A Chinese social credit song(whatsonweibo.com)
whatsonweibo.com
A Chinese social credit song
https://www.whatsonweibo.com/be-as-good-as-your-word-the-chinese-social-credit-song-is-here/
122 comments
>they are not enforced ... widely, rigorously and thoroughly
That's a major source of the danger. If they were being consistently and equally enforced, then it would be obvious when there were issues. In the case with selective enforcement, the government can point to the law and say they're in the right, but only apply it when it suits them. This lets the people making the rules and the people who are in their good graces do what they'd like due to selective enforcement and not face the consequences of their actions.
That's a major source of the danger. If they were being consistently and equally enforced, then it would be obvious when there were issues. In the case with selective enforcement, the government can point to the law and say they're in the right, but only apply it when it suits them. This lets the people making the rules and the people who are in their good graces do what they'd like due to selective enforcement and not face the consequences of their actions.
Yes, like I said it does not excuse it, and for some laws especially those with severe punishment, it's a serious concern.
However in the case of certain types of policies it's not about intentional selectivity, it's about selectivity due to infeasibility, a type of selectivity that is not completely effective against any individual. For instance this one i'm pointing out: it's not possible to hold every single food source hostage in any country... but seriously, we are talking about food... in China... i'm running out of ellipses...
However in the case of certain types of policies it's not about intentional selectivity, it's about selectivity due to infeasibility, a type of selectivity that is not completely effective against any individual. For instance this one i'm pointing out: it's not possible to hold every single food source hostage in any country... but seriously, we are talking about food... in China... i'm running out of ellipses...
What that means, invariably, is that they will be enforced less against the politically connected and more on those without friends in high places.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Many of these enforcement mechanisms are highly network dependent.
People who are themselves less networked (e.g. less online, spending more time in rural areas or spaces with less cameras) are more likely to be overlooked by these enforcement mechanisms.
To understand this a bit better, consider how much more likely someone who owns a car is to receive traffic tickets from cameras than is than someone who does not.
People who are themselves less networked (e.g. less online, spending more time in rural areas or spaces with less cameras) are more likely to be overlooked by these enforcement mechanisms.
To understand this a bit better, consider how much more likely someone who owns a car is to receive traffic tickets from cameras than is than someone who does not.
Enforcement of laws is inversely proportional to your 關係 (guanxi).
Heres one for you. A benevolent and all knowing AGI runs a tamper proof social credit system that penalises things that are "bad" in the eyes of a strict majority and rewards things that are "good", reducing the rights of people with poor scores to limit potential harm they can do and giving people with good scores more leeway.
What are the ethical considerations here? Is it just a perfect democracy + judicial system? Does it impact growth as a society? Im remembering the quote "All progress depends on the unreasonable man". Would it be a very conservative society that resulted?
PS should go without saying, but this is just thought exercise, obviously..
What are the ethical considerations here? Is it just a perfect democracy + judicial system? Does it impact growth as a society? Im remembering the quote "All progress depends on the unreasonable man". Would it be a very conservative society that resulted?
PS should go without saying, but this is just thought exercise, obviously..
This just sounds like a (fairly unexceptional) tyranny of the majority. Our society may already be heading in this direction, albeit in a softer sense, with the rise of filter bubbles and highly polarized outrage culture
Aristotle once said:
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
My expectation for such a system is that a majority group who have a specific lifestyle would penalize anyone who does not strictly adhere to that specific lifestyle. The group would change over time (likely liberal, then conservative, then back again) and each group would become more and more dogmatic about those views. Eventually the group will resemble something like the Nazis or the Soviets and violent revolution or war would end the experiment.
Source: the past two thousand years of human civilization
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
My expectation for such a system is that a majority group who have a specific lifestyle would penalize anyone who does not strictly adhere to that specific lifestyle. The group would change over time (likely liberal, then conservative, then back again) and each group would become more and more dogmatic about those views. Eventually the group will resemble something like the Nazis or the Soviets and violent revolution or war would end the experiment.
Source: the past two thousand years of human civilization
See Elysium and the AI parole officer.
A perfect democracy includes the right to vote to allow people to do things that you think are bad though, and to vote to change the rules of the system together (such as to vote in a system where crimes/punishments must be defined beforehand, like they currently must be in the real world america).
Makes me think of a Black Mirror episode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)
Really creepy stuff ...
Really creepy stuff ...
The only episode to cause me to physically cringe during the whole viewing.
Me too, because the idea is sound, and the people involved ended up essentially 'in the right place'.
Might be just me, but parts of this song sound awfully similar to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance.
Wouldn't be the first time... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/04/19/national/world-...
