Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Hacked By AdGhosT

Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

People call me a traitor » The Peking Duck

People call me a traitor

So says Li Chengpeng, described as “a writer and a blogger who has over five million followers on Sina Weibo.” In this shocking excerpt from a long article he wrote on the 2008 Sichuan earthquake he describes firsthand watching the horrors unfold in Beichuan, where he saw children trapped under the rubble of the tofu school buildings moving their fingers, pleading to be rescued. All of them died.

Li describes himself as a former Chinese patriot who had sucked in all the propaganda and lies verbatim. He describes how he was manipulated like a soft lump of clay.

I was a typical patriot before 2008. I believed that “hostile foreign forces” were responsible for most of my peoples’ misfortunes. As a soccer commentator covering games between Japan and China, I wrote lines like, “Cut off the Japanese devils’ heads.” I saw Japanese soccer players as the descendants of the Japanese soldiers who brutally killed Chinese civilians in the 1937 massacre of Nanjing. I used to curse CNN for its anti-China commentaries. I was one of the protesters who stood in front of the U.S. consulate in Chengdu and raised my fist after the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999.

Now he wants to know how it happened, why some schoolhouses crumbled “like crackers” while others, built with the supervision of the PLA, stood unscathed. He wants to know what stands at the root of the problem, the graft, the corruption, the kickbacks, the sleaze. And by asking these questions he exposes himself as an agent of “foreign devils.”

A month after the quake, I returned to Beijing. One day I bumped into a respected journalist from CCTV, the state television news channel. We talked about the shoddy “tofu structures” that claimed many lives during the quake.

“Corrupt officials deserve to be shot dead,” I barked.

“No,” responded the respected wise man while gazing intently at me. “Tackling such issues in China must be a gradual process. Otherwise, there will be chaos again. After all, we have to rely on these officials for post-quake reconstruction.”

I used to have a lot of respect for that man. Now we are strangers.

Some people now call me a traitor. Some call me an agent of the foreign devils. But how can I be an agent of the foreign devils when I don’t even have a U.S. green card, when unlike much of the Chinese elite my child doesn’t drive a Ferrari or study at a prestigious foreign university, when I don’t own any real estate in the United States or Europe. I love my country, but I cannot love a government that is responsible for so many shoddy “tofu structures.”

He is still a patriot. He still wants Taiwan to return to its mother’s arms. But now he sees his patriotism in a new light.

Patriotism is about taking fewer kickbacks and using proper construction methods when building classrooms. Patriotism is about constructing fewer extravagant offices for the bureaucrats and building more useful structures for farmers. Patriotism is about drinking less baijiu (a fiery Chinese spirit) using public money. Patriotism is about allowing people to move freely in our country and letting our children study in the city where they wish to study. Patriotism is about speaking more truth. Patriotism is about dignity for the Chinese people.

I love this article. I love its love for the Chinese people. I love its drawing a distinction between being pro-China and being pro-corruption, the folly of believing you can only be a patriot if you accept carte blanche all the propaganda and injustices brought by venal officials who abuse their power. I love its definitions of true patriotism as opposed to blind allegiance. I love its honesty and the author’s willingness to challenge his own principles.

Read it. Cut it out and paste it on the wall. Refer to it whenever any idiot tells you it’s impossible to be critical of the Chinese government without being “anti-China,” a “China basher.” Li has exposed them as lemmings incapable of thinking for themselves even in light of the strongest evidence. This blind acceptance of all the government’s crap isn’t patriotism at all, it’s self-delusion and the surrender of one’s critical faculties. We all know that. But it’s wonderful to hear it from a former true believer who came to see for himself what the truth actually is. And that makes him a traitor and a threat.

______________

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: 144 Comments

Except the TGIE has nothing real to go off of.

Whether you are right or not, it’s irrelevant. If the CCP can blame the DL/hostile outside forces/space aliens for anti-Chinese and pro-independence activity, why can it not be blamed for nationalistic jingoism? Obviously nobody would claim that all nationalism in China is simply created out of nothing by government propaganda, but you would have to be naive not to think that they don’t actively try to foster it.

May 30, 2012 @ 8:42 am | Comment

Guys… really? Engaement with these people is pointless. As soon as you read the phrase “China Bashing” you simply have to ignore the poster.

This use of “China Bashing” is simply a government propagandist tactic, and it works. Why? Because they know our weakness: we feel guilty when we are accused of going on the attack, so it forces us on the defensive. And what’s more, one of our strengths – the plurality of our opinions, becomes a weakness.

Suddenly we are “China Bashers” – we are the guilty party, we are the aggressors. Many people rail at the accusation: our arguments are logical, sensible and made from impartial and fair observations, how are we “China Bashers” when we are simply pointing out the truth? And you see, we are put on the back foot, having to defend our reasonable and logical conclusions, when really explanations should be forthcoming from our accusers.

What’s worse then, are tose people who take the term “China Basher” to heart -what if we ARE wrong? What if truly we ARE being too cruel? Are we so perfect? Immediately a section of the commentors begin to self-doubt and doubt the other section who try to maintain a cogent line of argument. But now, these people are facing two sets of accuser: he propagandists and then their own former allies who feel that the label of “China Basher” is somehow unfair, but really we should tone down our negative comments, look at ourselves…

…and suddenly, our strength, our ability to think for ourselves is used against us. We begin thinking the same as the other side. We begin to doubt. Not because there is truth in their words, not because they have constructed a reasonable and careful argument, no: but because of a simple label. With two words, we have been torn apart.

So: simply disengage. When you come up against accusations of “China Bashing” just ignore them, laugh at the accuser. But whatever you do, don’t take the bait. If you have based your assertion on fair evidence, then it is not “China Bashing” and never will be. Ignore the label. Ignore the accusations. You have done nothing wrong and they only wish to use a psychological tactic to weaken your own self-belief. Note that your position is no weaker, they have done nothing to discredit or disprove your argument, all they have done is sown doubt.

E pluribus unum, it’s the tactic they use against their detractors, and it’s time to turn the tables. You will see, from China Daily, to China Geeks, to the BBC, to PekingDuck and all over the internet that their tactics are all the same: “You are China Bashing” “America is worse because of x” and then the all-encompassing “Your history is shameful, you have no right to speak!” Everywhere, it’s the same. Everywhere. Why? Because they have been taught that unity is strength.

It’s something we have forgotten, and now it’s time to remember.

