China shows its true colours – and they're not pretty(thetimes.co.uk)
thetimes.co.uk
China shows its true colours – and they're not pretty
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-shows-its-true-colours-and-theyre-not-pretty-jb90kcmx2
23 コメント
https://archive.md/p2DN6
It's another discussion on the HK election reforms, which probably would not have happened without all the media hysteria 2 years ago. We'll see, I predict people either wont vote or vote blank and the gov'll have to do a crazy dance to explain it - or people will vote and it'll be brushed away by the media.
The communists are ruthless when we complain, and we're brainwashed if we don't - there's no way we'd approach this as a complex multi factor and multi opinion problem.
The communists are ruthless when we complain, and we're brainwashed if we don't - there's no way we'd approach this as a complex multi factor and multi opinion problem.
> there's no way we'd approach this as a complex multi factor and multi opinion problem.
No country I’m aware of really nails free and fair elections. There’s always some kind of third party acting as gatekeeper that makes it difficult or impossible for absolutely any candidate to win who the electorate might want. But, countries fall on a spectrum of how well they approximate this ideal. It’s pretty clear that an electoral system like in HK where all the candidates are chosen by the one party allowed to rule is way to one extreme of the spectrum; the opposite side to free and fair! There’s no hand waving this away with calls for inappropriate nuance.
No country I’m aware of really nails free and fair elections. There’s always some kind of third party acting as gatekeeper that makes it difficult or impossible for absolutely any candidate to win who the electorate might want. But, countries fall on a spectrum of how well they approximate this ideal. It’s pretty clear that an electoral system like in HK where all the candidates are chosen by the one party allowed to rule is way to one extreme of the spectrum; the opposite side to free and fair! There’s no hand waving this away with calls for inappropriate nuance.
The key difference between China and the rest of the elective systems is: do they even consider voting as a positive feedback loop?
As long as we dont convince (and as a "small" city, we cant force, only convince) them that it s in their own interest to let us support, or midly criticize them by voting, they'll go backward and decide for us. And they may not even take bad decisions, just remove ownership from the local population which for me is key to buy into the policies.
Most democracies manage well the dance between "we ll only propose policies that make sense" and "people can vote freely". We have to learn that too.
As long as we dont convince (and as a "small" city, we cant force, only convince) them that it s in their own interest to let us support, or midly criticize them by voting, they'll go backward and decide for us. And they may not even take bad decisions, just remove ownership from the local population which for me is key to buy into the policies.
Most democracies manage well the dance between "we ll only propose policies that make sense" and "people can vote freely". We have to learn that too.
> do they even consider voting as a positive feedback loop
To some material I have read (probably a TED talk), value is given to feedback, but it is top-down in evaluation (strong reliance on performance reports of/on officials) and made through surveys (instead of voting) in the bottom-up side.
I think it could have been: Eric X. Li, "A tale of two political systems" (Jul 2013), https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_... : «[...] Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China's one-party system [...]»
The TED website has a categorization of topics, so there exist a collection: https://www.ted.com/talks?topics[]=china
To some material I have read (probably a TED talk), value is given to feedback, but it is top-down in evaluation (strong reliance on performance reports of/on officials) and made through surveys (instead of voting) in the bottom-up side.
I think it could have been: Eric X. Li, "A tale of two political systems" (Jul 2013), https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_... : «[...] Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China's one-party system [...]»
The TED website has a categorization of topics, so there exist a collection: https://www.ted.com/talks?topics[]=china
Yeah it's funny because while I would agree the communists have shown adaptability (hey we still kinda vote in HK and they just today told us to "cast our sacred ballot", impressive gymnastics), I think meritocracy and legitimacy need more work.
Meritocracy is difficult because it means you d have to tolerate a certain amount of conflict from the competent bottom towards the rotting top like everything and that's difficult when you're built so top down as the communist party. They tend to prioritize loyalty to truth and just like a Church, suffer dire consequence when the odd loyal corrupt is discovered.
As for legitimacy, I really dont see it until an alternative, even virtual like in the US, is presented and a choice made. We would have very diff problems with Beijing in HK if they had a believable legitimacy: we d have a lot more people defending the country against the localists instead of what we have now: localists, people defending the country against the localists AND the communists, and people defending the communists OVER the country.
Or to give a US example people in HN could understand: if you have separatists in Texas asking why they even need a federation, people wouldnt pinpoint the democrats or the republicans as stealing the true meaning of the country and join the texan localists in trying to split away to find something more legitimate. Which is what split families in HK currently.
