What about anti- "SJW" badasses? Are they pro-Yang?

Nothing says badass like insisting that treating trans people with basic dignity comes at a significant personal cost.

Hard af

Zhuxi (主席) means Chairman and is translated as chairman or president depending on contexts. And this word appears in the titles of the President of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国主席), the defunct Chairman of the Communist Party of China (中国共产党中央委员会主席), and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party of China (中国共产党中央军事委员会主席).
Let's look at the Wikipedia article about the head of state of PRC
While the title of the first Heads of State, such as Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi, is translated as Chairman, the title of the Heads of State from Li Xiannian is translated as President. Thus, Xi Jinping is a President. On the other hand, he's also the current Chairman of the Central Military Commission

Thank you, I considered pointing out yet another thing grizy grossly misunderstood but I figured coming from me he'd ignore it

Every leader has held that title since Mao, we just typically translate it as president because for whatever reason Chairman Mao became such a brand that we stopped calling subsequent leaders as chairman. It was borrowed from the Soviet Union as they were looking to break tradition with the past and didn't want to use a title such as president to associate with failed warlord state nor emperor for obvious reasons.

Grizy, Xi has many things in common with Mao that other CCP leaders don't but this isn't one of them. Please stop posting in the thread because you literally have no idea what you are talking about ever.

China made the decision to switch the translation to distance successive Chairman’s from Mao.

To this day they don’t call Xi “zongtong” (the translation for presidents) and never calls presidents of other countries “zhuxi.”

It’s doublespeak by translation to obscure, at least for a western audience, the fact that the posts Deng/Xi/Jiang occupied made them more like Chairman Mao than like any of the presidents in Europe or US. The translation stuck because the policy in the west at the time was, essentially, rapprochement and western governments were happy to play along.

It should be trivially easy for you to prove me wrong if I am wrong. Find some official documents from CCP that refer to Xi with zongtong as the primary title or documents that refer to US presidents as zhuxi.

Good luck.

Oh yeah Reuters and NYT now take their cues from whichever version China Daily goes with... FFS Grizy, this is embarrassing.

We all know that in Chinese language
the President of China is called 主席 (Zhǔxí),
while the President of France is called 总统 (Zǒngtǒng).
The similar situations happen in the languages of Korea and Vietnam.
In Korean language
the President of China is called 주석 (equivalent to 主席),
while the President of France is called 대통령 (equivalent to 总统).
In Vietnamese language
the President of China is called Chủ tịch (equivalent to 主席),
while the President of France is called Tổng thống (equivalent to 总统).
That's why while being called President in English or Presidente in Spanish, the leaders of North Korea, Kim Il-sung (김일성/金日成), and Vietnam, Ho-Chi-Minh (胡志明), are called 주석 and Chủ tịch in their languages respectively

Good argument. It's elevated, but the probability of an invasion is still not high.
However, in my view, I prefer to see an invasion in near future. It's not because I support mainland China or Taiwan, but it's because I want this disputed situation to be solved soon. If PRC wins, then Taiwan will legally be recognized as a province of China. Otherwise, if Taiwan wins, then this island will be recognized as an independent country. It means I want to the status quo to end

Yep, it would cause tensions and trouble China's foreign relations. However, such a strategic blunder would only last for some decades before becoming normal if China managed to find a way to govern the island and negotiate with the rest of the world.
The past history saw a similar example. In 1961, India invaded Portuguese India (Goa, Daman and Diu). This also caused tension. However, in 1974, Portugal accepted to relinquish their sovereignty over the territories

It's true that China is trying to gain influence in Latin America. For example, Brazil, despite being a close ally of the USA in term of politics, has become an economic partner of China, and China has surpassed the USA to become Brazil's top export and import partners, along with the EU

Just saw a YouTube ad for the Epoch Times. Really wish I could link to it but can't find it.

It's so absurd. Their main spiel is "we don't cover like the mainstream media we give you the real and unbiased coverage like on Epstein etc etc"

But the main thing is they promote themselves as the traditional values American newspaper... Yet they are owned and operated by a Chinese cult that professes to be able to fly, communicate with aliens, cure your cancer with qi etc etc

This is so depressing...

