How would you improve China?

[PDLM]

I see the "free press" operating in the Philippines, for example, and I struggle to see that it does anything other than ferment arguments

[pedant]that would be "foment", not "ferment"[/pedant]

[limepickle]

I think everyone around here except Football knows the answer to that question.

Aye, I felt it was important to stress the fact for those not prepared to read the whole thread.

[limepickle]

[pedant]that would be "foment", not "ferment"[/pedant]

I like ferment ... it still works (just)

[Freetrader]

RE i) Control the Press - this is not really what I was saying. "Control" is too strong a word. I would certainly loosen the press from where it is now, but would not go as far as the "free press" in other countries. I see the "free press" operating in the Philippines, for example, and I struggle to see that it does anything other than ferment arguments and get paid for articles ! (Much as the indian discussions above).

Sometimes, I think our "free press" in the west does us no services. Look at the impact of the Koran burning, for example. Perhaps if that had not been so widely reported, the atrocities it sparked in Afghanistan would not have happened. I look at the reporting of the Japan earthquake too, and I see sensationalism and fear mongering (and good reporting too, obviously) - again - some of the fear mongering was probably unhelpful. So I struggle to see even in our society that a truely free press is a great idea, so can see that in a place like China it would be worse.

Perhaps what would be good would be a code of practise for the press, where they can report on anything factually, but should not hype up events. So riots and demonstrations should be reported but not excessively so.

Would that be enough for you, for now?

But Moving, the whole issue is, who is going to decide what is "excessive"? Of course, I would admit that there are limits on "free" speech - there are slander laws, and the commonly accepted Justice Holmes formulation about causing harm. But no society should have limits on opinions. No society is perfect in this regard - Thailand has its ridiculous 'no slandering the royal family' laws, and Muslims, well, you know...but in the long run controls on speech are counterproductive. Perhaps I am a bit biased because my father was a newspaper editor and I've done a little journalism in my time but I think that a free press is inherently a good thing, and made that point to gunsnroses - let a hundred schools of thoughts contend and all that.

If China had a free press, those schools in Sichaun that killed thousands of kids would never have been so shoddily built - or if it were revealed after the fact, those guilty would be exposed. There are thousands of other examples. It's not for nothing that the Brits always allowed a free press even where they didn't allow democracy. Where a free press exists, some kind of representive government will eventually develop.

So, I think we should make nice at this point - I am not saying that there needs to be a full democracy in China tomorrow (not that that is going to happen anyway). But I do think the CCP is on the brink of missing their chance to be possibly seen, historically, as on balance a force for good in Chinese history. One might even argue that after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, a strong hand was needed for a whole generation. Fair enough. But they need to start bending before they start to create the kind of dissent that they are so afraid of, and which currently, doesn't exist all that much in China.

[Freetrader]

As for Football, well, I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you are on about any more. Once you start down the 'you are an American so your opinion doesn't matter' road, I don't know if there is anything much to discuss. In any case, there is nothing particularly American about my views, although my opinions clearly owe something to my Western-liberal background and values. I still think that human rights are universal...if that is an "American" value, so be it.

[MovingIn07]

But Moving, the whole issue is, who is going to decide what is "excessive"? Of course, I would admit that there are limits on "free" speech - there are slander laws, and the commonly accepted Justice Holmes formulation about causing harm. But no society should have limits on opinions. No society is perfect in this regard - Thailand has its ridiculous 'no slandering the royal family' laws, and Muslims, well, you know...but in the long run controls on speech are counterproductive. Perhaps I am a bit biased because my father was a newspaper editor and I've done a little journalism in my time but I think that a free press is inherently a good thing, and made that point to gunsnroses - let a hundred schools of thoughts contend and all that.

If China had a free press, those schools in Sichaun that killed thousands of kids would never have been so shoddily built - or if it were revealed after the fact, those guilty would be exposed. There are thousands of other examples. It's not for nothing that the Brits always allowed a free press even where they didn't allow democracy. Where a free press exists, some kind of representive government will eventually develop.

So, I think we should make nice at this point - I am not saying that there needs to be a full democracy in China tomorrow (not that that is going to happen anyway). But I do think the CCP is on the brink of missing their chance to be possibly seen, historically, as on balance a force for good in Chinese history. One might even argue that after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, a strong hand was needed for a whole generation. Fair enough. But they need to start bending before they start to create the kind of dissent that they are so afraid of, and which currently, doesn't exist all that much in China.

Don't really disagree with any of this - I just think that my line might be more conservative than yours - starting from where we are now and moving in your direction over time.... (and no, I don't have a feel for "how much" time.... but probably less than another generation).

[Creative83]

Some posters here think that in China one person should fix all ills and start calling for national and open elections which for China as some point out is not the path to improvement at this time. I suspect as I have said in the past that the model of the PRC is that the top echelons who propose policy and move it to implementation are structured such that no one person has total and complete control. It is rumoured that the inner workings at the top are much more about consensus.

If Obama can't fix Guantanamo, then maybe one or two at the top of the PRC can't change the jailing of dissidents that is being carried out.

Americans are the first to note who is responsible in their gov'ts for failings and cover ups but somehow don't see it the same way abroad.

Two wrongs don't make a right but the point I am trying to make is that Americans are so quick to toss stones at the PRC but fail themselves.

China needs to soften up but they too have the real concern of social instability - that would not be helpful to the cause of improving life for its people.

Hm...

