Jump to content

One way China controls its population


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

China just doesn't function as a communist country. At one time it was a communist country but stopped functioning as one when it opened up to the west. It just continues to use the label.

China became less communist and more socialist when it opened up. By the very same token we've became more socialist and less capitalistic. Our old labels help us feel better about it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

Not at all. China just doesn't function as a communist country. At one time it was a communist country but stopped functioning as one when it opened up to the west. It just continues to use the label.  North Korea calls itself The Democratic Peoples Republic when it is nothing of the sort. 

China is still totalitarian, the government has total control over whatever domestic businesses and organizations it wants.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's not a definition of Communism.

2. He's popular, but that doesn't mean his contribution has value.  That's basic.  Does your principle there apply to everyone, including people you don't like?

3. He's talking about state security and matters he's already shown that he's unprepared to discuss, in the past.

...

Peterson is the kind of person we need to unite people.  But if you're just going to support him because he criticizes liberals, that's your vanity showing.  

What did Peterson say about China that you disagree with? 

No he's not right 100% of the time obviously.  His tweets now are very odd and filled with wrath, so maybe he drinks to cope with half the western world hating him and trying to destroy him and his career.  I imagine that's stressful.  And when he drinks, he tweets.  Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. What did Peterson say about China that you disagree with? 

2. No he's not right 100% of the time obviously.  His tweets now are very odd and filled with wrath, so maybe he drinks to cope with half the western world hating him and trying to destroy him and his career.

3. I imagine that's stressful.  And when he drinks, he tweets.  Who knows.

1. I'm not talking about the content. I'm questioning why someone with no background in an important topic is invited to speak on it.

He could have read from a Wikipedia page and been accurate. So could I. So could you. Are you and I okay to get invited to speak to Congress?

2. Strange because he's the one who preaches accountability, so he's responsible for how he's viewed in the public sphere.  He's not taking the medicine that he dulls out I guess.

3. He lacks the character to be the moral beacon that he wants to be. If he's descending into alcoholism, that I guess I feel sorry for him. I would be 100% empathetic if he withdrew from public life entirely and just lived off his controversy money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

China is still totalitarian, the government has total control over whatever domestic businesses and organizations it wants.

Absolutely true. I'm just saying it no longer functions as a communist society. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not talking about the content. I'm questioning why someone with no background in an important topic is invited to speak on it.

He could have read from a Wikipedia page and been accurate. So could I. So could you. Are you and I okay to get invited to speak to Congress?

No idea, good question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No idea, good question.

The answer is that he's influential and people like him.  From the looks of it the committee is mainly political and not functional so that tracks.

Once again I want to point out that someone LIKE Peterson is really needed now.  I might have thought Dr. Phil could maybe be that (?) but it doesn't seem so.  I suppose it might have to be a musician or actor or some kind of young influencer type as nobody under 55 seems to have any faith in public figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Absolutely true. I'm just saying it no longer functions as a communist society. 

Well the economy has had some capitalist reforms clearly but for the purposes of what's being discussed in this thread they remain communist in terms of the total government control they maintain.   There have been virtually no democratic reforms in that country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The answer is that he's influential and people like him.  From the looks of it the committee is mainly political and not functional so that tracks.

Once again I want to point out that someone LIKE Peterson is really needed now.  I might have thought Dr. Phil could maybe be that (?) but it doesn't seem so.  I suppose it might have to be a musician or actor or some kind of young influencer type as nobody under 55 seems to have any faith in public figures.

I like most of what Dr Phil has to say politically.

Musicians and actors.... meh.  At least we have Bill Maher.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

@Michael HardnerMaher is anti Trump and anti woke.   We need a lot more of that.   That's how we can unify, around reasonable ideas.

The thing about anti-wokeness is that it's kibble for a certain type of information consumer that just LOVES ridiculous marginal stories.  It's like the "Florida man" meme, but on social progressives.  

It's fine for a comedian who needs to entertain but that signal to noise ratio is low signal high noise.  It's not zero, there is plenty to be concerned about... but most of the narrative is around ridiculous blue-haired activists in Portland, not Lindsay Shepherds.

To me - a "unity" figure would have to acknowledge what most conservatives here do, which is that trans rights are valid, but also push the questions of application out of the main sphere of public dialogue.  How people deal with washrooms at a Wal Mart somewhere might be of interest but not of use.

China and North America are de-coupling.  That's a big deal.  Do we know about this ?  Has anyone told APPLE ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

The younger generations are going to erase the effect of the baby boomers and that will start with rejecting figures like Dr. Phil.  It's not going to be pretty.

Well a lot of young men like Jordan Peterson.  But the young left are the ones that seem to resent the boomers, because boomers don't think like they do because boomers aren't insane.

The younger generations are brats.  That's the way its been since post WW2 though.   Dr Phil has made a career putting young brats in their place on his show.   But the brats not on his show aren't going to listen.

The only person young crazy people will listen to is another young crazy person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Well a lot of young men like Jordan Peterson. 
2. But the young left are the ones that seem to resent the boomers, because boomers don't think like they do because boomers aren't insane.