Presumably most people who're going to watch the music video are already aware that fraud is illegal etc. and if they don't act as virtuous as the role models presented to them, it's because they feel the alternative is worse.
So it would be interesting to find out whether the PR campaign actually changes anyone's behavior.
So it would be interesting to find out whether the PR campaign actually changes anyone's behavior.
> So it would be interesting to find out whether the PR campaign actually changes anyone's behavior.
That's begging the question as to whether the behavior needs changing.
Is there a pervasive trust/integrity problem in China?
That's begging the question as to whether the behavior needs changing.
Is there a pervasive trust/integrity problem in China?
Scams are very common in China. If you ever decide to visit, do a favor for yourself and brush up on the latest ones so you have a good trip.
It's horrible...
I don't know about "pervasive", but there are definitely some people trying to make a quick buck at the expense of others. I know someone involved with an MLM scam selling "fuel saving cards" that are supposed to quantum-mechanically reduce fuel consumption by sticking them to your gas tank.
I'm ambivalent about this kind of thing. One one hand it takes advantage of people's stupidity, on the other, if people let themselves be that dumb then they deserve what they get.
I distinguish 'are that dumb' (children, some people with senility etc. who need protecting) from those who 'let themselves be that dumb' such as mystic belief in homoepathy, or that read up on the latest cancer cure in the Daily Mail (a right-wing UK rag). Elective credulity deserves no protection or respect IMO. But opposing views welcome.
I distinguish 'are that dumb' (children, some people with senility etc. who need protecting) from those who 'let themselves be that dumb' such as mystic belief in homoepathy, or that read up on the latest cancer cure in the Daily Mail (a right-wing UK rag). Elective credulity deserves no protection or respect IMO. But opposing views welcome.
Incentivizing profit on elective credulity is a great way to drain tons of consumptive (and second-order productive) capacity out of your economy to the benefit of the ethically bankrupt.
"Idiots deserve to suffer" is a shaky assertion even in a vacuum. In the real world, where most of us are idiots about some things and are therefore surrounded by idiots at all times, it's just (self-)destructive.
"Idiots deserve to suffer" is a shaky assertion even in a vacuum. In the real world, where most of us are idiots about some things and are therefore surrounded by idiots at all times, it's just (self-)destructive.
> "Idiots deserve to suffer" is a shaky assertion
It is, which is why I added my rider at the end. But as they say, make a foolproof world and watch it fill up with fools. The ethically bankrupt may benefit from fools, but if we protect foolish adults from the consequences of their actions, we take away precisely that which makes them adults - the ability to make a meaningful choice, and to take responsibility for the consequences arising.
> where most of us are idiots about some things
Yes, me too, and lots. But I learn from it and where I get hurt, well that's just the price of being an adult. The alternative is perhaps living in china or communist russia and have the government run your life.
I'd prefer not to have that. I don't like the many scars (some physical, some psychological) I've got through life but each one is valuable where I chose to learn from it. Adulthood is choice.
It is, which is why I added my rider at the end. But as they say, make a foolproof world and watch it fill up with fools. The ethically bankrupt may benefit from fools, but if we protect foolish adults from the consequences of their actions, we take away precisely that which makes them adults - the ability to make a meaningful choice, and to take responsibility for the consequences arising.
> where most of us are idiots about some things
Yes, me too, and lots. But I learn from it and where I get hurt, well that's just the price of being an adult. The alternative is perhaps living in china or communist russia and have the government run your life.
I'd prefer not to have that. I don't like the many scars (some physical, some psychological) I've got through life but each one is valuable where I chose to learn from it. Adulthood is choice.
I'd prefer to live in a world where the government doesn't run my life and where I don't have to constantly watch my back (both literally and financially). Neither of those is freedom.
Now, you may be tempted to say "Sure, and you'd like a pony, too". But in fact, there are societies that are much less fraud-prone. Ravi Zacharias talked about going to a dairy in Holland, and being surprised that you could just walk in, take milk, and leave money in a bowl. There was nobody there to watch you. He said that in India, there would have to be somebody there to watch customers, or they would steal the milk. He told this to a man from Egypt, who replied that in Egypt, they would steal the cows.
A society full of people who are looking to steal is an objectively worse society to live in than one with people who are not looking to steal. The trick is, how do you create such a society when you don't have one (without a heavy-handed government)?
Now, you may be tempted to say "Sure, and you'd like a pony, too". But in fact, there are societies that are much less fraud-prone. Ravi Zacharias talked about going to a dairy in Holland, and being surprised that you could just walk in, take milk, and leave money in a bowl. There was nobody there to watch you. He said that in India, there would have to be somebody there to watch customers, or they would steal the milk. He told this to a man from Egypt, who replied that in Egypt, they would steal the cows.