May 30, 2012 @ 9:01 am | Comment

t_co
Chinese people simply have no place to put their money that earns a decent return

Yet household net worth in China has been rising 15% year on year for a decade. They’re getting “richer” faster than anyone else in the history of humanity. It will probably rise and fall due to housing prices, but it can’t be said that their fortunes aren’t growing.

but I can say that anecdotally education and healthcare costs are two of the largest fixed costs for most of my relatives living back in Beijing.

But do they use only basic health services? It sounds like they’re paying for someone’s post-secondary tuition as well, because there’s no way the school fees should be killing them in Beijing.

since the biggest beneficiaries of most of the infrastructure have often been large enterprises and export industries.

But they’ve also built sanitation systems, and full rural electrification should be complete this decade. Likewise they have done better than anyone else in proliferating internet and computer use, as well as mobile communications.

As far as putting too much investment into housing goes, I can see that being a problem later but not now when China has a severe shortage of decent housing. I agree that the level of corruption in China is unacceptable, but I’m still glad they’re not India or Brazil or Mexico or just about any other major developing (and many developed) nation I can think of.

For China’s geopolitical situation, I compare it favorably to Germany’s because Britain’s ability to project power and influence Germany’s trajectory is much greater than America’s ability to derail China – much of it due to proximity, the fact that America has countless and very credible rivals and enemies, and because China has a nuclear deterrent which makes a minimalist and asymmetric approach to defense somewhat feasible. With regards to demographics, my personal opinion is that older Chinese people are simply less expensive than Westerners, and that advances in medicine will help keep them productive and happy. That, and America’s population has been predominantly bad growth i.e the least educated and least productive elements of society with high birth rates, the immigration of unskilled labor, coupled with the beginnings of reverse brain drain. But only time will tell.

Simply acquiring Huangyan Island won’t win respect–or increase influence. However, if China can turn this crisis into a multilateral resolution to the whole South China Seas dispute, in a way that handily excludes the US and Japan from the region

My stance is that China should absolutely not capitulate and cede a single inch of land to anyone, ever. I agree that they should be pragmatic and use these disputes as a way to get a dialogue going with ASEAN. I would have no problem with China sharing or even giving away rights to resources as long as there is a diplomatic payoff. However I highly doubt Japan and the US will allow themselves to be excluded.

Japan cannot contribute to China’s position without being subordinated first.

I don’t see it this way. China has nothing to gain from antagonizing Japan, and Japan’s interests do not collide with China’s. They would be perfect economic partners in theory. I’m guessing the US recognizes this and thus has systematically poisoned the well by funneling billions to the Japanese far right. Likewise I don’t think the CCP works to China’s benefit when they allow anti-Japanese sentiment to rage, even if they are not in the wrong, morally speaking.

May 30, 2012 @ 10:31 am | Comment

narsfweasels, just two words: Thank you.

May 30, 2012 @ 10:41 am | Comment

SK Cheung
For Chinese people, in the foreseeable future, the chance of ridding themselves of the CCP is zero.

The chance of Indians abolishing the exploitative classes among them is likewise zero. I would not be surprised at all if China is semi-developed in 20 years and they still have millions of children dying of diarrhea every year.

You seem to acknowledge the corruption issue, but that seems to be about it.

No, I acknowledge pollution and their poor handling of foreign affairs, but I also acknowledge that many other governments are worse.

And please, spare me that Pew garbage you guys like to bring up.

Right, because Pew is such a disreputable source. It’s garbage because you say so. So lets say you give a poll asking them what they think. If they say they are displeased, it’s garbage, so I win.

can you prove that?

There are no major developing nations with a lower crime rate than China’s, afaik. Unless they’re certain countries that don’t consider rape, mutilation and murder crimes if they are performed ritually.

people still need to make a decision about what they want to live under.

The thing is, a democracy isn’t the people making decisions. At best it’s 51% of the electorate making decisions, regardless of where they live and how relevant the issue at hand is to them. Or it’s people hired by other people appointed by empty-headed lawyers making decisions.

The only real carrot that the CCP has is the economy.

No, it isn’t. Again, the CCP does much more than just provide economic growth. In fact the vast majority of people in China probably do not give a shit about the economy. GDP means nothing to the majority of China’s poor as it rarely reflects their incomes. Clearly they are being given something else that they want, and I’d guess security and subsidies for living costs are what stop them from rioting.

Who knew that telling the truth would spur these guys into action.

Except they were doing this long before the complaints about particulate matter.

here we go. Footsteps…shadows around corners…voices…

Right, I forgot you live in a world where nations don’t plot against other nations.

never have I said that China needs to emulate anybody

Good. They aren’t right now.

She can certainly progress of her own accord under democratic principles.

But she doesn’t need to.

Your points start and end with “well so and so is just as bad or has done this and that, so no one should complain about China”

Nope. My point is your claim that China’s government is exceptionally evil is not substantiated by fact.

now you’re an expert in Tibetan nationalism

Compared to you, yes, I would be called an expert.

and your expertise in “real Tibetan nationalism” is derived from

Reason and knowledge, they can be helpful.

May 30, 2012 @ 10:43 am | Comment

narsfweasels,

No one who only offers up logical arguments would be so defensive. Clearly China watchers are not disembodied heads floating around testing claims of political fact from a rigorously logical perspective.

There is always motive and interests involved here, and that’s what’s being attacked. Don’t hide behind faux logic when they are called into question. If you seriously want us to believe that even 1% of “China critics” give a single shit about any PRC citizen, you’re beyond insane.

May 30, 2012 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Really, which do you think is more believable?

“I am the Great Impartial Foreigner. Because of my generosity and my endless love for all men, I am here to debate government and politics! I hope my inarguable and flawless ‘logic’ will lead you to become a stronger nation, so that you may better compete with my own in the international arena!”

“I am the Egotistical/Cynical Foreign Douche. I make grand claims and then dodge responsibility for them by referencing Wikipedia’s logical fallacies page, and then employing the entries in a hamfisted way. Tu quoque! Tu quoque! Stop oppressing me!”

May 30, 2012 @ 10:52 am | Comment

@ Richard

You’re welcome!

