.

Too bad there aren’t enough resources in the world for China to become America (or whatever Western country) v2.

June 30, 2011 @ 7:57 am | Comment

HX, it’s understandable for someone to have fond memories of a peaceful family time during the CR. But John Chan wants to portray the CR era as an idyllic one, as something good. He totally fails to see the other side.

June 30, 2011 @ 9:06 am | Comment

To 56:
some of those things you listed are indeed problematic. So as some among the non-free propagandizing nations move towards becoming of the free non-propagandizing variety, they should certainly take note of those problems and avoid them.

It is too bad about the resources thing. Also not much point to crying over the water that’s passed under the bridge. Better to be forward-looking, m’thinks.

I must say, Wen in his current European tour has been sounding down-right enlightened about democracy in China. It remains to be seen, however, whether any of his enlightenment is shared by the party hacks back home, and whether it will amount, in due time, to anything more than lip service.

June 30, 2011 @ 1:32 pm | Comment

SK Cheung
some of those things you listed are indeed problematic

Understatement of the century.

I must say, Wen in his current European tour has been sounding down-right enlightened about democracy in China. It remains to be seen, however, whether any of his enlightenment is shared by the party hacks back home, and whether it will amount, in due time, to anything more than lip service.

I’m generally closer to Wen’s view, assuming a lot of it is just lip-service to appease the irrational corporate lapdog idiots that rule the West. People should be given as much control over their lives as they possibly can without allowing any individual to push his interests over that of others – democracy does not in any way serve this ideal and never has. Democracy is merely the rule of the stupidest, ugliest, most immoral 51% – the laughable embellishments and delusions of democracy-or-die warmongers and babykillers aside.

July 1, 2011 @ 1:28 am | Comment

Cookie Monster is yourfriend with yet another alias (merp, ferin, etc.).

July 1, 2011 @ 1:58 am | Comment

I think that much is obvious, Richard :P

July 1, 2011 @ 2:10 am | Comment

A loser going by a different name is still a loser. That much is also obvious.

Anyhoo…

Some of those things are problematic. What I didn’t yet say was that they are not causally related to democracy. You almost always confuse correlation with causation. You are not alone, if that makes you feel any better.

One’s personal interests do not supercede other peoples’ personal interests. I agree with that. But we are talking about collective interests. Who is more suited to determine the collective interest than the collective? Somehow, the CCP is capable of determining the interests of all Chinese people, without ever having to ask them? Well, stupid is as stupid does, except in your case you are stupid enough to insist upon the CCP for all Chinese people, but not so stupid as to subject yourself to it. So congrats, you are not yet full-on stupid, but nonetheless well on your way.

July 1, 2011 @ 2:35 am | Comment

What I didn’t yet say was that they are not causally related to democracy.

That’s a good one. Please prove to me how democracy is in any way “causally” linked to democracy? Be ready to explain the Indian example.

Who is more suited to determine the collective interest than the collective?

“The collective” is an arbitrary grouping decided by farcical borders.

except in your case you are stupid enough to insist upon the CCP for all Chinese people

Which, I suppose, means a majority of the Chinese people are “stupid” as they consistently approve of their nation’s direction and the work of the CCP. You alone are intelligent, or at least that’s what your mother tells you.

July 1, 2011 @ 2:50 am | Comment

rather “causally” linked to an improvement in living standards.

July 1, 2011 @ 2:50 am | Comment

“assuming a lot of it is just lip-service to appease the irrational corporate lapdog idiots that rule the West.”
—Wen’s apparent enlightenment is clearly not shared by our resident pet-poodle over here. No surprise there. But maybe it is shared by the Global Times editor, at least based on his interview that someone linked to on another thread. I hope someone someday can elucidate what “Chinese democracy” means, and what that will look like. And no, dumpster-diver, I’m not expecting that insight to come from you. You should stick to finding cute little alias…that’s your calling.

July 1, 2011 @ 2:57 am | Comment

“prove to me how democracy is in any way “causally” linked to democracy?”
—huh? You want proof that something is causally linked to itself? You are one brilliant dude.

““The collective” is an arbitrary grouping decided by farcical borders.”
—hmmm, that would be an interesting view on Chinese sovereignty. Did not expect that from you. You are full of surprises.