A society full of people who are looking to steal is an objectively worse society to live in than one with people who are not looking to steal. The trick is, how do you create such a society when you don't have one (without a heavy-handed government)?
That's a thoughtful answer. Thanks.
I think the difference between holland and india/egypt is a) relatively low prosperity of the latters leading to b) desperation leading possibly to c) a culture where theft is normalised (cos everyone else does it, why not me?).
The above is speculative but if there's truth in it then trust comes evolves where people aren't desperately poor.
That said there is a proportion of the population which are psychopaths and they are congenitally indifferent to such norms as are needed to make a trusting society work. They just don't care. It's how they are wired. It's not right or wrong, it's just biology - but having known a few, it certainly not pretty.
If that can be managed then you may have an answer.
I think the difference between holland and india/egypt is a) relatively low prosperity of the latters leading to b) desperation leading possibly to c) a culture where theft is normalised (cos everyone else does it, why not me?).
The above is speculative but if there's truth in it then trust comes evolves where people aren't desperately poor.
That said there is a proportion of the population which are psychopaths and they are congenitally indifferent to such norms as are needed to make a trusting society work. They just don't care. It's how they are wired. It's not right or wrong, it's just biology - but having known a few, it certainly not pretty.
If that can be managed then you may have an answer.
> if people let themselves be that dumb then they deserve what they get.
That's how pretty much every con artist justifies being a criminal. In my opinion, it's a morally and ethically bankrupt argument.
That's how pretty much every con artist justifies being a criminal. In my opinion, it's a morally and ethically bankrupt argument.
And sometimes they maybe have a point. Ponzi schemes exist because people chose not to see what's right in front of them, that those returns are not credible.
See my answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032129 elsewhere on this thread and rebut that, because if you can then we can perhaps, perhaps, suggest something better.
I sound like I'm arguing for con artists but |I'm not, they are maybe a price that has to be paid. I really don't know. Maybe there's a better way. I don't know.
See my answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032129 elsewhere on this thread and rebut that, because if you can then we can perhaps, perhaps, suggest something better.
I sound like I'm arguing for con artists but |I'm not, they are maybe a price that has to be paid. I really don't know. Maybe there's a better way. I don't know.
> Ponzi schemes exist because people chose not to see what's right in front of them, that those returns are not credible.
I think we may differ in what counts as "choosing" here...
I think we may differ in what counts as "choosing" here...
Ok, that may be a wrong word. What would be a better description?
"blind to", maybe?
The thing is that people who fall for scams (and make no mistake, all of us can fall for a scam if presented with the right one) honestly don't think they're scams. They're being lied to.
The fault for this lies entirely on the shoulders of the criminal.
The thing is that people who fall for scams (and make no mistake, all of us can fall for a scam if presented with the right one) honestly don't think they're scams. They're being lied to.
The fault for this lies entirely on the shoulders of the criminal.
> They're being lied to.
If the lie is obvious many people will look away out of greed. There's a saying that if you deceive someone then at some level they wanted to be deceived, and while that's pretty self-serving for the criminal there's also a fat grain of truth in it.
> The fault for this lies entirely on the shoulders of the criminal.
Well, technically yes but in reality people are willingly dumb, which rather abets the criminal, no?
I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
If the lie is obvious many people will look away out of greed. There's a saying that if you deceive someone then at some level they wanted to be deceived, and while that's pretty self-serving for the criminal there's also a fat grain of truth in it.
> The fault for this lies entirely on the shoulders of the criminal.
Well, technically yes but in reality people are willingly dumb, which rather abets the criminal, no?
I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
> If the lie is obvious many people will look away out of greed.
Some will, sure. But what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others. As I said, we are all susceptible to this. I guarantee there are lies you and I will fall for that are obvious to others. Greed is not necessarily a factor.
> in reality people are willingly dumb, which rather abets the criminal, no?
I don't think more than a tiny percentage of people are willingly dumb.
> I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
Fair enough!
Some will, sure. But what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others. As I said, we are all susceptible to this. I guarantee there are lies you and I will fall for that are obvious to others. Greed is not necessarily a factor.
> in reality people are willingly dumb, which rather abets the criminal, no?
I don't think more than a tiny percentage of people are willingly dumb.
> I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
Fair enough!
Yes, children are not responsible for their actions until they turn 18, at which point they are magically instilled with wisdom and accountability regardless of upbringing.
Credulity is not "elective".
There's no way for the average person to distinguish between homeopathy and pharmaceuticals without running an experiment on themselves. It's a matter of what biases they were taught growing up.
Credulity is not "elective".
There's no way for the average person to distinguish between homeopathy and pharmaceuticals without running an experiment on themselves. It's a matter of what biases they were taught growing up.