Meritocracy is difficult because it means you d have to tolerate a certain amount of conflict from the competent bottom towards the rotting top like everything and that's difficult when you're built so top down as the communist party. They tend to prioritize loyalty to truth and just like a Church, suffer dire consequence when the odd loyal corrupt is discovered.
As for legitimacy, I really dont see it until an alternative, even virtual like in the US, is presented and a choice made. We would have very diff problems with Beijing in HK if they had a believable legitimacy: we d have a lot more people defending the country against the localists instead of what we have now: localists, people defending the country against the localists AND the communists, and people defending the communists OVER the country.
Or to give a US example people in HN could understand: if you have separatists in Texas asking why they even need a federation, people wouldnt pinpoint the democrats or the republicans as stealing the true meaning of the country and join the texan localists in trying to split away to find something more legitimate. Which is what split families in HK currently.
Calling them reforms is unfair. They removed free elections and replaced them with a “pick whoever you want as long as it’s one of these people we choose” system
I agree to some extent (bit sad since I got the right to vote in HK just this year and bleh) but I cant argue against the principle they put forth on the face of it: yes only patriot should ever be elected, yes calling for foreign sanction was treason, and yes there are candidates who are not aligned even if the traditional pandem refused to show.
Im a lot more disappointed by the pandem whole fucktard strategy than I am by the predictable DAB sycophancy. Maybe always calling for disruption, insulting and blocking debate doesn't work and they could try something more subtle and more patient.
They were elected in big number since forever and I feel they shot themselves in the foot and it's hard to defend them even if the DAB is asinine. So I guess, blank.
Im a lot more disappointed by the pandem whole fucktard strategy than I am by the predictable DAB sycophancy. Maybe always calling for disruption, insulting and blocking debate doesn't work and they could try something more subtle and more patient.
They were elected in big number since forever and I feel they shot themselves in the foot and it's hard to defend them even if the DAB is asinine. So I guess, blank.
The problem with a pick whoever you want approach is that inside players game the system and you end up with a table top sized voting form. Pick one above the line from out of seven or number all your choice from 1 to 49 below the line is a workable approach. Owners of the media, religiocults and background radiation vantablack money tilt the playing field on West's Democracies.
What are you trying to express? Because if the idea is "Interested entity I can influence administrator A", the possibility could be stronger "without mechanisms of control from P, the public".
Paywall - can not read it.
These UK news always portray Asian giants in bad news. I dont believe them blindly.
The subtle difference between wisdom and manipulation: "Repeat after me: you shall inquire and criticize all thoughts" vs "Repeat after me: you shall retract trust from all thoughts" - instil activity or instil passivity.
Edit: silent downvoting snipers confirm the stated idea (the nuance being productive vs depaupering).
Edit: silent downvoting snipers confirm the stated idea (the nuance being productive vs depaupering).
Newly created CCP 50 cent army account doing its job.
The uttering 'I dont believe them blindly' could be literal (there is always a chance), but/yet it is very much the language that an attemptive manipulator could adopt. Suggesting some kind of animal "adoption of stance through imitation of the acting wise". I was surprised to see, in this context, in the past few years, some clearly absurd pieces of communication that comprised images of ignorance and images of "revealing" knowledge.
This given, q., let us not forget the guidelines, «Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like».
The "political interest" is out of here, this is a place for debate on intellectually relevant topics. The interest here (specifically to these "theoretical suggestions" the new account/member triggered) is in language, response, awareness of the instruments, intellectual processes, intellectual productivity.
This given, q., let us not forget the guidelines, «Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like».
The "political interest" is out of here, this is a place for debate on intellectually relevant topics. The interest here (specifically to these "theoretical suggestions" the new account/member triggered) is in language, response, awareness of the instruments, intellectual processes, intellectual productivity.
And I mean, it's true for a lot of places. When I lived in France and there was some riot, my american friends called me asking how I was, afraid for my life because of the CNN loop, and now that I live in HK, I have german friends, tourists not even residents, who send to american frigging senators worried email asking to sanction our oppressors because of the same kind of news loop.
China over reacted and is not doing the right thing ... yet. It's not finished, the Earth is still rotating, it's still our country too, we'll find another way to express our discontent. What doesn't help is the news loop constantly exciting the debate to irrationality.
I think you dont need a CCP shill to say "they always say the same thing, I dont trust them blindly". This should even be said of Xinhua :D
China over reacted and is not doing the right thing ... yet. It's not finished, the Earth is still rotating, it's still our country too, we'll find another way to express our discontent. What doesn't help is the news loop constantly exciting the debate to irrationality.