“a majority of the Chinese people are “stupid” as they consistently approve of their nation’s direction and the work of the CCP”
—ah yes, those scientifically questionable “surveys” once again. Give them a “survey” where they have more than one choice, then we’ll talk. Besides, if you are conceptually accepting of “surveys”, then you should be similarly accepting of surveys that are binding. It’s not that big of a step…well, ok, maybe for you it is. Little steps for little folks.

July 1, 2011 @ 3:03 am | Comment

Do you approve of the government?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Neutral

Apparently that counts as “one choice” in the land of the idiots.

July 1, 2011 @ 6:07 am | Comment

and how cute, Richard withholds corrections so you can (temporarily) score a point – must be nice to have your hand held, and what a great example of freedom of speech!

July 1, 2011 @ 6:35 am | Comment

The “one choice” is in reference to the fact that there is no other “government” or option to approve of. When there is another option, and the ccp still gets support, then you’re talking. It is not that complicated, my little chihuahua. Besides, if you’re confident that the ccp is all that and a bag of chips, you should welcome a binding survey. But this is where you once again talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. If there is one thing you can be counted on for, that’d be it.

July 1, 2011 @ 7:58 am | Comment

Hey looks like someone is running away and hiding from a few remaining points from #65. Come now, did the pet poodle bite his own tongue?

July 1, 2011 @ 8:01 am | Comment

The “one choice” is in reference to the fact that there is no other “government” or option to approve of.

Idiotic. Approval is approval.

Besides, if you’re confident that the ccp is all that and a bag of chips, you should welcome a binding survey

We’ve already been over why this is asinine. The CCP owes you nothing.

July 1, 2011 @ 8:21 am | Comment

and how cute, Richard withholds corrections so you can (temporarily) score a point –

Pardon me, ferin? What on earth are you referring to. I did not delay or censor anything. You know I always hold your comments for moderation because of your, um, colorful past on this site. But I didn’t delay any of your comments, so I think you owe me an apology.

July 1, 2011 @ 8:23 am | Comment

If it’s true – then sure. Of course nothing it stopping Special Cheung and Slim from flinging ad hominems.

July 1, 2011 @ 8:36 am | Comment

To 68:
don’t worry, scoring a point on you is the last thing on my mind. First off, that’s not even remotely a worthy challenge. Second, it’s like picking on a cripple. It’s nice to see you caught your own mistake. First time for everything, I suppose.

To 71:
“Approval is approval.”
—and that’s where you remove all doubt that you are a mental cripple, at the very least. Any survey is only as useful as the question it asks, and the choices it offers. Obviously, these surveys you enjoy are pretty useless…and that’s not even getting into their methodological limitations, the discussion of which is clearly beyond your pay-grade. Suffice it to say, when you evaluate “approval”, you need to realize what it is people are approving of, and what it is they are forsaking to make that decision. In the CCP’s case, there is no other option. Approval of anything in the absence of any alternative is pretty hollow. But I guess you are reduced to going for the hollow victories. It’s like surveying the buyers of Ford Model T’s as to whether they approved of the colour. I mean, what do you expect them to say? It only came in black.

“We’ve already been over why this is asinine. The CCP owes you nothing.”
—umm, no. You’ve tried to avoid a question for which you have no answer. Not a surprising or unique response among your types. And at no point have I stated, suggested, implied, or insinuated that the CCP owes me anything. Not sure where you derived that from, in the course of your creative reading.

July 1, 2011 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Instead of abandoning discredited monikers every view months while spewing the same crap, abandon the fallacious reasoning and shoddy intellectual hygiene that are the root cause of your credibility deficit. Go to wikipedia and look at the basic list of common logical fallacies — you will see your whole commenting life pass before your eyes.

July 1, 2011 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

^ Generic pseudo-intellectual internet insult acknowledged – did you read that off of the inside of your Starbucks latte cup?

2/10, you’d have scored extra points if you rambled off a list of “logical fallacies”, more if they were italicized. You earned the other two for having black-rimmed emo glasses, being a dickhead’s cool.

SK CHeung
Approval of anything in the absence of any alternative is pretty hollow.