May 30, 2012 @ 10:53 am | Comment

“Right, because Pew is such a disreputable source. It’s garbage because you say so.”
—read the entire point, could you? I said what’s needed is a scientifically rigourous survey. Pew might be reputable in some arenas, but their China surveys are scientifically useless. Year after year, they sample people who represent about 40% of the population (and read that carefully: they don’t sample 40% of 1.3 Billion; they survey people that would represent 40% of 1.3 billion. In fact, in the 2 I’ve actually read, nowhere is there even mention of exactly how many people were actually surveyed). Not only that, but the 40% that were represented basically come from the 8 or 10 largest urban centers in China. So basically, it is a survey of some big cities in China. You can’t say the Pew survey represents Chinese opinion when 60% of Chinese opinion (mostly of those outside the largest urban areas) are ignored. Strictly scientifically speaking, it is useless. To be fair, they acknowledge some of their methodological limitations, and hint that perhaps the government doesn’t allow them to do their scientific work outside the big cities. But the methodological issues themselves are enough to render Pew meaningless. Add on top of that the less quantifiable but nonetheless technical issues like what questions are asked, how the questions are framed, and the methods of guaranteeing anonymity such that respondents can answer freely without fear of reprisals, and you basically have a useless data set. However, the top line results sound nice to folks like you, which is why you like to buy it hook/line/sinker without any critical appraisal whatsoever.

“I acknowledge pollution and their poor handling of foreign affairs, but I also acknowledge that many other governments are worse.”
—but Chinese people aren’t choosing to inherit someone else’s government, nor are they choosing the government for other people. If the CCP has failings, it’s Chinese people who are being failed. And if Chinese people are being failed in some way, it should be up to them to weigh the good vs the bad, and decide if the CCP gets to keep the job.

“So lets say you give a poll asking them what they think. If they say they are displeased, it’s garbage, so I win.”
—this would be the part about scientific rigour that you need to learn about.

“afaik.”
—surely you don’t expect that to pass as proof, do you?

“At best it’s 51%…”
—we go through this every time, don’t we? Yes there’s voting. And then there are laws, independent judiciary, a functional constitution. Separation of powers would be even better.

“In fact the vast majority of people in China probably do not give a shit about the economy.”
—LOL. Any chance you can share with us how you came upon this “fact”? And if the economy spirals downward, where will these “subsidies” come from?

“Except they were doing this long before the complaints about particulate matter.”
—oh, so they were acting on something that wasn’t a problem? Or was there a problem that the CCP didn’t want people to know about…until the US told them? Gosh, it’s as though the US embassy was more patriotic than the CCP was in terms of speaking more truth…to Chinese people. Go figure.

“world where nations don’t plot against other nations.”
—in my world, they compete. Conspire, no so much.

“Good. They aren’t right now.”
—“they” aren’t anything at this point. “they” being Chinese people, who are being held at the whim of the CCP. Once they get out from under that grip, then they can pursue the form of political governance as they please.

“But she doesn’t need to.”
—and that need should be determined by Chinese people, not the CCP, and certainly not by some guy sitting in the US of A.

“My point is your claim that China’s government is exceptionally evil”
—I’ve never said the CCP is exceptionally evil. But they are more evil than Chinese people require, or deserve. Again, no tu quoque fallacies necessary.

“Compared to you, yes, I would be called an expert.”
—you’re a moron who is so willfully blind as to consider yourself capable of speaking on behalf of Tibetans. Shameless stuff. I’m honest enough to know that Tibetans know what Tibetans want far better than I do.

“Reason and knowledge”
—LOL. So now you try to infer what a true Tibetan nationalist feels, and internalize it into your Han (and retarded) mindset? Again, shameless stuff. Not only do you pretend to know what Chinese citizens want when you’re not even a Chinese citizen in CHina, you pretend to deeply understand that which you never were, and have never been. There is no depth too low for types like you to stoop.

May 30, 2012 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

@SKC – Really, there’s just no point arguing with Cookie. He’s shown himself to be an angry racist who likes to come here to argue about things he wants to argue about. Don’t play his game.

May 30, 2012 @ 4:25 pm | Comment

I think the way t_co is debating with CM is useful – one only needs to know when to pull the plug. My thumb-of-rule is this: once I feel that I’m getting defensive, or bored, I’ll do a short soul-search. And if I believe that what caused these feelings isn’t actually my problem, I’ll either say nothing at all, or I’ll keep to a limit of two lines. To each his own policy, but personally, I’d find these threads much more readable without endless tugs-of-war, which usually keep centering around the same leitmotives.

May 30, 2012 @ 6:27 pm | Comment

P.S.: Short links to where an issue was discussed before may be useful, too, in such cases.

May 30, 2012 @ 6:30 pm | Comment

Cookie Monster,

To give you credit, you do write well. Most of the time. But you’ll never convince anybody as long as you make sweeping statements like:

‘If you seriously want us to believe that even 1% of “China critics” give a single shit about any PRC citizen, you’re beyond insane.’

One more thing: whom are you refering to as ‘us’?

May 30, 2012 @ 6:32 pm | Comment

Gil
He’s shown himself to be an angry racist

White person pulling the race card, thank you for the laugh.

Xilin
whom are you refering to as ‘us’?

Rational thinkers.

May 31, 2012 @ 12:31 am | Comment

Cheung,

If I’m not mistaken the countryside still remains the party’s ‘stronghold’ so to speak. People who are poor and less educated are easier to bribe. And isn’t the great big hope for China that the urban, educated and middle class Chinese would revolt and overthrow the CCP? I remember the angry Westerners spewing and gnashing their teeth, saying the Chinese middle class was evil, for not wanting immediate regime change. If the people were actually afraid of reprisals they would not be spamming anti-government comments all over the internet, nor would they be openly criticizing them on other forms of public media. This notion that Chinese people are looking over their shoulders and cowering in fear of the government is ridiculous.

it should be up to them to weigh the good vs the bad, and decide if the CCP gets to keep the job.

That’s why they protest, and the government often listens. They are not at all powerless, the CCP knows that if they don’t satisfy their people they will be out on their asses (and quite possibly killed in the streets).

And if the economy spirals downward, where will these “subsidies” come from?

“The economy” is too much of an abstraction for the typical poor person in China to care about. If the economy “spirals downward” there is still $20t in holdings and at least a few trillion in income they could tax to maintain living standards for the poorest.

oh, so they were acting on something that wasn’t a problem? Or was there a problem that the CCP didn’t want people to know about…until the US told them?

Don’t be stupid. They were implementing pollution controls long before they published PM2.5 data. You don’t need that info to know Beijing’s air is dirty.

in my world, they compete. Conspire, no so much.