Well, here's a handy example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21034424 which leads to https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/17/healing...
Some quotes:
- The model Miranda Kerr has said that she filters all her skincare products through rose quartz “to give the vibration of self-love”.
- Believers say crystals conduct ambient energy – like miniature phone towers picking up signals and channelling them on to the user – thus rebalancing malign energies, healing the body and mind
- According to Pew Research Center data, more than 60% of US adults hold at least one “new age” belief, such as placing faith in astrology or the power of psychics, and 42% think spiritual energy can be located in physical objects such as crystals
- Last year, Paltrow faced (and settled) a misleading advertising lawsuit for claiming that Goop’s vaginal egg crystals had the power to balance hormones and regulate menstrual cycles
What's this if it's not stupidity-by-choice?
Let's have an answer instead of downvotes because I'd really like to hear what you think.
Some quotes:
- The model Miranda Kerr has said that she filters all her skincare products through rose quartz “to give the vibration of self-love”.
- Believers say crystals conduct ambient energy – like miniature phone towers picking up signals and channelling them on to the user – thus rebalancing malign energies, healing the body and mind
- According to Pew Research Center data, more than 60% of US adults hold at least one “new age” belief, such as placing faith in astrology or the power of psychics, and 42% think spiritual energy can be located in physical objects such as crystals
- Last year, Paltrow faced (and settled) a misleading advertising lawsuit for claiming that Goop’s vaginal egg crystals had the power to balance hormones and regulate menstrual cycles
What's this if it's not stupidity-by-choice?
Let's have an answer instead of downvotes because I'd really like to hear what you think.
> Credulity is not "elective".
Often it is.
> There's no way for the average person to distinguish between homeopathy and pharmaceuticals without running an experiment on themselves
There are plenty of scientific reports and examinations that have been done so they don't have to. If they chose to ignore those, they must have done so willingly. Your answer was not one of the better ones.
Often it is.
> There's no way for the average person to distinguish between homeopathy and pharmaceuticals without running an experiment on themselves
There are plenty of scientific reports and examinations that have been done so they don't have to. If they chose to ignore those, they must have done so willingly. Your answer was not one of the better ones.
Yes there is. People are worried about scams all the time, much more often than in the west.
Criticizing the production quality of this video is just a cheap shot. Imagine if DHS or ICE got together to produce a music video. It would be absolutely terrible.
A major defense contractor who shall remain nameless put together an internal training music video called Let's Talk About FOD (foreign object damage) to the tune of Let's Talk About Sex. It was sung by a C-level exec. There were guys in clean room suits dancing (IIRC one of them even spun on his/her head). It was filmed on site in actual production facilities. The production value easily surpassed "peak-ISIS" and rivaled that of professional music videos.
Being a lumbering bureaucracy doesn't mean you can't make a good music video. You just gotta have the skills to pull it off. Any government agency that takes propaganda (aka marketing) seriously should have the requisite skills in house.
Being a lumbering bureaucracy doesn't mean you can't make a good music video. You just gotta have the skills to pull it off. Any government agency that takes propaganda (aka marketing) seriously should have the requisite skills in house.
Definition of dystopia
the body language is unnverving. the insincere tics in the faces of the young women, the stilted swinging of the shoulders, the weak fist-squeezing of the young men with the awkward eye-popping. The deer in headlights postures...
it all just reeks of coercion and young people trying to please but afraid and uncomfortable. Perhaps it's just a bad video director. Maybe the video director is trying to communicate their own discomfort. Maybe the producers see it all and delight in how much power they have... This video is evidence of their grip.
it all just reeks of coercion and young people trying to please but afraid and uncomfortable. Perhaps it's just a bad video director. Maybe the video director is trying to communicate their own discomfort. Maybe the producers see it all and delight in how much power they have... This video is evidence of their grip.
Exactly. You look at this, remember that it'll be making its way around the world (slowly at first, admittedly) and it's impossible to ignore the little internal voice where your conscience used to be whispering "kill yourself".
I really don’t think the Chinese are interested in exporting their governance system.
No, but all western countries are interested in getting some of that control for themselves...
If you consider what governments track today and what was considered "totalitarian surveillance" back in McCarthy era, it's clear where things are headed.
Or consider how many extra bureaucratic checks, controls, and laws exist now, compared to 1950 or 1920...
If you consider what governments track today and what was considered "totalitarian surveillance" back in McCarthy era, it's clear where things are headed.
Or consider how many extra bureaucratic checks, controls, and laws exist now, compared to 1950 or 1920...
They used to though.
Years ago in communist Poland my father accidentally wound up in some kind of Chinese event where the organizers would give away Mao's Red Book.