Are you stupid? The question is whether the individual approves or does not approve. NOT approving is clearly the other option; another poll asked individuals whether or not they were optimistic about the future, yet another whether they liked the direction their nation was going. They answered overwhelmingly in the affirmative.

Obviously everyone would like a “better” government but since you are a man of no ideas, it’s unrealistic. Nor is it the point of the discussion. You have a habit of moving goalposts, which is the hallmark of a middling thinker who is desperate to put his worthless liberal arts degree to use.

It’s like surveying the buyers of Ford Model T’s as to whether they approved of the colour.

Idiotic analogy. Rather it would be like surveying car owners about whether they like or dislike a car they’ve driven for 20 years. Unsurprisingly, consumer advocacy groups use such statistics to rate the quality of ‘x’ model of car.

You’ve tried to avoid a question for which you have no answer.

I do have an answer, Special Cheungsie.

1) I do not control the CCP; therefore asking me to force them to hold democratic elections to prove a point to a single clueless dimwit is asinine
2) Even if I did, the CCP owes you and other frothing at the mouth democratic evangelists nothing. They don’t owe it to you to bow your whims. They’ll hold random democratic elections as soon as every elected official in the West is replaced by a great ape for a two week period in order. Oooh, what are you so afraid of, if you really are better than a monkey then why don’t you prove it? Stupid and childish. Though for the sake of being nice I will tell you that is commonly accepted by ‘intellectuals’ in the West that the CCP would win by a landslide – especially considering that any snap opposition party that could be employed in your pea-brain hypothetical would emerge with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. You’re truly a man of no ideas or sense.

July 1, 2011 @ 11:09 pm | Comment

“The question is whether the individual approves or does not approve. NOT approving is clearly the other option”
—even among the cohort of CCP apologists, who are genetically predisposed to be “slow”, you sure lag behind. Obviously, “not approving” is the other option of the same overly-simplistic question. And then what do they have? Nothing. People are resigned to feel good about their lot in life if they have no other choice. Might as well make the best of it. But if there was another option (ie real choice), then we would see how much people really do approve of the CCP. But alas, you are not strong enough in your convictions to go there, as we all know. BTW, in case you’re still too dense to realize it, the real “choice” is not to approve of the CCP or not; it is between choosing the CCP, or something else. Once again, your need for others to draw out the intestines for you is…charming.

“another poll asked individuals whether or not they were optimistic about the future”
—OK. Optimistic about the future economy? Future political system? Again, a poll is only as good as the questions you ask…but I don’t want to overtax your brain.

“whether they liked the direction their nation was going”
—indeed. Perhaps they’re are in favour of the trend towards democratization. Isn’t that where China is going?

“Nor is it the point of the discussion.”
—umm, you mind telling me the “point” of the discussion? Please tell me it’s not merely about your silly surveys. You bring up these surveys. They get eviscerated. But they’re not the point. Whatever you say, pal. I must defer to your highly-evolved bird-sized (to borrow from Richard) brain.

“Rather it would be like surveying car owners about whether they like or dislike a car they’ve driven for 20 years. Unsurprisingly, consumer advocacy groups use such statistics to rate the quality of ‘x’ model of car.”
—sure, they like their car. Just like Model T owners like the colour. That’s the dichotomy when you have one option. The real metric for how they feel about their current option is whether they would still opt for it in the face of alternatives. But I can understand if you are simply too dense, too dumb, or too indoctrinated to be able to grasp the difference. Try this: do you like vanilla ice cream? You may well say yes since you’d rather have vanilla ice cream than no ice cream at all. Then try this: do you like vanilla ice cream or rocky road? The second question helps you identify those who truly like vanilla ice cream; the first does not. Take your time with it…it might slowly percolate through.

“therefore asking me to force them to hold democratic elections to prove a point to a single clueless dimwit is asinine”
—good god, why would I bother asking YOU to force them to do anything? I wouldn’t ask you to hold my jock, cuz you’d probably drop it or fall down or whatever it is that you do. I’m merely asking you to have the strength of conviction and consistency of principle to accept that, if you like “surveys” like you seem to, then you should enjoy more regimented and scientific surveys whereby the results would actually mean something, or better yet, effect something. Clearly asking you to be consistent and principled is too much to ask.