This is the Chinese Communist party line,"cult", "aliens", "fly", are you an agent ?

Try Google instead of spouting ignorance

I never defended how they were persecuted but that's still a 100% Chinese cult with a clear agenda and it's patently absurd that they are promoting themselves as a bias free traditional American newspaper

Being an enemy of the communist party doesn't by default not mean you are either good or not a cult. - it's these idiotic mindsets that are why they are growing in influence because simply by being enemies of the prc they are viewed as good guys by idiots.

Just read the founder's interview with Time magazine ffs

http://content.time.com/time/world/a...053761,00.html

Read the interview, dude is a nutbar and an absolute cult leader

I think you're the agent Carlo because otherwise I don't see how you could possibly be that stupid

I'll end it on this : he( the leader)speaks to the Tao which is the ancient spirituality of the East and in this speaks to the supersensible or in western ethos the "spirit".

I suspect that the write of the Time article substituted "aliens" for the "demons" of Christianity or spiritual beings of higher and lower rank who affect Man with the most known in the West,"Lucifer".

If no credence is given then the materialistic code will substitute a material being for "spirits of impediment" and therefore we have "aliens" but I haven't seen anywhere in that article any mention of "spaceships" or some such modes of transportation.

The underlying theme of his presentation (the leader) is that Mankind has fallen from higher realms and reached a nadir of comprehension of these cosmic events (spiritual)and is in need of rejuvenation .

A lot of what I read in the article is a very Christian and actually as precursor multi religious presentation including Buddhism .

The short of it is that the present and past Chinese Communist government very much sees religion and its associated spirituality as not only foolishness but as a "threat" to is power . Of all the nations of the world there is no more materialistic morass than the Communists of China. They make American and English materialists look like babes in the woods.

In our times it is very difficult for the man on the street and especially the intellectual mavens of our centers of knowledge to relate to spiritual beings and so "Lucifer"and the "demons" of the religious sects are abstracted to a nothingness, a mere word, but it will change.

The difficulty is that our thought forms and process are those of the scientific establishment or "thought forms of science " to which the Chinese Communists and other Marxist subscribe, the thinking that denies the supersensible and only will accept the sense bound materiality.

The thought forms are changing but it won't be because the Chinese Communist Party or other center of power deigns it so.

Yes Carlo, time magazine is in on the CCP conspiracy... JFC you're probably one of those guys who hands out flyers in NYC or practices taiqi with them in the park

The guy says crazy stuff like he can fly, talks to aliens, goes into space, can cure cancer etc, etc, etc

You're comparison to Christianity is a moot point that's not even worth delving into and you're seriously deranged if you think Time magazine back in it's heyday would have winged it in translation.

Happy New Year to all of you who are active in this thread
恭喜发财
新年快乐
The President/Chairman of China delivers his speech on this occasion instead of the traditional Lunar New Year

This is President Xi Jinping's speech delivered yesterday



To be fair, it strikes me as a very good speech. He is really much more excellent and skillful than his counterparts in the other communist states

The average member was a totally uneducated peasant and it was long viewed as just another group that believed if they could get mystical powers if they learned to harness the qi. China is very superstitious so you mix in a few hundred million uneducated peasants and that'll happen. For reference, the boxers of the boxer rebellion were similar, believing they could harness qi to be impervious to bullets.

They were basically ignored like the others that was until they wanted to be officially recognized as a religion. Which of course was never going to fly and then they became political, showing up in the thousands outside government buildings. The government absolutely freaked out and overreacted and the average person began making fun of them. It was kind of a meme before memes. Basically everyone in China agreed they freaked out over nothing.

I totally disagree with their persecution, if their members don't want to seek medical attention because they believe qi can heal them then that's their own life to do as they please.

Christians are getting more common but they are still far fewer than before WWII when there was a church and missionary in most large villages.

The Christians work with the government rather than against. There are still frowned upon but to my knowledge allowed to do as they please so long as they didn't get political. I know, I know, but you get the idea.