At the exit there were two local secret service agents who in turn would politely, but firmly ask for the booklet to be surrendered to them, since this was a flavour of communism not enjoyed by the Big Brother, so illegal.
Years ago in communist Poland my father accidentally wound up in some kind of Chinese event where the organizers would give away Mao's Red Book.
At the exit there were two local secret service agents who in turn would politely, but firmly ask for the booklet to be surrendered to them, since this was a flavour of communism not enjoyed by the Big Brother, so illegal.
They used to when Mao was alive and the country was engulfed by misguided idealism. After Mao was gone they realized what a mistake that was, hence why China started reforming. The party’s official stance is that Mao was 70% right (pre-cultural revolution contributions to freeing the country from oppressors, giving common people power), 30% wrong (cultural revolution).
So whether they used to or not is not relevant.
So whether they used to or not is not relevant.
The USA and the Chinese governments are not so different. All that ideology bollocks is window dressing; the API. The back end is the same.
I kind of wish our pop culture was this bad. People would go outside more.
One of the things that I find amusing about Chinese people I meet and talk with who are traveling outside of China is that they are not obsessed with pop music, celebrities or sports, or at least far less than we are in the west.
As an example, I met a fashionable young Chinese lady with an apparently large income who was traveling the world. You know what she did for fun? She played the piano, did tourist stuff and went out for dinner with friends.
One of the things that I find amusing about Chinese people I meet and talk with who are traveling outside of China is that they are not obsessed with pop music, celebrities or sports, or at least far less than we are in the west.
As an example, I met a fashionable young Chinese lady with an apparently large income who was traveling the world. You know what she did for fun? She played the piano, did tourist stuff and went out for dinner with friends.
That's a self selecting group though. All of the Americans I met while travelling and living outside of America seemed disinterested in pop culture too. It's not the "Chinese" part of your observation that's relevant.
A fashionable young Chinese lady traveling in the US is not your average Chinese person.
They’re clearly upper to upper middle class and they’re clearly going to enjoy different “hobbies” abroad.
They’re clearly upper to upper middle class and they’re clearly going to enjoy different “hobbies” abroad.
They are, instead, obsessed by money.
People outside the west would say the same of the westerners they see traveling.
It’s pop literally because it’s popular. The people who have the freedom and interest to travel the world are not “typical” citizens in any country.
It’s pop literally because it’s popular. The people who have the freedom and interest to travel the world are not “typical” citizens in any country.
> The people who have the freedom and interest to travel the world are not “typical” citizens in any country.
That didn't sound right as in my experience most people do a foreign trip at least once a year. Turns out it of course very much depends on the country: Finland travels the most while US is among the least foreign-travelling westerners. That according to https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens..., which says every Finn does 1.7 foreign trips per year on average.
Sorry for the spammy site but hard to look for hard source data on mobile.
That didn't sound right as in my experience most people do a foreign trip at least once a year. Turns out it of course very much depends on the country: Finland travels the most while US is among the least foreign-travelling westerners. That according to https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-whose-citizens..., which says every Finn does 1.7 foreign trips per year on average.
Sorry for the spammy site but hard to look for hard source data on mobile.
It feels like most of Norway migrates to Thailand in the winter. Scandinavia itself is not very representative of the rest of the world.
[deleted]
This really isn’t true. Chinese have songs, they have popular music groups, many like K pop or K dramas, many like costume dramas or going for a night out to sing karaoke. Soccer is really popular, basketball is too for some strange reason. Heck, just say you are American in Beijing and taxi drivers will most definitely ask you about the NBA (if you can speak Chinese).
There is a lot of selection bias in generalizing about a culture via its world travelers :).
The state really sucks at propaganda though, so it shouldn’t be surprising that efforts like this are filled with lots of cringe. It definitely shouldn’t be considered pop culture.
There is a lot of selection bias in generalizing about a culture via its world travelers :).
The state really sucks at propaganda though, so it shouldn’t be surprising that efforts like this are filled with lots of cringe. It definitely shouldn’t be considered pop culture.
>basketball
Basketball was introduced to China by missionaries in 1895, so it's been there almost as long as it has in the US.
Basketball was introduced to China by missionaries in 1895, so it's been there almost as long as it has in the US.
Perhaps, but its current popularity hinges around the NBA. I’m pretty sure the NBA has more fans in China than in the USA.
Except when the state propaganda is popular, is the pop. All those songs about putin are actually popular in some parts of russia.
Kids in China are like kids anywhere. The authority is specifically not cool even if it is to be respected and obeyed. It is more effective for the Chinese government to encourage popular actors/singers to be sympathetic and promote government points of views, which is basically what they do.
