My experience (UK) is that landlords screw people over where they can - they want to make money but actually have a social responsibility for housing conditions. Most people I know live in horrible conditions for a little less rent or increasingly so more precarious and even less stable house shares. Maybe that's an English problem though.
The interesting question being posed in these threads is a lifestyle choice: ownership or flexibility, lay your roots down or remain agile.
If you have enough money to pick and choose that's great. Otherwise home ownership may be the only route out of a precarious and unstable existence.
Well put. I would further remark that this general debate is more a perspective of reformation versus revolution - which doesn't need to be tied to a capitalist/communist contrast.
The criteria for censorship at the 20 points level - could be debated as - quite healthy criteria.
Criteria such as the government controlling online harassment is classed, rightly, as censorship. Political anarchy would be the reflection of 0 point score.
Is 0, 10, 20, even 30 or 40 points the optimum score: thats debatable. At the 80+ level, its really not debatable.
I grew up in a similar way. My departure point was somewhere between okc and kid a. I can't stand most their music now. A still like the first 5 EPs but even Pablo honey is a hard listen at times. Funny, really.
I was posting about the Chinese government response. The way they handled the problem. At no point is anyone denying the attack.
>All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.
Really? I find that naive - if terrorism has taught us anything, it is that all the world should be deeply critical oh how any country responds to terrorism.
Yes, its all about perspective. Perspective based in reality. Context.
Take your childbirth example: mortality rate may have improved. This statement is great without context – of course thats improvement right?
Now take the context of forced sterilisation and forced abortion by local corrupt government meeting birth quotas. Thats perspective.
What do you base your perspective on?
(In response to your question on N.Korea, I don't know anything about North Korea so of course not!)
>Let's say I consider this prison to be an improvement to me dying of hunger, then would you be able to accept my perspective? Or would you consider me brainwashed?
I would consider you in prison. I would also point out that the prison (government) created the great famine (that made you hungry). Do you really believe that is improvement?
So you really want me to explain why people should have free speech, at this level of debate, it is unbelievable you could ask - why not?
Let me give you the big why not: because your opinion right now is free speech on a forum of free speech.
Please don't back pedal and say your just talking about dangerous hate inducing free speech. Because we both know that isn't the case. The context is a government which has always tortured dissenters. A government which drove tanks over peaceful protesters.
A government based on the notion of rebellion not reform, which is doing everything humanly possible to stop rebellion ever happening again. That's the communist paradox. That's the ultimate source of propaganda.
I still don't think so, but can I ask you a question. Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone). This morning I woke up to find my original post no further replied to, but down voted from 8 to 2. I also seem to be having a conversation with someone who registers a new name each time they post (I presume).
And the whole thread is about controlling social media - particularly through controlling perception of public opinion.
Honest question, what do you think? Irony, conspiracy, time zone differences.
No its not the only reason I have! as I made clear - it wasn't the reason at all. You reply is meaningless without context.
It was one example of many providing a point that statistics are misleading.
Especially in describing quality of life under a controlling reigeme. Yes some things improve in some way. No - that's not improvement.
Its like saying if you sent me to prison my life expectancy, security, and perhaps even literacy might improve. Would I count being in prison an improvement? No.
Not unless of course you think I'm guilty, incapable, and need controlling.
Well, which came first, the government or peoples views on it.
When people can't openly express dissatisfaction and are censored and are subject to organised propaganda, then it's very hard to say.
Under the communist government peoples lives haven't improved: look at the great famine. So yes I disagree peoples lives have not improved because of communism in China.
You ask me to pick which era of government I would like to be under. But its all the same government using propaganda the same way.
So what if it is now improving the vast amount of peoples lives. What about the minority being tortued by it?
My conversations with Chinese people don't show a favour with the current government. But that's not much of an indicator, under the great famine, their was probably even more vast support for the
Government. That's the nature of propaganda.
You say China has improved under communism. Think what it could have achieved without it. Or look back even further at what it achieved as an empire.
The average Chinese persons life has improved from an absolutely horrific existence under communism to a slightly better one - might be more like what your saying.
As I said before, it's the same party as always. Until propaganda is removed and freedom of speech installed, public opinion is far from fact and the average Chinese persons quality of life is as much fiction as it is belief.
I'm implying that I don't understand how his arguments flow - they seem self defeating. For the reasons outlined above. I don't mean it personally, and I don't really care if he is respected or not. I just wanna get to the bottom of why, how and what he is getting at. And from his writing style it seem I am led to doubt he doesn't really believe what he is implying. Of course, I might and probqly an wrong so would appreciate clarification.
The argument of: its not just propaganda, its also a reflection of development - doesn't wash with me.
regardless of what you mean, can I just put phrases like: "hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang" into context:
"Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms."
Specifically on Xinjiang:
"Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture.
While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools."
would that be censored? how about if the facts underlying a case are seen to provoke something like racism - is it then legitimate to change the facts or censor them to the public.
"If the government or the law making process can be considered as an emanation of the citizen, it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration to some extent"
Unbelievable paradoxical statement: Starts with an If.. Ends with a vague to some extent.. and sticks the massive assumption of "it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration" - Why? Why is that legitimate?.
Perhaps in a democracy you might very carefully start to make such conclusions, but the Chinese people don't pick their government. There only chance of change is rebellion. Perhaps thats why news is suppressed?
Please, elaborate your statement - in laymans terms if possible, as I find the semantics in your statements quite difficult to follow.
The question is how much are the local views influenced by the government and also how much people are willing to disagree with the government view.
The local perspective you present, is a good example of a perspective which sounds like it endorses government activity but also identifies it as a case of government suppression. It says noting as a personal opinion.
I'm not sure that Chinese people are "understandably" horrified at CNN. I actually think theres a big cultural gap in understanding between both countries, perpetuated part by both governments.
Either way, its government propaganda of news set against a backdrop of fear and conformity. That means that the very idea of presenting a 'local perspective' is one intimately linked to government control. Its nothing to do with kittens on CNN.
You don't outright say it, but the way you wrote this seems to be saying that government controlled news ain't that bad compared with CNNs 24hr coverage of kittens. What do you think, personally?
The point in having currency is a speculation of value between entities?