How adorable.

you’re a moron who is so willfully blind as to consider yourself capable of speaking on behalf of Tibetans.

I think you are describing yourself. Either for Tibetans or for the rest of the PRC population.

and internalize it into your Han (and retarded) mindset?

Did I ever say I was Han? I don’t pretend I “deeply understand” anything. I just know I understand more than you do, because you’re an indoctrinated Asperger’s patient with no capacity for independent thought or reason. You can’t manage anything that involves context or degrees.

One last time, what is your occupation and major?

May 31, 2012 @ 12:42 am | Comment

and internalize it into your Han (and retarded) mindset?

Did I ever say I was Han? I don’t pretend I “deeply understand” anything. I just know I understand more than you do, because you’re an indoctrinated Asperger’s patient with no capacity for independent thought or reason. You can’t manage anything that involves context or degrees.
One last time, what is your occupation and major?

Guys, let’s try to keep this impersonal, ok?

Yet household net worth in China has been rising 15% year on year for a decade. They’re getting “richer” faster than anyone else in the history of humanity. It will probably rise and fall due to housing prices, but it can’t be said that their fortunes aren’t growing.

Most of the rise in household net worth is locked up in real estate. Home equity loans are rare, so there’s no way to take the money out. You can’t eat your house. And what’s more, this is even more evidence that there is substantial capital “guidance” being employed; do you really think Chinese households continue to pour their wealth into a housing market most Chinese believe to be a gigantic bubble because it is the best market, or because it is the only outlet for their savings?

For China’s geopolitical situation, I compare it favorably to Germany’s because Britain’s ability to project power and influence Germany’s trajectory is much greater than America’s ability to derail China – much of it due to proximity, the fact that America has countless and very credible rivals and enemies, and because China has a nuclear deterrent which makes a minimalist and asymmetric approach to defense somewhat feasible. With regards to demographics, my personal opinion is that older Chinese people are simply less expensive than Westerners, and that advances in medicine will help keep them productive and happy. That, and America’s population has been predominantly bad growth i.e the least educated and least productive elements of society with high birth rates, the immigration of unskilled labor, coupled with the beginnings of reverse brain drain. But only time will tell.

This is where I get concerned, actually. I’m assuming you’ve taken some college macroeconomics, so if you generalize the entire Permanent Income Hypothesis to arrive at the optimal “social savings system” for a country with high investment as proportion of GDP, you’ll find that the a population growth factor of less than 1 can create *severe* problems for any investment-driven economy.

Put in layman’s terms, it is the phenomenon that young, working people are net savers, while old, retired people are net consumers. The more old people you have proportionately in your economy, on a macro level, the slower your available pool of savings to finance new investment grows. Eventually that rate tips negative: the whole populace withdraws more savings, on a macro basis, than it puts back in. That’s when interest rates start climbing and your country, on a net, overall basis, has to start using the returns from the investment projects it has built up over the past few decades to support its graying population–or else the standard of living begins to stagnate, and then fall.

Sure, you could make it so that on a proportionate basis to GDP, each retiree in 2020 gets less than a retiree in 2000. But that will naturally shorten life expectancy and prove to be extremely unpopular in a culture as respectful towards the elderly as Chinese culture. And what if the elderly begin to protest, or apply political pressure? How could you justify muzzling them?

We see a milder version of this phenomenon already at play in the US capital markets, with the mass retirement of baby boomers and their 401k withdrawals beginning to raise the implied cost of capital across all asset classes. But China has it far worse because of the one-child policy, which means that when the “bulge bracket” of population hits retirement age, the subsequent reversal of working-age to retirees will occur much more quickly.

In this regard, Japan will be China’s canary in the coal mine: her demographics and debt profile mean she will experience this phenomenon about three decades before China does. Also, her basket of many wasteful projects ensures that she will experience a similar difficulty in generating enough excess return to finance her elderly as China will eventually experience. This is also why I worry so much about corruption and malinvestment–because we, you and I, will be the generation that has to pick up the pieces twenty years down the road, when we inherit a stagnating economy stuck in a thirty-to-fifty year debt-repayment cycle.

May 31, 2012 @ 2:31 am | Comment

The party stronghold (and entire raison d’etre) used to be agrarian. But that may no longer be the case…or more scientifically, we don’t know if that is still the case or not. And presumably, the reason for mass urban migration is because rural life is no longer what it was made up to be. There is no reason to assume that rural support for the CCP remains strong, especially when those people remain poor and they’re looking at all the urban wealth. Even if they once accepted that some people need to get rich first, sooner or later they’ll want to know why it’s still not their turn.

“This notion that Chinese people are looking over their shoulders and cowering in fear of the government is ridiculous.”
—not looking over their shoulder. But neither do anonymous internet postings prove that Chinese citizens feel they can freely speak their mind without reprisals, in circumstances where they might be identifiable. I don’t know how Pew carried out the survey cuz they never specify, but if it was by phone, can the respondent be sure that their answers will be tabulated in a blinded fashion, and not directly attributed to their phone number? I wouldn’t be so sure.

“That’s why they protest, and the government often listens”
—as noted by you and others, there are more protests, and they seem to be tolerated for the most part. The government might be listening. But do they hear anything? Who knows. Do those protests achieve anything? It seems the Wukan protest did effect change. The Dalian protest might result in a factory relocation. But those are the exceptions. The government seems to treat protests as “pop-off valves” to let people vent off some steam, only to then continue doing what it was doing.

” tax to maintain living standards for the poorest.”
—sure, they could rob Peter to pay Paul and do the little Dutch boy thing for a bit. And maybe you’ll keep the “poorest” satisfied for a while but increasingly piss off those less poor. Any way you slice it, without economic benefits to offer, the CCP has nothing else to offer that is sufficiently enticing to justify its existence.

“You don’t need that info to know Beijing’s air is dirty.”
—you’re not kidding. And thanks to the US embassy’s lead for speaking more truth, Beijingers now have a way to quantify it, and follow it. Imagine that…being empowered to know what’s going on…that’s fairly patriotic.

“I think you are describing yourself. Either for Tibetans or for the rest of the PRC population.”
—wrong. Never have I said that I know what Tibetans want, or what Chinese citizens want. I’m the one who always says that, if you want to know, you need to go and ask them. You would be the American who pretends to know what PRC citizens want. And now you’ve graduated to trying to speak for Tibetans. Nice.