> As an example, I met a fashionable young Chinese lady with an apparently large income who was traveling the world
Change Chinese to American, or Ethiopian in that part of your comment. This is selection bias pretty hard.
Change Chinese to American, or Ethiopian in that part of your comment. This is selection bias pretty hard.
Yeah, I'm blown away that this was their evidence, especially for such a strong claim.
Expats/emigrants/travelers are basically the group least able to generalize over their countrymen back home.
Expats/emigrants/travelers are basically the group least able to generalize over their countrymen back home.
No, your example is rich people gonna rich people.
The average person in the US or China can't afford to travel the world, go out every day with friends, etc.
Interesting, related:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/china-s...
Also, how do you increase your social credit I wonder? Do some stuff to help your community? How is it tracked?
I couldn't find anything like you get X points for Y.
Also, how do you increase your social credit I wonder? Do some stuff to help your community? How is it tracked?
I couldn't find anything like you get X points for Y.
I believe this is all my true nightmares, come to life, expressed in one place.
Who shrink-wraps pairs of apples and oranges on a piece of styrofoam? That struck me as particularly bizarre. Is this normal in other parts of the world?
edit: I know this is totally tangential... it just struck me as a faux-futuristic trope and not pragmatic at all. Hence: bizarre
edit: I know this is totally tangential... it just struck me as a faux-futuristic trope and not pragmatic at all. Hence: bizarre
And yet, gun crime is non existent, suicide is much lower than the US, etc. China is actually by all measures a much better place to live than the US. The freedoms in the US just lead to death and suffering and political divisions and unhappiness. In China people are unified.
> China is actually by all measures a much better place to live than the US
I think you need a source on that one. Gun crime is obviously worse in the US - and an ongoing problem - but it's not a huge impact on quality of life for most people.
In suicide, China measures middle of the pack - certainly ahead of the US - but many Western countries do better.
In terms of "happiness" - China ranks quite low on the World Happiness Index:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2018/
I think you need a source on that one. Gun crime is obviously worse in the US - and an ongoing problem - but it's not a huge impact on quality of life for most people.
In suicide, China measures middle of the pack - certainly ahead of the US - but many Western countries do better.
In terms of "happiness" - China ranks quite low on the World Happiness Index:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2018/
> China is actually by all measures a much better place to live than the US.
I think that's an overgeneralization. There are many things that do "work better" or "improve faster". Mass transit and metropolitan cleanliness are good examples of this (with exceptions, of course).
However, the lack of a strong regulatory body for things like food quality and water quality still make it a much riskier place to live IMO.
That's not to say China won't, for example, achieve a one billion+ person version of Singapore in our lifetimes, but I still have a "wait and see" attitude towards this.
Note: I have lived in China and travelled nearly 6K miles by mass transit to all kinds of places there.
I think that's an overgeneralization. There are many things that do "work better" or "improve faster". Mass transit and metropolitan cleanliness are good examples of this (with exceptions, of course).
However, the lack of a strong regulatory body for things like food quality and water quality still make it a much riskier place to live IMO.
That's not to say China won't, for example, achieve a one billion+ person version of Singapore in our lifetimes, but I still have a "wait and see" attitude towards this.
Note: I have lived in China and travelled nearly 6K miles by mass transit to all kinds of places there.
Car accident rates are higher in China, you are also more likely to die because of pollution. People are not very unified, which is why the government focuses more on internal security than external security. The PLA has killed way more Chinese in the last 30 years than foreign combatants.
> The PLA has killed way more Chinese in the last 30 years than foreign combatants.
Do they publish statistics somewhere or is that based on their foreign deployments being relatively small?
Do they publish statistics somewhere or is that based on their foreign deployments being relatively small?
I'm sure the PLA keeps and makes available to all & sundry its detailed internal records of who got liquidated and why; and is always open to the scrutiny and criticism of concerned third-parties.
I mean, if you can't expect that kind of service from the military wing of an unaccountable authoritarian maoist kleptocracy...why even have one??
I mean, if you can't expect that kind of service from the military wing of an unaccountable authoritarian maoist kleptocracy...why even have one??
I don't think the PLA gets called in for executions when the PAP can do the job just as well. So the PLA's internal deployments are more likely to be something like fighting separatist groups, which they might want to boast about.
Well, considering the PLAs only major combat action in the last 30 years has been in Beijing, they probably aren’t eager to publicize that. Thought I have a hunch that it is true for the PLAs entire existence (they never killed many Japanese, and the Siege of Changchun claimed at least 500k compared to anything that happened in Korea).
We're pretty fucked up over here in the West, but I can say "We're pretty fucked up over here in the West" and no one is going to put me in prison for it, eh?