Uygurs I'm torn on. They absolutely have been left behind in all the modernization. But then again, when you're out in the hills raising goats where there's no electricity and you keep your kids out of school to help then that's kind of the natural result. They absolutely have been engaging in terrorism, we have/had a number of them in gitmo and there are quite a few in Syria etc etc. I don't agree with how China has decided to forcibly educate and sinicize but it's preferable to any other Draconian options they could have taken.

As for Hong Kong, you'll find vast majority are young and unemployed and have major racist? issues with the mainlanders. Hong Kong got rich being the gateway to a closed China. Once China opened it became an unnecessary step and thus all wealth is old money with very little new wealth being generated. Furthermore they still have a higher class of living than most of China so it's become a popular destination for wealthy mainlanders to go live in, further exacerbating the issue with the youth feeling squeezed out as they keep housing prices high.

I haven't really been following hk very much simply because it's too much work to keep pace and will likely just go away at some point. For what it's worth, the honkeys I know are all against the protestors and detest them for preferring being colonial slaves again simply because the economy hasn't been good to them. Some of them literally hang up American and British flags and talk about how much they miss British rule which I think anyone can agree is kind of messed up.

I don't at all agree with how the CCP has been handling any of those 4 groups. However, I don't think any of that is objectively worse than our own Japanese detainment in WWII, our current border camps or are military assassinating the second in command of a sovereign nation.

Generally speaking "what about X then?!" is a poor argument in ethics. It can have merit, we do have blind-spots in discussions on ethics. But usually this is not how we see it employed.

It is not bad because the X in question can't have ethical conundrums, but because it is the slipperiest of slopes. It would mean that the only country we would be allowed to criticize would be the worst country in the world, because any other criticism could be met with "what about X then?!"

Also, a person isn't necessarily making excuses for country A, by pointing out the wrongs undertaken in country B. Nor does originating from country A mean that the person necessarily agrees with everything that country does.

Whataboutism is a very tiring, over-used argument. It is also rarely used in good faith, but mostly just used to throw a wrench into the discussion. It's one of those arguments that take 2 seconds to make, but a response will require far more effort.

Shuffle that was very well stated

TD it's not what aboutism, it's looking at the thing objectively. If one is eating a popsicle themselves they shouldn't be intimate their finger and criticizing someone else for also eating a popsicle. Or more appropriately, they could, but they'd should be criticizing both dudes for popsicle eating instead of pretending like the domain of popsicles is exclusive to the other party.

Shuffle, for clarification, falun gong are experts at propaganda, they created epoch times and that newspaper is the root source for most of the information we have on the persecution. When I was a journalist we did actually attempt convering organ harvesting thing and couldn't confirm any of that stuff independently and only had their own reports and no actual hard evidence so our editors left it as vague "persecution" instead of going into details.

For reference, right after tiananmen square a bunch of students left the country and went on TV and radio claiming the tanks ran over thousands in the square. They've later recanted this testimony as something that they said in the heat of the moment. Tiananmen was awful, but very little actually took place at the square which is what people imagined, foreign journalists were there (not for the protest but because Gorbachev was visiting) and they filmed it all because the hotels for foreigners all looked over the square and the students in the square were all children of the same elites sending in the troops. It was a negotiated withdrawal wholly filmed by Americans from their hotel balconies.

There were massacres but not at the square, it was when the military pushed through all the roadblocks that workers unions had set up around the city. Tiananmen was not simply a student protest, it started as one but then the workers joined and it soon went national. I digress but my main point is some students fled and did a media blitz and then it became known as a student protest where they were massacred at the square when it was a nationwide workers strike with dozens of bloody conflicts.

Watch this if you have 3 hours to really understand tiananmen, the Philip guy was my history teacher in high school

This also mentions how before they brought in overwhelming force, they attempted to stop the protests with a smaller force and some of the soldiers were actually killed with Molotov cocktails so they backed off and called in the reinforcements. Not justifying what the army did, but those soldiers all knew of their colleagues who were killed by protestors in the days before June 4th. Had there not been dozens of soldiers killed last time they attempted to remove the road blocks it's arguable there may not have been bloodshed that night at all.