“Did I ever say I was Han?”
—no, you didn’t. That was my assumption. If it’s wrong, then say so and I’ll retract it.

“I don’t pretend I “deeply understand” anything”
—then stop spouting off nonsense about what Tibetan nationalism should look like, and what a real Tibetan nationalist should want.

Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. There are no shades, degrees or context about it. Employing a logical fallacy does not result in your argument becoming logical. That is an undeniable fact. If I say “China is worse”, then you can logically introduce a comparison to show that China is not worse. But if I say “China is wrong”, a comparison serves no logical purpose besides invoking said fallacy, because any comparison you use will not show that China is right, only that China is just as wrong as the subject of your comparison…which is what tu quoque is.

May 31, 2012 @ 3:41 am | Comment

“If you seriously want us to believe that even 1% of “China critics” give a single shit about any PRC citizen, you’re beyond insane.’”
—I would be equally skeptical about CCP apologists…especially the ones who aren’t walking the walk. On places like here and HH, I’d say that’s most of them.

To Xilin,
I’m not surprised HH shut you out. One of their admins tried to ban me at FM even when he didn’t have the authority to do so, basically because I had the temerity to vehemently disagree with him. Knowing his proclivities is one of the reasons why I don’t do HH. Knowing the wildlife that roam freely there would be another.

May 31, 2012 @ 3:48 am | Comment

t_co

As a percentage of total net worth China’s assets are actually quite liquid, though it is also my impression that the Chinese banking sector is vastly underdeveloped. Then again most Americans (outside of the 1% uber rich, who control 90% of liquid assets) actually do have their money tied up in real estate … and debts.

When it comes to demographics, I don’t think the elderly in China will tax the system as much as the baby boomers are in America. Same goes for Japan. I’m of the belief that Japan is actually doing quite well, it’s just that fewer people are working shorter hours. Otherwise their productivity growth has been pretty good.

Likewise I don’t think the elderly spending their savings will result in a shortage of funds for investment – it seems like in China at least, they are saving for that purpose and any economic impact this has is being drawn out over their lifetimes rather than building to a breaking point.

May 31, 2012 @ 5:55 am | Comment

SK Cheung
And presumably, the reason for mass urban migration is because rural life is no longer what it was made up to be

Rural life is better than it ever was, which is not saying much.

It seems the Wukan protest did effect change. The Dalian protest might result in a factory relocation.

There was also that CCP official that got knifed for being a rapist pig, the woman was exonerated. Li Qiming was also brought to justice after netizens complained (though in my opinion he should face the firing squad). The list is virtually endless – there have also been delays and relocations of dam building.

they could rob Peter to pay Paul and do the little Dutch boy thing for a bit

So only taking 7% of the Chinese population’s income is not robbery? But maybe restricting this further to 5% would count as robbery.

Imagine that…being empowered to know what’s going on…that’s fairly patriotic.

Oh yes, the US embassy’s self-serving actions mean so much more than Beijing spending billions on environmental protections, right? And no, that information didn’t give Beijingers any recourse to protect themselves, really. It gave them information so that they can better lobby the government, but it’s up to each of them to cut down energy use and stop driving around so much.

You would be the American who pretends to know what PRC citizens want.

Uh, nope. While it’s interesting to know what 51% of PRC citizens might want on any given day (after campaigns of manipulation and lies), everyone knows what they need – which is security and growth.

then stop spouting off nonsense about what Tibetan nationalism should look like, and what a real Tibetan nationalist should want.

It’s common sense that a real nationalist would not give up a huge chunk of their most fertile land to India. Either that, or show me an example of nationalists whose core tenets involve capitulation.

But if I say “China is wrong”, a comparison serves no logical purpose besides invoking said fallacy

Except “China is wrong” is not your argument. If all you’re saying is “China is wrong” I can say “how awful/sad/bad/horrible.” And that’s that. But in reality, “what should be done about it” is what we’re debating.

May 31, 2012 @ 6:07 am | Comment

Taxing 7% of the Chinese population’s income, that is

May 31, 2012 @ 6:09 am | Comment

“Rural life is better than it ever was, which is not saying much.”
—which is precisely why they’re moving to the cities, because the gulf between city and rural is larger than it ever was. For those who stay behind, I don’t see how you could assume they are satisfied with the CCP when they’re literally and figuratively being left behind. But as I say, I don’t know, and I think we should ask them.

Some protests have effected change, when the CCP feels like letting them. It’s not a systematic thing. And I’m not sure netizen outrage resulting in convictions and/or stiffer sentences is necessarily such a good thing either.

“So only taking 7% of the Chinese population’s income is not robbery?”
—where do you even get this thing that only 7% of Chinese people pay tax? Between income tax, land use tax, city construction tax, car tax…I find it hard to believe that only 7% of Chinese people pay up. You’re going to have to back that up.

But that notwithstanding, the bottom line is if the economy falters, standard of living is going to go down. Not sure how you get away from that. And once that happens, I imagine the CCP looks even less attractive to Chinese people than she does now.

“It gave them information so that they can better lobby the government,”
—speaking more truth so that they in turn can demand that their government speak yet more truth. It’s a dominoe effect – patriotism style. Actually a pretty good precedent.

“everyone knows what they need – which is security and growth.”
—and it would be nice to know who they think could best provide those things for them, or whether they feel the CCP way is the way they want to go. Still boils down to asking them, rather than pretending to know while sitting in the US of A.

“It’s common sense that a real nationalist would not give up a huge chunk of their most fertile land to India.”
—it’s also common sense that a nationalist would reject being invaded by another country. You know what’s better than common sense in trying to infer what other people want, and why? That’s right, you go and ask them.

“But in reality, “what should be done about it” is what we’re debating.”
—indeed. If China is wrong and that is sad/horrible/yada yada (no argument from me there, btw), then what should be done is something different than what CHina is doing right now. That still requires no comparison.

May 31, 2012 @ 7:40 am | Comment

Not sure if this has been posted – too lazy to scroll up 😉
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/712253/China-wrestles-with-redefining-love-of-the-country.aspx

“Upon graduating in 2004, Ying moved to Guangzhou to work in the international trade industry and naturally came into contact with more foreigners. Whenever foreigners would criticize China or discuss sensitive topics, she would confront them and argue aggressively in defense of her country.

However, her views about what it means to be “patriotic” began to change as she learned more and matured.”