“the CCP owes you and other frothing at the mouth democratic evangelists nothing.”
—nor would I want anything from them. I think we should be clear about that now, for the second time at least.

“Oooh, what are you so afraid of, if you really are better than a monkey then why don’t you prove it? Stupid and childish.”
—your “arguments” are so typical of your CCP apologist brethren. Not sure of the point of your little rant, but you do what you gotta do.

“They’ll hold random democratic elections as soon as every elected official in the West is replaced by a great ape for a two week period in order.”
—a sane person might suggest that they hold elections as soon as Chinese people feel that they are ready for one. But one should definitely not confuse you with a sane person.

“CCP would win by a landslide – especially considering that any snap opposition party that could be employed in your pea-brain hypothetical would emerge with absolutely no credibility whatsoever.”
—LOL, even in an election scenario, you would have to rig it so that the CCP must face a “snap opposition party…with no credibility”. You are certainly a product of your training. And your belief in the true appeal of the CCP is disappointing for a disciple such as yourself.

July 2, 2011 @ 3:18 am | Comment

What do you guys get out of such exchanges?

July 2, 2011 @ 3:54 am | Comment

Cheungsie
“People are resigned to feel good about their lot in life if they have no other choice.”

Pure drivel and unproven idiocy. Source your garbage.

“sure, they like their car. Just like Model T owners like the colour”

Idiotic analogy.

“Try this: do you like vanilla ice cream? You may well say yes since you’d rather have vanilla ice cream than no ice cream at all.”

Idiotic analogy. The question doesn’t make any of the implications you attach to it. I would say “not particularly”. But with your barely human lizard brain I’m sure you’d have trouble understanding the concept we call “objective thinking”.

RP
What do you guys get out of such exchanges?

SK refuses lessons in logic, I am entertained by his stupidity.

July 2, 2011 @ 5:12 am | Comment

“Then try this: do you like vanilla ice cream or rocky road? The second question helps you identify those who truly like vanilla ice cream; the first does not. ”

Are you mentally retarded? The answerer can like two things, even if they like one more than another.

But leave it to a mindless corporate drone to compare governance of the world’s second power to a questionnaire about your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Pure and utter stupidity.

July 2, 2011 @ 5:16 am | Comment

Poet has a good point. What’s the point of the back and forth? And can we please ease up on the insults?

July 2, 2011 @ 6:00 am | Comment

As you know, I don’t insult people who don’t insult me. SK Cheung is simply another angry man-child who uses ad hominems in place of arguments.

July 2, 2011 @ 6:12 am | Comment

To my pet poodle:
So if you don’t particularly like vanilla, you would be similar to those who said no to “approve of government”. In your case, i guess no ice cream for you. In their case, they’re stuck with the government they didn’t choose or want. The difference occurs in those who said yes. Not unexpectedly, you are unable to comprehend someone else’s answers which differ from yours. Typical.
Your survey is of people’s opinion. It’s subjective not objective. And you lack the capacity in logic to understand the difference.

July 2, 2011 @ 6:58 am | Comment

“In your case, i guess no ice cream for you. ”

No one was asking them whether or not they wanted a government. They were asked whether or not they approved of their government’s actions, not hard to understand.

Your argument is flat-out retarded.

July 2, 2011 @ 7:51 am | Comment

Richard was videotaped cursing at a train ticket sales person in China last month:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us55rj453_Q

In a brutal dictatorship police state like China, this man was allowed to cursing at public officials for 2 mins?

How long would I last, if I were to behave similarly in front of an AMTRAK station before the police comes and tases me?

July 2, 2011 @ 9:13 am | Comment

“The answerer can like two things, even if they like one more than another.”
—you are right. They can like both. I am surprised you didn’t say they like them both equally, cuz if it’s 50:50, when applied to government, then it is quite reasonable to infer that they would just go with the status quo (ie the CCP). But if you accept that they can like one more than the other, then it should not be much of a leap to the concept of choice when it comes to government. And you shouldn’t fear choice so much. You have it at your disposal where you live, and I can only assume you are not cowering in a corner because of it. Besides, if given a choice, Chinese people may actually prefer the CCP over something else, just as they may prefer vanilla over rocky road. At least you can always hope.