In China, if you are not one of the unified mass you have good chance of ending up in reeducation center, work camp or at worst executed and yours organs are sold. Thanks, but I prefer the west.
US is very strange at the moment... better comparisons might be to Europe, Central and South America, who generally enjoy incredible freedom, political discourse, quality of health, education and life.
public safety - China has a clear win. Thanks to the surveillance level and strict gun/drug control, you can walk on the street of any part of any city without having to worry about your safety. I cannot say the same most of the major cities in the US.
However, air pollution, food safety, extremely high competition and fast-pace together make China a quite unattractive place to live and work.
However, air pollution, food safety, extremely high competition and fast-pace together make China a quite unattractive place to live and work.
Hmm, much of this can also be said about the UK. High levels of surveillance, strict gun control, generally good public safety, but high air pollution in urban areas.
Except for the drug control part: the police here seem to have pretty much given up on that.
Except for the drug control part: the police here seem to have pretty much given up on that.
You haven't been to China if you think UK's air pollution and China's are comparable. The smog is so bad at times in major cities you can't see the street from your hotel window.
They aren't comparable at the moment. But London used to have "London fogs" that contained a large air pollution component. At least one was so bad that a doctor hired a blind man to guide him on his house visits, since the doctor couldn't see enough to tell where he was (even on foot on the sidewalk), but the blind guy wasn't handicapped at all by the smog.
Oh I know, I'm just clearing up some possible misconceptions, I think some people aren't aware just how bad pollution in China is right now. Even in tertiary cities there's significant smog. If their authoritarian government does one think I hope it makes fixing that a priority.
From what I've read, it really depends on the street: https://bit.ly/2W180G3
> public safety - China has a clear win.
If this is based on statistics, bear in mind that China does not report all crimes outside its borders (for face reasons) and even locally (so as not to disturb "social harmony").
If this is based on statistics, bear in mind that China does not report all crimes outside its borders (for face reasons) and even locally (so as not to disturb "social harmony").
You're absolutely correct. I've spent about 3 months of my life in China. During that three months, my father-in-law was pulled over while the police checked the trunk for a local suspect in a quadruple homicide that day.
This quadruple homicide was not reported on the news, likely for "social harmony" reasons as you mentioned. To me, this makes their external reporting of public safety quite untrustworthy (ironic, considering the video linked by OP).
This quadruple homicide was not reported on the news, likely for "social harmony" reasons as you mentioned. To me, this makes their external reporting of public safety quite untrustworthy (ironic, considering the video linked by OP).
Yup, everyday you step out into the streets in America and must dodge bullets. At every moment. That's sarcasm by the way.
Gun crimes are still dropping. Our coverage however is increasing. What I love is when people confuse gun crimes and gun deaths. Do you know what gets counted in gun deaths but not gun crimes? Suicide. But the USA gun deaths get related to the rest of the world's gun crimes. I will say we have a suicide rate problem. It's actually really bad. But when you hear people defend communists, the same group in any other country makes the Nazis look like amateurs when it comes to genocide... suicide does look like a decent option. To be honest too, I imagine eating a bullet is more attractive than hanging or bleeding to death. Anyways, every time communism arises, "We're all for peace and tranquility and to achieve that we must kill a lot of people who don't agree with us on a philosophical level and we pick a social group the majority will enjoy watching get killed." But oh, the communists are all about unity and peace and "philosophical expansion against imperialism and oppression" that is some how different from the standard definition of imperialism and straight up murder.
Gun crimes are still dropping. Our coverage however is increasing. What I love is when people confuse gun crimes and gun deaths. Do you know what gets counted in gun deaths but not gun crimes? Suicide. But the USA gun deaths get related to the rest of the world's gun crimes. I will say we have a suicide rate problem. It's actually really bad. But when you hear people defend communists, the same group in any other country makes the Nazis look like amateurs when it comes to genocide... suicide does look like a decent option. To be honest too, I imagine eating a bullet is more attractive than hanging or bleeding to death. Anyways, every time communism arises, "We're all for peace and tranquility and to achieve that we must kill a lot of people who don't agree with us on a philosophical level and we pick a social group the majority will enjoy watching get killed." But oh, the communists are all about unity and peace and "philosophical expansion against imperialism and oppression" that is some how different from the standard definition of imperialism and straight up murder.
This is pretty obvious 50 Cent Party crap. America's fucked up, but ya'll are leaps and bounds more fucked up.
So long as you fit the mold: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/world/asia/xinjiang-china...
[deleted]
Devils advocate here, is it safe to say that capitalism is a type of credit system that allows upward mobility except for it is based on greed and not being "trust worthy"?