Some still have a way to go yet…

May 31, 2012 @ 9:02 am | Comment

Mike
Some still have a way to go yet…

Yep, you do.

SK,

How do you propose the “gulf” is closed between China’s rural and urban areas? It seems like the CCP is already pulling all the stops. They subsidize just about every expense in the countryside and have plowed billions into rural infrastructure. They exempt the vast majority of rural residents from income taxes (I didn’t say all tax). Most people suggest abolishing the hukou system but that would make the flow of people unstoppable.

Can you imagine any democracy today approving Chinese-style taxation? People in America already howl about the “we are the 53%” bullshit. So what do you propose they do, that they’re not already doing?

And no, if the economy falters it’s not necessarily true that standards of living will fall equally. Some industries and sectors and income brackets take more of a hit than others.

and it would be nice to know who they think could best provide those things for them, or whether they feel the CCP way is the way they want to go. Still boils down to asking them, rather than pretending to know while sitting in the US of A.

That’s too bad, because it’s not going to happen any time soon. The CCP will just have to keep making them rich, safe, better educated, healthier etc against their will.

it’s also common sense that a nationalist would reject being invaded by another country

Non sequitur. You agree with me that they’re not real nationalists then. A real Tibetan nationalist would want the parts in China AND India. That’s about the only rule there is, if we reference the historical record.

May 31, 2012 @ 11:14 am | Comment

“It seems like the CCP is already pulling all the stops.”
—and yet the gulf still grows. I’m not saying somebody else might do better. I’m saying that there’s no reason why such a progressively widening gulf would be cause for those being left behind (the rural folk) to embrace the incumbent (the CCP).

“They exempt the vast majority of rural residents from income taxes (I didn’t say all tax).”
—yes, and I’ve listed some of the other ones that they still have to pay. And I didn’t find anything to refer to even the exemptions that you claim the CCP gives to rural folk specifically for income tax.

“So what do you propose they do, that they’re not already doing?”
—I’m no economist, and the point isn’t what I would do instead. The point is how Chinese people think the CCP is doing, and whether they still want the CCP to be the ones to keep doing it. If the rural folk are going to get left behind regardless, why get left behind AND be stuck with the CCP? Like I said, the only reason to put up with the CCP crap is economic. THe economic benefits (and everything else downstream of that) could plausibly buy their complacency; take that away, and I can’t imagine why anyone would remain so tolerant of the CCP’s schtick.

“if the economy falters it’s not necessarily true that standards of living will fall equally.”
—fine. You’re right, I imagine the higher-up CCP types will still be living it up, and the princelings will continue to go to US universities whose tuition fees would, on casual observation, be well beyond the means of someone living off a CCP salary. But whether they fall “equally” or not, fall they will (to however many varying degrees you want to slice it), and I would be curious to know how appealing the CCP looks if/when that happens. My guess is “not very”, but again, I’d be happy to get the straight goods directly from Chinese people.

“That’s too bad, because it’s not going to happen any time soon.”
—it is what it is. Doesn’t make it right, or moral. But that is the reality for the time being, which is too bad. If the CCP was so confident that she was doing so much good, she should have the balls to put that confidence to the test. Alas, she doesn’t. Which in itself is rather revealing.

“You agree with me that they’re not real nationalists then.”
—no, I’m saying common sense is dependent on who is wielding it. To find out what a real Tibetan nationalist wants, you would at least have to start by talking to a real Tibetan. I’m definitely not it. And neither are you. The difference is that one of us has the audacity to pretend to be, which really is laughable.

May 31, 2012 @ 11:54 am | Comment

“Yep, you do.” Oh dear, how spottily adolescent.

“However, her views about what it means to be “patriotic” began to change as she learned more and matured.”

Stress on the last word.

May 31, 2012 @ 12:07 pm | Comment

SK
The point is how Chinese people think the CCP is doing, and whether they still want the CCP to be the ones to keep doing it.

So you admit you don’t even have the faintest idea of 1) how the situation came about 2) how the problem can be solved 3) what the CCP is currently doing, but you think that 60% of China’s least educated people living in the countryside should be given the power to restructure her economy, that is growing at 8-9% a year?

I imagine the higher-up CCP types will still be living it up, and the princelings will continue to go to US universities whose tuition fees would, on casual observation, be well beyond the means of someone living off a CCP salary

You’re being petulant and just tossing anecdotes around. You don’t think there will be rich assholes in China if they clean up the government slightly?

she should have the balls to put that confidence to the test.

The CCP doesn’t answer to you or anyone else telling them to give a referendum. The vast majority of protesters in China don’t even ask for it, they are too busy (and rightfully) complaining about the environment and wages.

you would at least have to start by talking to a real Tibetan.

Uh, nope. I could ask a real Tibetan nationalist, but if he agrees with the TGIE’s relinquishment of Tibetan areas in India he’s an idiot, and his opinion can be handily dismissed.

Mike
Stress on the last word.

Yep, you need to grow up.

May 31, 2012 @ 1:55 pm | Comment

Ask a real Tibetan, not a real Tibetan nationalist, of course.

May 31, 2012 @ 1:56 pm | Comment

Ah, once again it’s Merp who gets to decide on definitions. Anyhoo, Merp is a fuckwit who should be ridiculed rather than engaged with.

May 31, 2012 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

People can’t be reasoned out of ideas they were not reasoned into, SKC, and the mission of trolls is to derail threads. Another derailment by Cookie Monster, reaching into his deep fallacy arsenal for a surprisingly effective non sequitur about Tibetan areas of India.

May 31, 2012 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

Most of what CM has is belligerence, poor logic, and immature one-liner comebacks…which befits the prototype of his kind of folk. Oh, and the lack of character to acknowledge factual mistakes, plus the overwrought delusions of grandeur that allow him to feel suitable to speak on behalf of groups of people to which he does not belong. I can’t stand such folk. Which is why I don’t leave their drivel unchallenged.

++++++++

“but you think that 60% of China’s least educated people living in the countryside should be given the power to restructure her economy,”
—pathetic attempt to introduce class warfare and denigrate rural Chinese folk at the same time. These are the same people you tried to suggest would wholeheartedly support the CCP (without evidence, of course). Are they just as incompetent to make that decision also? Or are their decisions and opinions only legitimate when you agree with them, and illegitimate when you don’t? (that wouldn’t surprise me one bit given your proclivities, which are pervasive among all of your type). Like I’ve said many times, the economy NOW is still good, so it’s understandable that Chinese people tolerate the CCP in exchange; but when growth is no longer 8-9% (and that is a question of when), that trade-off looks a lot less attractive. And when the economic accoutrements are no longer there, the CCP will no longer be tolerated.