“to compare governance of the world’s second power to a questionnaire about your favorite flavor of ice cream.”
—now now, no need to take things quite so literally. I’m not suggesting it to be a perfectly accurate analogy. It was simply presented to illustrate the concept of choice to you, something with which you don’t seem entirely familiar. But even at the ice-cream level, your grasp of the concept is weak. No wonder it is even more tenuous at the government level (someone else’s government, no less).

“No one was asking them whether or not they wanted a government.”
—this is fantastic stuff. Please observe my two sentences back-to-back (“In your case, i guess no ice cream for you. In their case, they’re stuck with the government they didn’t choose or want.”). There’s your case, then there’s their case. If you need to resort to arguing against one sentence by ignoring what immediately follows it, well, you do what you gotta do, as I always say.

Yes, they were asked if they approved of their government. My point is that that is a flawed question. At the very least, the follow up question needs to be “if you do approve of the government, would you still do so if there was an alternative?”. That’s how you find out if people like their government simply because there is nothing else, or if they actually like the CCP based on its merits. I think you need to go back and grasp the ice-cream concept more, or learn about asking more discerning polling questions. Now, you mentioned earlier that I was missing the point. But you keep going back to the survey that you brought up. So you’ll have to enlighten me as to what exactly your point is. It certainly doesn’t seem to be related to the OP.

July 2, 2011 @ 9:37 am | Comment

In your case, i guess no ice cream for you.

No, there would still be “ice cream” for me if I wanted it – or in this case, whether I wanted it or liked it or not. You aren’t offering someone a government or “ice cream”, you’re asking them if they like the one they have. It’s easy enough to say no, it objectively sucks – I do not like it.

“if you do approve of the government, would you still do so if there was an alternative?”.

The presence of an alternative is not at all necessary to make a simple judgment. If you wanted to say they’d have to EXPERIENCE and alternative to tell you which one they preferred, that is still besides the point. Thus far the CCP has delivered economic growth, financial health, scientific and technological advancement, security, low crime rates, unprecedented improvements in education and health care (despite all the bad press) for a developing nation. In every single one of these criterion they have delivered far beyond any example of government in human history. This will no doubt factor into a responder’s choice.

That’s how you find out if people like their government simply because there is nothing else

It’s completely illogical for anyone to answer in this manner, no one would unless they were deliberately trolling. You don’t have to say you like something just because it’s your only option. If the government has grieved them they can use the question as an outlet to moan and bitch about it.

July 2, 2011 @ 10:48 am | Comment

HongXing, you’re really pushing your luck.

July 2, 2011 @ 11:34 am | Comment

[...] Incredible: leaked directive for 50-centers Share:EmailFacebookStumbleUponDigg ~ Comment (0) ~ [...]

July 2, 2011 @ 11:37 am | Pingback

As you know, I don’t insult people who don’t insult me.

Merp, that is a big, fat, stinkin’ lie. Your playbook is to 1) insult, 2) argue that a turd is a piece of gold, 3) cry when someone calls you a moronic arsehole.

July 2, 2011 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

Thus far the CCP has delivered economic growth, financial health, scientific and technological advancement, security, low crime rates, unprecedented improvements in education and health care (despite all the bad press) for a developing nation. In every single one of these criterion they have delivered far beyond any example of government in human history. This will no doubt factor into a responder’s choice

And you wonder why all these “deliveries” that are ” far beyond any example of government in human history” did not factor into the minds of these people:

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_679005.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_678844.html

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1134616/1/.html

LOL. And these are not your “Western bias” news source.

July 2, 2011 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

1) I do not control the CCP;, therefore asking me to force them

Of course. One has to know his place in life. Especially when endless 50 cents came rolling into one’s bank account.

July 2, 2011 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

Which, I suppose, means a majority of the Chinese people are “stupid” as they consistently approve of their nation’s direction and the work of the CCP.

This die-hard habit of self-appointing yourself as the spokesperson of 1.3 billion people simply just won’t go away. That has to be your wildest and longest-living deranged fantasy.

July 2, 2011 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

Are you stupid? The question is whether the individual approves or does not approve. NOT approving is clearly the other option; another poll asked individuals whether or not they were optimistic about the future, yet another whether they liked the direction their nation was going. They answered overwhelmingly in the affirmative.