For reference, many of the workers were former soldiers. China was in a constant state of conflict steer it's finding from the Korean war to on mini wars with India and Vietnam as well as regular armed border conflicts with Russia and Taiwan. This period was now over so there were a lot of ex soldiers in the general population.

Just bear that in mind, and know that when those students made these claims, they were literally refuted at the time by Americans who were there as well but hearing about tanks rolling over tents full of sleeping students is a much more powerful narrative and it still lives on today.

Furthermore, the tank man image wasn't someone stopping them from going to the square. It was several days afterwards and he was saw a column of tanks leaving the square doing and just got fed up or something and it happened to happen in front of some journalists who filmed it from their hotel balconies.

So basically with falungong is that yes they are being persecuted and I think it's dumb as do most Chinese and there's actually a phrase in China that I don't quite recall the wording of but essentially means "don't overreact like they did with falungong" but the general population thinks of them as illiterate weirdos who are being manipulated and should be helped to see the light

The other stuff, I'm with you. I think if the US had same issue with uighurs (would be if the Indians refused to learn English and regularly carried out terrorist attacks both home and abroad - not to dissimilar to our early history) we'd have an ivy league panel come to same conclusion that they needed to learn English and get job skills to blend into a society that no longer hunts the Buffalo. To an extent we did do this having already taught them English but instead of economically empowering them we put them in a ghetto and brilliantly gave full autonomy so it's not our problem.

I think the only real difference is our reservations, trails of tears, massacres at wounded knee, etc etc happened long enough ago to be out of sight and out of mind and today we stick to mostly carrots while China would rather have an efficient stick.

We'd probably have built free community colleges, made education mandatory (we do imprison parents who refuse to educate their children) and offered some tax incentives to get them to learn our language and get modern careers whereas China is just like "If we force the issue we can solve this in a single generation" and for better or worse that's the route they took.

I think one of the biggest problems China has in policy making is that they know they have enough trust to gain support for those things and that obscures their thinking into because they don't have the capacity to understand how non Chinese will react. CGTV created a documentary about terrorism in xinjiang in English in order to sway public opinion to their point of view and it's laughably awful.

What I'm trying to say is the truth is always far more complicated than what anyone knows. I myself don't know the truth either. At the end of the day, I don't think of the US had same issue they wouldn't want to achieve the same end goal but we would most certainly take a soft approach through policy and tax cuts whereas the Chinese will shove a square peg into a round hole with enough force until it works.

Sorry for the rant, I tend to just start spilling everything out once I get going on an issue. I'm just saying there are lots of layers and facets to all of this and most people only know it on a surface level and that level may not even be accurate.

The inevitable morass of Marxist/socialist hegemony; and how about the Pope in this article.......sheesh :

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ch...rty-principles

To be fair to the Pope it may be that he sees communist party Catholics (bishops in this case) as men who should also be within appreciation of Christ.

idk if XI is a bad guy or what since I ll have to read more into him but during his tenure hes been really putting china in the limelight and an emerging global force. prolly their most successful emperor to date wrt economics. at least at face value

For reference there's a famous story about the poet Li Bai (one of their most famous historical figures).

Li Bai didn't like school so one day goes out to play hooky and sees this old lady grinding a thick metal rod.

He discovers that the old lady needs a needle so she is going to methodically grind that big bar down for days on end until it's the shape of a needle.

Li sees this and decides to go back to school.

I interpreted this as

Chinese interpret it as as

It's not just this story. Reading Chinese fables (not sure if that's the right word) can be one of the most eye opening processes to understanding China because what we interpret to be the moral of the story is always different from their interpretation. There are dozens where I still have no idea how they draw the conclusions they do.

Chinese fundamentally do not view the world the way we interpret the world and this is a huge reason for our natural conflict.

And they just keep hitting up YouTube with more bs

Can't believe YouTube is allowing this

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51148303