“just tossing anecdotes around”
—well, there’s Bo Melon-melon, and Xi Jinping’s daughter, and Wen’s granddaughter for starters. I can’t name others off-hand. But I doubt they’re exceptions to the rule. You can knock yourself out trying to even explain those 3 to me. How did they afford the tuition, I wonder? Rich Chinese aren’t necessarily assholes by any stretch. And of course, getting rid of the CCP will not rid China of rich people (and there would be no reason to). But it’s the ones that smack of corruption that are most galling. All of which of course has nothing to do with what I was saying, which is that when the economy falters, standard of living will go down in general, and that is the CCP’s only bartering chip.

“The CCP doesn’t answer to you or anyone else telling them to give a referendum.”
—no kidding, eh? And that’s the problem. The CCP answers to no one but themselves. And that’s why they don’t see the need to speak the truth, because it doesn’t matter one way or another. So it’s up to people to come to the realization that Li has, that it’s up to them to speak the truth, and demand that government do the same. I mean, the CCP won’t do it, but somebody has to be a true patriot in China.

“his opinion can be handily dismissed”
—LOL, yeah, if he doesn’t disagree with you, his opinion can be dismissed…even if he’s Tibetan and you’re not…and you’re talking about what real Tibetans want. Unbelievable…except that for people like you, so predictable.

+++++++++

It’s also revealing what CM chooses to respond to, and what he ignores. As is typical of his type, when he has no answer for something, or when he is asked to back something up but can’t, he simply moves on. No recognition or acknowledgment thereof whatsoever. I find that to be very revealing of the mindset and type of upbringing of such individuals. What I don’t know is whether it is nature or the CCP’s nurture that is predominantly responsible for the selection of such characteristics.

June 1, 2012 @ 12:57 am | Comment

Atticus
Ah, once again it’s Merp who gets to decide on definitions. Anyhoo, Merp is a fuckwit who should be ridiculed rather than engaged with.

Spoken like a true retard.

Slim
reaching into his deep fallacy arsenal for a surprisingly effective non sequitur about Tibetan areas of India.

Right, a “non sequitur”, it answers Cheung’s irrelevant statement about Tibetan nationalism quite perfectly, something you’d know if you were capable of reading comprehension.

SK Cheung
And when the economic accoutrements are no longer there, the CCP will no longer be tolerated.

Good to see you admit you want to see a civil war fought between China’s modern military and a few million rural citizens armed with pitchforks and molotov cocktails. My guess is that China will continue political reforms and better enforce her own laws over time, but you’d prefer to see millions dead. I think it’s about time for you to go watch videos of Tiananmen, you’re getting a bit angry and it seems like you could use that relief.

How did they afford the tuition, I wonder?

I’m guessing they were given scholarships, as it’s a stated goal of their host nations to indoctrinate the offspring of the CCP.

and that is the CCP’s only bartering chip.

This again. You already admitted before that they do more than just provide economic growth. The only thing you do is make unsubstantiated claims, get into a holy rage about your failed social experiment, and beg for help from the one single collective brain cell we call slim and atticus.

LOL, yeah, if he doesn’t disagree with you, his opinion can be dismissed

Nope. If he’s an idiot and a hypocrite, it’s safe to say his opinion is not worth much.

even if he’s Tibetan and you’re not

Thank you, now I can silence every person of non-Chinese descent and find a single example of a pro-PRC Tibetan as irrefutable proof of the PRC’s legitimacy in all areas of Tibet.

Unbelievable…except that for people like you, so predictable.

What’s unbelievable is your ad hominems. Oh wait, they’re not.

It’s also revealing what CM chooses to respond to, and what he ignores.

I isolated the only points worth responding. Everyone is seriously tired of your lack of logic. Every time I don’t respond point by point to all of your fallacies you whine like a little girl. I’m not going to be held hostage to your most idiotic arguments, but thank you for asking.

One more time: what is your occupation and what is your major? I want to know the source of your infinite ignorance and perfect irrationality.

Like I sai

June 1, 2012 @ 2:17 am | Comment

oh jesus. can we all chill for a bit, have a virtual beer?

June 1, 2012 @ 2:56 am | Comment

We’d need some worthless hipster beer for Slim

June 1, 2012 @ 3:00 am | Comment

I guess I should also clarify on the foreign policy bit:

China has less of a risk of being invaded than did Germany in 1914–true. But China has a much crappier ability to project force outward than did Germany, and will forever be bottled up in her own three seas so long as Japan still has a first-rate (or even second-rate) military (and the US continues to use Japan as the “deputy” for the Western Pacific).

The key aim of China’s grand strategy should be to isolate Japan from the rest of Asia, and then use that isolation to force America to a choice between keeping Japan as an “special ally” or engaging with a China-led Asian order. Everything else should work towards that goal. This doesn’t mean antagonizing or attacking Japan–simply working to isolate it. Indeed, if the strategy is pulled off with a significant amount of finesse, it can dovetail with isolationist and xenophobic tendencies inside Japan to make sure Japan itself is “happy” with this sort of trend.

June 1, 2012 @ 3:03 am | Comment

In this regard, the basing of American marines in Australia is a net positive–it makes it more likely that the United States can be persuaded to shift her main security relationship in Asia to Australia, which for all intents and purposes is no strategic threat at all to Chinese control of the Western Pacific.

June 1, 2012 @ 3:06 am | Comment

Yet why would China want to project such force in the Western pacific? It would make sense to isolate Japan as a stepping stone to a broader strategy if China’s aim were to militarily dominate the region.

But I don’t see the point, with just a modest rise in military spending China will become the de facto dominant power. If Japan were stupid enough get involved in a theoretical US-provoked conflict with China, they would probably be completely flattened by Chinese missiles within a few hours.

June 1, 2012 @ 3:13 am | Comment

“you admit you want to see a civil war fought between China’s modern military and a few million rural citizens armed with pitchforks and molotov cocktails.”
—and where have I said any of that, pray tell? C’mon, dude, among all your other proclivities, you gotta reach for the “creative reading” bit too? What I’d like to see is Chinese people making laws for Chinese people, and enforcing them.