1) How is the question phrased to them?
2) Under what circumstances and context are these questions asked?
3) Can the individuals stay anonymous?
4) Are validity and reliability being factored in when questions are being drawn up?
5) How is the sample of the interviewees selected? Random selection or?

Of course, you won’t be interested to answer or even consider these things.

July 2, 2011 @ 3:37 pm | Comment

“It’s easy enough to say no, it objectively sucks – I do not like it.”
—agreed. Which is why I said in #83 that the ones who answered “no” to begin with are not the issue. The issue is understanding what people are actually approving of, among those who chose to answer in the affirmative. This is where the single question of “do you approve of the government” is inadequate.

“The presence of an alternative is not at all necessary to make a simple judgment.”
—which is precisely what the survey question asks for: a simple judgment. A more meaningful judgment would be to see if people still preferred the CCP when given an alternative. This is again where the single question does not suffice.

“This will no doubt factor into a responder’s choice.”
—no doubt. But your lack of doubt does not replace asking the question, and finding out from the people themselves.

The CCP happened to be around the last 30 years when all those things were “delivered”. But she was also around in the first 30 years when they weren’t being delivered. So the correlation goes both ways. Here’s the other correlation: China was “communist” the first 30 years, and free-market the last 30. Would the current free market economy coupled with a different political system produce similar results? I’d be interested in how CHinese people felt about that.

“You don’t have to say you like something just because it’s your only option.”
—true, you don’t have to. But some people may have done it anyway. How do you tease that out? You give them an option, and see if they still say they prefer that original “something”. If they do, then you know. If they don’t, then you know. The only reason for not taking the next step and asking the obvious next question is if it is a question for which you do not want to know the answer.

July 2, 2011 @ 3:49 pm | Comment

To SP #91:
I agree that any data you have is only as good as the method by which it was obtained. Any critical appraisal of data starts with scrutiny of the methodology. If the methods are lousy, there is little point in even looking at the data, much less the conclusions.

I don’t know which survey is being quoted here. I have seen 2 such surveys in the past, both of which were methodologically flawed. Coercion and hence the need for anonymity is somewhat unique to China. The one more egregious survey in particular only sampled from a pre-specified list of large urban centers in China, so it was completely useless in terms of generalizability. The method of randomization/random selection was not specified (in the 2 I’ve read). And the results were presented as point estimates with no 95% confidence intervals, the absence of which brings doubt upon the competence of those 2 survey authors. Again, the survey here may be different from a methodology standpoint. Since I haven’t seen the methodology, I cannot criticize the rigors of survey conduct here. But as you also suggest, the quality of the questions that were asked, and particularly the omission of questions that should have been asked, are wide open for criticism.

July 2, 2011 @ 4:13 pm | Comment

A more meaningful judgment would be to see if people still preferred the CCP when given an alternative.

What alternative party would you suggest? That could reliable deliver more results than the CCP?

But she was also around in the first 30 years when they weren’t being delivered.

30 years is a long time – they are similar in name only. A long time ago it was the democrats in America who were persecuting minorities and generally making asshats of themselves, but that’s changed as well.

Would the current free market economy coupled with a different political system produce similar results?

So far no country that has been a free market democracy since the beginning (or any large free market democracy) has done well. Meanwhile, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea have all excelled with authoritarian governments.

July 3, 2011 @ 9:25 am | Comment

Residentbitch
Merp, that is a big, fat, stinkin’ lie. Your playbook is to 1) insult, 2) argue that a turd is a piece of gold, 3) cry when someone calls you a moronic arsehole.

Aww, did I make you cry? Again, I’m perfectly civil to people who are civil. Broadly slandering the Chinese people makes you fair game, Residentbitch.

July 3, 2011 @ 9:29 am | Comment

Who is broadly slandering the Chinese people, Ferin?

July 4, 2011 @ 5:35 am | Comment

Hey, Merp, you nitwit. It wasn’t RP that called you on your lie. I’d be happy to slap you around a bit more if you like, just wipe your eyes and blow your nose first. Also, the question Richard asked is a good one, wanna try answering it?

Have a nice day.