I think you dont need a CCP shill to say "they always say the same thing, I dont trust them blindly". This should even be said of Xinhua :D
> we'll find another way to express our discontent
Well xwolfi, in another post you wrote «from the competent bottom towards the rotting top»: Hong Kong is to some statistics a place of the highest concentration for well trained minds, education, competence - it may be really disappointing to those with a "technical" more than "emotional" idea of democracy, that in one of the few places in which people show numbers to really deserve the responsibility of judgement and administration, their participation is limited. For a condition like "you can participate provided you are aligned", strong intellectual skills are probably largely wasted.
Well xwolfi, in another post you wrote «from the competent bottom towards the rotting top»: Hong Kong is to some statistics a place of the highest concentration for well trained minds, education, competence - it may be really disappointing to those with a "technical" more than "emotional" idea of democracy, that in one of the few places in which people show numbers to really deserve the responsibility of judgement and administration, their participation is limited. For a condition like "you can participate provided you are aligned", strong intellectual skills are probably largely wasted.
I disagree, honestly. Hong Kong is like everywhere and I feel like it's more akin to Italy than Norway here: people are latin or let's say sanguine, the brain concentration is in foreigners who dont care (my child and wife are born here, I kinda want to care now), so the situation is more complicated than "everyone is rational and intelligent so power can be given eyes closed with full confidence the right decisions will be taken".
And anyway, bar northern democracy, I think people are largely unprepared to wield power and the only argument I d present is that we can propose a compromise in exchange for policy buy in. We'll not yet, as a city, naturaly trend to long term benefit, but we should be trained to give a mild opinion, via voting, to the implementation quality of various policies. Just like in France where I was raised, which is an unbearable mess, but a mess we can say we chose.
So democracy why not, but we ll only reach optimum once Chinese people agree and implement the same thing: what s your strategy to actually make them do it ? Boycott the olympics and whine about Xinjian ?
And anyway, bar northern democracy, I think people are largely unprepared to wield power and the only argument I d present is that we can propose a compromise in exchange for policy buy in. We'll not yet, as a city, naturaly trend to long term benefit, but we should be trained to give a mild opinion, via voting, to the implementation quality of various policies. Just like in France where I was raised, which is an unbearable mess, but a mess we can say we chose.
So democracy why not, but we ll only reach optimum once Chinese people agree and implement the same thing: what s your strategy to actually make them do it ? Boycott the olympics and whine about Xinjian ?
Interesting! Of course, I never stated "everyone is ... so power can": I the idea was that democracy is increasingly fit when populations respect a certain profile according many dimensions, and to the statistics HK peaks in some. But also regarding this juicy info that «people are latin or let's say sanguine»: there is an issue on measurements and it is difficult to get a "complete" idea of a population on quantitative data only, because many fundamental qualities are not measured. Regarding people being "sanguine": it is not a fault ("father Dante [Alighieri]" wrote of the existence of a legitimate state of being rightfully irate), it is not that a warm blooded human has less senses than a posed or "repressed" one: the issue is more with how civilized and cultivated a population is. Failing that, populations do look at the most humble profiles and believe them "a potential saviour of the Fatherland" - we could call that an effect of "ignorance", and it is a frequent phenomenon .
About «democracy why not»: traditional democracy is not "the goal / the end of the path" - but one could suppose it should take an advanced society to achieve its milestone reform, its improved successor, its next perfected form.
About «democracy why not»: traditional democracy is not "the goal / the end of the path" - but one could suppose it should take an advanced society to achieve its milestone reform, its improved successor, its next perfected form.
For the sanguine part it's really more "more sanguine than where I come from". I come from the North of France and have seen some mediterranean populations... Chinese people in HK top them in term of quickness of aggressivity, violence ramp up, frequency of verbal assault etc. It really feel like the fisherman village it was because the english invasion and I married one so I see how family dynamics are also, provided my wife is representative (poor family).
You can say all you want but when an angry man discovered his gf cheated on him during a vacation in Taiwan, murdered her, went back to HK, triggered an extradition debate with Taiwan, made the other side of the border angry in turn (how dare we isolate Taiwan as a jurisdiction, it's China all the same, they say between expletives), triggering a discussion of extradition to the mainland, making this side of the border angry in turn, triggering big protests, making the police angry in turn etc etc, you wonder: if anger was less prominent in everyone's reaction could they simply compromise ?