I dunno there is a part of me that wishes the propaganda was true. It would be nice to live in a world where everyone is nice and respectful of each other. No lying, no cheating, etc. I'm sure that it's not implemented well at all in China, and resembles more of a Police State hellscape than anything but there is a part of me wishes that bad landlord I had or that person who ripped me off etc weren't able to get away with it so easily.
I dunno there is a part of me that wishes the propaganda was true. It would be nice to live in a world where everyone is nice and respectful of each other. No lying, no cheating, etc. I'm sure that it's not implemented well at all in China, and resembles more of a Police State hellscape than anything but there is a part of me wishes that bad landlord I had or that person who ripped me off etc weren't able to get away with it so easily.
Arguably, when people think of capitalism, they think of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," and all it entails about trade, specialization, profit, etc. For much of its history though, capitalism depended on a lot of what Smith wrote about in "On the Theory of Moral Sentiments," i.e., societies work because people "naturally [desire], not only to be loved, but to be lovely."
In the West, we're trying to figure out the right allocation of goods through the market economy, and the right way "to be lovely" through freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.
In the West, we're trying to figure out the right allocation of goods through the market economy, and the right way "to be lovely" through freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.
sort of. but at least in capitalism, individuals are free to choose which behaviors deserve dollars. obviously billionaires have outsized influence, but many small voice still matter. in PRC, some govt committee decides which behaviors get credit.
> individuals are free to choose which behaviors deserve dollars
That's more a function of a free market than capitalism.
That's more a function of a free market than capitalism.
"it's based on greed"
All systems reward greed. The more detached they are from how people naturally behave, the more they reward people who chase the system at the expense of thise who what comes naturally. Capitalism rewards people for fulfilling other's revealed preferences. A democratically-decided social credit system would reward people for doing what the majority says they should do. Both systems would occasionally reward people for anti-social behaviour, and require legislative correction. Of the two, I would prefer the one oriented towards the needs and desires of the individual, not of the collective.
We would like a world where people are more kind. Why not pay people to be kind to you?
- an induced kindness it not desirable, we want a natural kindness
- it's subjective: what one person thinks is kind, another doesn't; how would we write that contract?
- there's a tradeoff: while we value kindness, in many cases others value not being kind more than we value kindness; you would likely have to pay more than you are willing to pay
- transaction costs: while the subjectivity problem might be solved, it would be at great expense, this would probably push the price over the edge where it wasn't already
All these reasons apply equally to inducing kindness with a social credit system. I think the tradeoff problem would likely be ignored. That is, people would be forced to be kind against their wish (being punished for not doing it rather than rewarded for doing it). Suppose I believe that the burden of being constantly forced to be kind would outweigh the advantage of living in a world where everyone is kind all the time. A capitalist system tests this claim, a democratic social credit system ignores it in favour if the will of the majority.
All systems reward greed. The more detached they are from how people naturally behave, the more they reward people who chase the system at the expense of thise who what comes naturally. Capitalism rewards people for fulfilling other's revealed preferences. A democratically-decided social credit system would reward people for doing what the majority says they should do. Both systems would occasionally reward people for anti-social behaviour, and require legislative correction. Of the two, I would prefer the one oriented towards the needs and desires of the individual, not of the collective.
We would like a world where people are more kind. Why not pay people to be kind to you?
- an induced kindness it not desirable, we want a natural kindness
- it's subjective: what one person thinks is kind, another doesn't; how would we write that contract?
- there's a tradeoff: while we value kindness, in many cases others value not being kind more than we value kindness; you would likely have to pay more than you are willing to pay
- transaction costs: while the subjectivity problem might be solved, it would be at great expense, this would probably push the price over the edge where it wasn't already
All these reasons apply equally to inducing kindness with a social credit system. I think the tradeoff problem would likely be ignored. That is, people would be forced to be kind against their wish (being punished for not doing it rather than rewarded for doing it). Suppose I believe that the burden of being constantly forced to be kind would outweigh the advantage of living in a world where everyone is kind all the time. A capitalist system tests this claim, a democratic social credit system ignores it in favour if the will of the majority.
This is so awesome. I hope it takes hold some millenia.
[deleted]
gherkinnn(1)
Chris2048(1)
media turning the whole public robotic
I hope they dock the girl to the right of center a few points for piss-poor heart-hands.
... i'm half joking though, I have been to China many times, there is no way this is going to be effective for all of the cheap restaurants and street food. One thing I've learned about China, is although we often interpret their emerging laws and policies to be extreme (which they are) - what we don't appreciate is the context - they are not enforced as widely, rigorously and thoroughly as in the west. This is at least partly cultural and geographic, and it is probably this same reason that contributes to some of the Chinese government's overreach in the first place (to overcompensate). It does not excuse the human rights issues, but explains them somewhat.