July 4, 2011 @ 10:32 am | Comment

To 97:
“What alternative party would you suggest?”
—you are right, currently there is no alternative. It’s a chicken/egg conundrum courtesy of the CCP. In order for there to be a viable alternative, the CCP would have to allow for the existence of a viable alternative first. Along that line of reasoning, you would correctly conclude that, in the CCP’s current system of governance, there is no way of accurately assessing the people’s approval of, and preference for, …itself.

“30 years is a long time – they are similar in name only.”
—30 years is 30 years. The time difference between 1979 and 1949 is exactly the same as the time difference between 1981 and today. But you’re right, things do change a lot in 30 years. 30 years ago China barely was starting out with a free-market economy. Today she’s pretty good at it. Maybe 30 years from now she’ll be pretty good at some form of democracy as well.

“Meanwhile, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea have all excelled with authoritarian governments.”
—and 2 out of those 3 have moved away from authoritarian systems…without falling into the abyss. I was being unclear in #95. There is no point arguing about whether China with a new free market and a new democratic government in 1979 would end up in 2011 with a similar situation as the CHina with a free market and authoritarian system (ie the current China). That’s water under bridge. It’s moving forward from here that matters. My impression is that the only claim of legitimacy the CCP has is an understanding to the people that growth will be maintained, such that those who haven’t yet gotten rich in the last 30 years might yet still do so. So from here onward with a free market economy, I would be interested to know whether Chinese people felt that a CCP one party authoritarian system was an essential prerequisite for continued growth.

July 5, 2011 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

My impression is that most Chinese people don’t object to the lack of democracy per se, but to an overall lack of fairness and to the growing inequality.

If the CCP could ensure basic fairness for all (no hukou, no princelings, no American-style collusion between money and power) then it will stay in power forever.

It will be with us in one form or the other for the rest of our lives anyhow. Even Russia still has a communist party (they hold 11% of the seats in the State Duma).

July 5, 2011 @ 3:59 pm | Comment

To RP:
I can’t say one way or another whether Chinese people object to a lack of democracy or not, since they’ve yet to be systematically asked. It is quite plausible that they would want more fairness and equality…but the fact that they would want more suggests they aren’t getting enough of it with the current system. Does that mean they would want “democracy” instead? Tough to say. Does that mean they might go for something other than the status quo, if that “something” existed? I wonder.

I also imagine that if a government can provide all that people want, it too would stay in power forever. But looking no further than corruption and nepotism, in a one-party system you would be counting solely on people’s inherent “goodness” to steer clear of those things. Compared to the current iteration, the CCP would require, from top to bottom, a whole new batch of inherently “better people”. That’s a tall order.

In the face of alternatives, who knows if the CCP would endure. But the question for me is whether it can stay in power, as opposed to whether it would continue to exist.

July 6, 2011 @ 3:26 am | Comment

Jiang Zemin is dead, at least that’s what news reports in HK are saying. There’ve been fake reports of his death before, but this one looks real.

July 6, 2011 @ 7:40 pm | Comment

Xinhua now says it was a rumour. Hard to know what to think.

July 7, 2011 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

Hard to know what to think.

Cui bono?

July 8, 2011 @ 6:25 am | Comment

A year or two ago, it could have helped Li Keqiang, reportedly Hu Jintao’s candidate for his own succession. Xi Jinping is said to have been Jiang Zemin’s candidate. But a short-lived rumor doesn’t look likely to be useful to either side. But the future careers of the two have most probably been decided long ago. Could be aimed at some lower-ranking candidates, though.

July 8, 2011 @ 4:44 pm | Comment

Fènqing and 50-centers have indeed mostly barged their way into comment boxes with canned sound-bytes in hand–and rarely address the ideas in a given news article with any coherence. Their repetitiousness and self-righteous indignation make for very dull reading. “Party si, Yanqui no.”

July 14, 2011 @ 7:44 am | Comment

Oh no, they got our internal memo! A 50 center here and I’d like to earn my paid. Promotion is coming up too..opps another internal leak.

So what if there is a memo for our 50 centers and why are you so surprised there is? Isn’t it expected? Do you mean to tell me that you think we are hired because we can work independently with minimum supervision? The government is supervising 600 million net users in China think about it. So yeah, we do get memos, and they instruct us how to repel the western evils. On top of the list is, of course, democracy and that in itself is surprising?

August 13, 2011 @ 9:46 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.