Someone lost a daughter in all this, and the murderer is free to roam the streets in HK, so what was the meaning of all that angry jazz...
You can say all you want but when an angry man discovered his gf cheated on him during a vacation in Taiwan, murdered her, went back to HK, triggered an extradition debate with Taiwan, made the other side of the border angry in turn (how dare we isolate Taiwan as a jurisdiction, it's China all the same, they say between expletives), triggering a discussion of extradition to the mainland, making this side of the border angry in turn, triggering big protests, making the police angry in turn etc etc, you wonder: if anger was less prominent in everyone's reaction could they simply compromise ?
Someone lost a daughter in all this, and the murderer is free to roam the streets in HK, so what was the meaning of all that angry jazz...
You mentioned «Italy» and being «sanguine»: I consequently interpreted "sanguine" as "warmer", "brilliant", "extrovert", "emotionally available".
You are now presenting instances in which it seems that for "sanguine" you mean: "a beast".
Do not use the concept of "Italians" for that, because it would be improper factually. Italy (land of Pareto) is extremely composite, first of all, and in general you can easily find the most controlled people even among the most ignorant (probably owing to a very "integrated" societal configuration of the past). This in fact is a characteristic that is noted by visiting foreigners, in general noticing an extremely less violent environment (up to the label of "effeminate"). Note, numerically, that it is a country of moderate wine drinkers, among countries with much more marked habits towards consumption and substance type.
When I used 'sanguine' or 'warm blooded' I - of course - always assumed, "mentally lucid, reflective and controlled" at the same time. Because normal people are lively and with a functioning prefrontal all the times - the two things are not conflictual, they go together.
You have confirmed my statement «there is an issue on measurements and it is difficult to get a "complete" idea of a population on quantitative data only, because many fundamental qualities are not measured» - or, moreover, even when measurable and measured, it seems they are not easily apparent.
The topic though was "democracy deserving populations". Again: if the population is ignorant, they will be poor to disastrous in judgement: they will be unable to distinguish mice from eagles, they will take the first dog and call that dog "a leader that will lead us to years of cheers", they will believe things like "politicians should not receive a salary", they will believe that they have judgement where they do not have it. If the population is highly skilled - on average, median and typical -, democracy has more reasons to be a good idea. If the population is not, there surely is a problem to be fixed.
Hong Kong (e.g. top average IQ worldwide to some informal data, in absence of a "civilization index") projected an image of competence: if the image corresponds to facts, it would be a pity if representation is not extended. If a strong component of the population is competent, they should be empowered. And those who are "beasts", whatever the percentile they are in, majority or minority, and whatever the role they are in, appointed or marginalized, must be a social concern (of everyone, they themselves first) even outside the context of some "right for representation".
You are now presenting instances in which it seems that for "sanguine" you mean: "a beast".
Do not use the concept of "Italians" for that, because it would be improper factually. Italy (land of Pareto) is extremely composite, first of all, and in general you can easily find the most controlled people even among the most ignorant (probably owing to a very "integrated" societal configuration of the past). This in fact is a characteristic that is noted by visiting foreigners, in general noticing an extremely less violent environment (up to the label of "effeminate"). Note, numerically, that it is a country of moderate wine drinkers, among countries with much more marked habits towards consumption and substance type.
When I used 'sanguine' or 'warm blooded' I - of course - always assumed, "mentally lucid, reflective and controlled" at the same time. Because normal people are lively and with a functioning prefrontal all the times - the two things are not conflictual, they go together.
You have confirmed my statement «there is an issue on measurements and it is difficult to get a "complete" idea of a population on quantitative data only, because many fundamental qualities are not measured» - or, moreover, even when measurable and measured, it seems they are not easily apparent.
The topic though was "democracy deserving populations". Again: if the population is ignorant, they will be poor to disastrous in judgement: they will be unable to distinguish mice from eagles, they will take the first dog and call that dog "a leader that will lead us to years of cheers", they will believe things like "politicians should not receive a salary", they will believe that they have judgement where they do not have it. If the population is highly skilled - on average, median and typical -, democracy has more reasons to be a good idea. If the population is not, there surely is a problem to be fixed.
Hong Kong (e.g. top average IQ worldwide to some informal data, in absence of a "civilization index") projected an image of competence: if the image corresponds to facts, it would be a pity if representation is not extended. If a strong component of the population is competent, they should be empowered. And those who are "beasts", whatever the percentile they are in, majority or minority, and whatever the role they are in, appointed or marginalized, must be a social concern (of everyone, they themselves first) even outside the context of some "right for representation".