“I’m guessing they were given scholarships”
—you’ve been doing a lot of this “guessing” lately. Well, my “guess” is that their tuition is being funded by the ill-gotten gains through corruption of their parents…you know, the Bo’s, Xi’s and Wen’s of the CCP world.

“it’s a stated goal of their host nations to indoctrinate the offspring of the CCP.”
—man, there really is no bs that is too much bs for you to try, is there? “stated goal”? Care to show us where this is stated? Care to show us where in Harvard’s mission statement we might find what you suggest here?

“they do more than just provide economic growth.”
—and everything is paid for by,and predicated on, said economic growth.

“find a single example of a pro-PRC Tibetan as irrefutable proof of the PRC’s legitimacy in all areas of Tibet.”
—talk about dumb-ass logic. We are speaking about “A Tibetan” metaphorically, not literally, you idiot. That’s like me saying that a single anti-CCP Tibetan serves as irrefutable proof that the PRC lacks legitimacy in all of Tibet…which would be a ridiculous thing to say, not because the PRC necessarily has legitimacy, but because a “single example” is not proof of anything. It is just incredible the depths you people go to in order to try to salvage your pathetic POV.

When you respond point-by-point, as you like to do, it is telling what you respond to, but even more telling what you don’t respond to, particularly when even the responses you do manage to conjure up are of fairly useless quality and decidedly low-rent logic, as seen above. Just in the last 2 days you’ve had chances to back up your assertions about income tax exemptions, Chinese crime rates, CCP rural support, and heck, even whether you’re Han (I don’t even care about the last one, but I made an assumption which you took exception to, so I offered to retract if you weren’t…and still the sound of silence). And you would be wrong (again) to consider this as a complaint. What you do and don’t do is of no importance to me. But it merely adds to my ongoing assessment of your depth of character, or lack thereof.

June 1, 2012 @ 5:03 am | Comment

You use “proclivities” far too much. I’m not your 8th grade English teacher.

What I’d like to see is Chinese people making laws for Chinese people, and enforcing them.

I’d like to see each Chinese citizen get 1 ton of gold and diamonds and live to age 800, but I’m not holding my breath either.

is that their tuition is being funded by the ill-gotten gains through corruption of their parents…you know

Oh right, please tell me all about Wen’s “ill-gotten gains”. My guess is far more credible than yours. Even the full $60,000 a year is really not insanely expensive (though still quite pricey) for maybe the top 10-20% of people who live in China’s first-tier cities.

Care to show us where in Harvard’s mission statement

Oh yes, I will promptly get you the Harvard State Department’s statement on The Republic of Harvard’s geostrategic goals.

Just in the last 2 days you’ve had chances to back up your assertions about income tax exemptions

You were too cross-eyed and Asperger-y to read that sentence properly, remember? You went off on a wild tangent listing all the other taxes that Chinese citizens pay. Apology accepted.

The new threshold means 7.7% of wage earners will pay personal income tax and the government will loose RMB 160 billion (US$24.8 billion) in tax revenue a year.

http://www.kcs.com/newsletter/July11/TaxCut.html

You can literally find this information everywhere. Your pathetic strategy is to try to tie me down by forcing me to prove established and well-known fact and do your Googling for you. Don’t be such a stupid child.

Since you refuse to answer my question about your major and your occupation, I will assume they are performance histrionics and toilet bowl taste tester, respectively.

By the rules of the Cheungsian dialectic, that means I win the argument.

June 1, 2012 @ 5:33 am | Comment

“I’m not your 8th grade English teacher.”
—oh brother. You use crappy logic far too often as well, but it’s beyond anything that schooling can salvage at this point, I’m afraid.

“I’d like to see each Chinese citizen get 1 ton of gold”
—gee, that was useful. Say, is that your contribution to “true patriotism” as described by Li? That was the point of the thread, though it appears you’ve long forgotten about that.

“for maybe the top 10-20% of people who live in China’s first-tier cities.”
—again, I’m not talking about the kids of rich land tycoons. Of course they can afford it. But how does a CCP guy on a CCP salary manage it, i wonder? It seems many Chinese netizens wonder about the same thing.

“I will promptly get you the Harvard State Department’s statement on The Republic of Harvard’s geostrategic goals.”
—you said it was the “stated goals”, remember? Surely you would have read said goals to know what was stated therein, no?

Thanks for the link. There, you established one of your points. Only a couple more to go…

On this time around, it seems you’ve at least shown the good sense to give it a rest with your “single example of a pro-PRC Tibetan ” nonsense. That argument was nutty even by your humble standards.

“I will assume they are performance histrionics and toilet bowl taste tester, respectively.”
—it is unfortunate that the CCP is represented on the English language internet by people inclined towards such juvenile antics as you are. Alas, they have to take what they can get, and the cream of the Chinese crop aren’t exactly chomping at the bit for such a thankless task. So they, and consequently we, are left with geniuses like you. The Tourette’s style hollering of “I win I win” is at once comical and a little sad. You should really get that looked at.

June 1, 2012 @ 8:05 am | Comment

SKC, why argue with a pre-pubescent?

June 1, 2012 @ 8:46 am | Comment

Spoken like a true retard.

Merp, I’m that retard against whose mother you made some particularly vile comments (remember the chopsticks, you disgusting animal), so, you arrogant dog, you can go eat a bag of dog-cum dumplings. Anything you can ever say is tainted, you fuck.

P.S. I’m a bit of an prick most of the time, but, you can eat the shit out of my arse.

June 1, 2012 @ 8:49 am | Comment

Whay can’t trolls be dealt with by the methods they wish us all to enjoy? Do a la CCP and either ban them or make them post under their real identities 🙂 What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and if it means the purile time wasters and fuckwits are kicked off then the rest of us can enjoy a decent argument and discussion.
While not as bad as pugster or the infamous Allen Snyder of the telegraph, Merp doesn’t actually contribute much apart from a dislike of Chinese CCP stooges. They certainly do not contribute to any effort by their paymaster to projecting a positive image of China – luckily millions of Chinese seem to be able to do that without resort of infantile arguments and name calling….even if many of them do end up marrying white Anglo-Saxons like me 😉

June 1, 2012 @ 9:04 am | Comment

Guys, I’ve had the flu since I came back from China and can’t babysit the threads, but this is ridiculous. I’m closing it down and starting a new open thread, which will hopefully be a lot less ridiculous than this one.

June 1, 2012 @ 9:07 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.