I can tell he sees a much larger picture of what this argument is about. He doesn't brainlessly assume democracy is the way but challenge people and asks "What does democracy bring that prosperity doesn't? Is it so much of an advantage that there is a need to create chaos in China in its immediacy?"

The thing I liked most about football is that he sees both perspectives hence clearer than others here. I appreciate people who has this ability. I appreciate his loyalty to the Chinese, and I also appreciate people in the West who are loyal to their own country (ie. kensingtongome w/ US
). I like people like these because they make attempts to constructively debate fairly but show non-excessive, humanistic touch of loyalty.

And then there are the people who comes from neutral countries. Those who were not exposed to brainwashes that the western media do so very much. You can sense they have zero intent to take stabs at countries they are not born in and not as familiar with because the media in their country doesn't take stabs at other countries. Some are even offering suggestions. Amazing people.

I'm frugal with the "like" w/ all your posts because the 'like' system are too often misused as a means to scratch people's back. I prefer to read it and agree silently unless the post are being unjustly suppressed, like the one football posted.


What I don't appreciate are those who get satisfaction out of "taking you down" or "defeating you". How they tend to do it is cite single weakness in someone's post through carefully manipulation of their posts in various ways and talk about that weakness to 'take them down' instead of focusing on the main points of their arguments, thus made attempts to discredit others while they themselves did not need to confront a single thing. If they felt they need to make a point, instead of seeing things from a wide knowledge base through years of reading and thinking, they lazily resort to the talking points from the US media, or they find a hole they can punch others in AND THEN Google these so called evidence. These behaviors conjures up in my mind rats. Hides in day light and comes out in the dark.

[Freetrader]

Hm...

I can tell he sees a much larger picture of what this argument is about. He doesn't brainlessly assume democracy is the way but challenge people and asks "What does democracy bring that prosperity doesn't? Is it so much of an advantage that there is a need to create chaos in China in its immediacy?"

The thing I liked most about football is that he sees both perspectives hence clearer than others here. I appreciate people who has this ability. I appreciate his loyalty to the Chinese, and I also appreciate people in the West who are loyal to their own country (ie. kensingtongome w/ US
). I like people like these because they make attempts to constructively debate fairly but show non-excessive, humanistic touch of loyalty.

I prefer to read it and agree silently unless the post are being unjustly suppressed, like the one football posted.


What I don't appreciate are those who get satisfaction out of "taking you down" or "defeating you". How they tend to do it is cite single weakness in someone's post through carefully manipulation of their posts in various ways and talk about that weakness to 'take them down' instead of focusing on the main points of their arguments, thus made attempts to discredit others while they themselves did not need to confront a single thing. If they felt they need to make a point, instead of seeing things from a wide knowledge base through years of reading and thinking, they lazily resort to the talking points from the US media, or they find a hole they can punch others in AND THEN Google these so called evidence. These behaviors conjures up in my mind rats. Hides in day light and comes out in the dark.

Oh, well. Let's start again...

Actually, Creative, I don't recall Football's post being 'surpressed' as you put it. Supression of speech is something they do in the PRC. Football is free to speak his mind here, as he wouldn't be up North. I am free to retort; I don't have the right to shut Football up, or kill him, as I would if I were the Beijing government. See the difference?

If you think someone has 'lazily resorted to talking points from the media' please point that example out, as I would love to see your example. (BTW - I don't want to pick on poor football here, but he seems to be the only one who is constantly bringing in irrelevant news pieces into this discussion). For yourself, you repeat the lie that freeing the press and a few dissidents would cause 'chaos' in China. I don't know which is worse - that you would actually believe that, or if you really are smarter than that, but are simply repeating that canard to advance the interests of the CCP.

I certainly don't want to get personal, but based on your posts so far, I believe and hope that you really don't understand what any of this is about. Everyone on this thread wants good things fo the Chinese, from me, to Moving, to The Brit, to Football; the issue is how to go about improving things for China. To argue otherwise, to argue that the debate itself is bad for China is, of course, exactly what the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China wants foolish people to believe.

I am dissappointed that Moving07 apparently agrees with your point of view - I thought that she, at least, understood that the CCP and the Chinese people are not one and the same.

Btw, Creative, I am not a rat. I am quite easy to find. What about you?

[MovingIn07]

I agreed with Creative's post because I thought he (or she) had captured some really interesting points, particularly the discussion about how the debate is handled on here. I also don't think it's a lie to say that there is a RISK that freeing the press and freeing dissidents would create chaos - it may, it may not - it's certainly a risk. If i were in charge, I can see how I might be worried about that risk (hence the earlier debate about doing is slower and in steps).

I also agreed with Creative that Football has some great, wide and useful perspectives. I can possibly agree with you that some of the US references leave me cold though! But we each debate in our own style.

And I do agree with the implication that Creative makes that the US brainwashes it's own people to think that the US way is the only way. "Brainwashing" may not be the right word, but to be honest, some of the ways you debate make me feel like I am debating with somebody who is just as brainwashed about the benefits of democracy as those in China who have been brainwashed about the benefits of socialism!

So - yes - I liked his (or her) post. I liked it alot.

[Mat]

Freetrader, this part of creative's post is very true though

QUOTE
How they tend to do it is cite single weakness in someone's post through carefully manipulation of their posts in various ways and talk about that weakness to 'take them down' instead of focusing on the main points of their arguments, thus made attempts to discredit others while they themselves did not need to confront a single thing
UNQUOTE

You may not be using it (have not read the whole thread) but our friend G is more than addicted to this practice.