 

1. Yes this is true.  Broad appeal isn't in his sights.
2. The generational differences are very saddening to me.  I don't think boomers or young people are insane, nor do I have negative opinions of either group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well the economy has had some capitalist reforms clearly but for the purposes of what's being discussed in this thread they remain communist in terms of the total government control they maintain.   There have been virtually no democratic reforms in that country.

Totalitarian governments exercise total control whether they are communist of fascist. Pinochet in Chile and Galtieri in Argentina both overthrew socialist democratic governments to establish military dictatorships. All the totalitarian governments in the middle east are neither democratic or socialist.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing about anti-wokeness is that it's kibble for a certain type of information consumer that just LOVES ridiculous marginal stories.  It's like the "Florida man" meme, but on social progressives.  

It's fine for a comedian who needs to entertain but that signal to noise ratio is low signal high noise.  It's not zero, there is plenty to be concerned about... but most of the narrative is around ridiculous blue-haired activists in Portland, not Lindsay Shepherds.

To me - a "unity" figure would have to acknowledge what most conservatives here do, which is that trans rights are valid, but also push the questions of application out of the main sphere of public dialogue.  How people deal with washrooms at a Wal Mart somewhere might be of interest but not of use.

China and North America are de-coupling.  That's a big deal.  Do we know about this ?  Has anyone told APPLE ??

Wokeism isn't just marginal though.   The US and Canada are run by woke governments.  The VP of the US was a diversity hire.  DEI has crept into most large organizations throughout North America.

The point of highlighting the marginal stories is to speak out against it so that it doesn't become a norm.  Not every school has removed certain books from their curriculum for silly woke censorship reasons, but give it 5-10 years and most of them might if people don't speak up.

And "trans rights are valid" doesn't get into any context, it isn't black and white as you framed it.  There are many issues and rights to be discussed because there can be reasonable and unreasonable trans rights.  Washrooms at Walmart are everyone's business because every woman uses them and every man's wife and daughter and sister and mother does too.  It's a public issue.  Again you're asking people to be quiet about something that affects them because you want that policy to be implemented. That's not going to happen.  You need to accept that not everyone agrees with you.

I'm not even that interested in a unity figure because someone is going to disagree with them anyways.  The left now hates Bill Maher because being moderate and reasonable isn't being woke and radical like they are.  What I'm interested in is bad radical ideas being defeated and not having power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Wokeism isn't just marginal though.  

2. I'm not even that interested in a unity figure because someone is going to disagree with them anyways.  The left now hates Bill Maher because being moderate and reasonable isn't being woke and radical like they are.  What I'm interested in is bad radical ideas being defeated and not having power.

1. I think we agreed on the definition using the term extreme? Extreme and marginal mean the same thing. Don't they?

2. We're not looking for 100% agreement. We're looking for a way forward, a common space, common morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think we agreed on the definition using the term extreme? Extreme and marginal mean the same thing. Don't they?

2. We're not looking for 100% agreement. We're looking for a way forward, a common space, common morality.

1.  "Extreme" sounds more extreme.

2.  People don't agree here because they have different morality.  A common morality isn't going to happen anyways, it hasn't existed in centuries if ever, and now the crazy people are too crazy and they've seemingly grown in numbers over the last 10 years.  Getting the Trumpsters and wokesters to agree is impossible.  Getting the wokesters and moderates I.e. Bill Maher to agree is probably not even going to happen.

So we're left with the realm of politics: a struggle for power.   A battleground for morality.   The culture war.  It's on tv, in our schools, workplaces, almost everywhere. If people want to change society, whether banning Muslim immigrants and making Trump a dictator OR making society a bastion of woke hyper-sensitivity then the only way to defeat them is to 1.  Convince them why they're wrong, or 2.  If that fails, stop them any other legal and ethical way possible.  My aim is to do both.

But I'm not looking for cultural peace if they're only looking for culture war.  If I need to meet them in the field to defeat them I will.  But I'm scared of being canceled for it like most are, nobody wants to lose their job or lose friends etc, so I and others have to tread lightly.  Anonymous msg boards and social media are tools here.  But what we need are people brave enough to risk being canceled and stand up to the woke cancel culture mob.  Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson and Dr Phil are examples, even if we don't always agree, but at least they're trying.  It doesn't take much risk to virtue signal wokeness and go along with the woke moral bullies compared to standing up to them.  Standing up to Trumpsters is easy, they do it every night on late night TV to great applause.  That's why the woke have an advantage: feigning moral high ground, calling people racist etc, and getting people canceled for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  People don't agree here because they have different morality.  A common morality isn't going to happen anyways, it hasn't existed in centuries if ever,

2. and now the crazy people are too crazy and they've seemingly grown in numbers over the last 10 years.  Getting the Trumpsters and wokesters to agree is impossible.  Getting the wokesters and moderates I.e. Bill Maher to agree is probably not even going to happen.

3. So we're left with the realm of politics: a struggle for power.   A battleground for morality.   The culture war.  It's on tv, in our schools, workplaces, almost everywhere. If people want to change society, whether banning Muslim immigrants and making Trump a dictator OR making society a bastion of woke hyper-sensitivity then the only way to defeat them is to 1.  Convince them why they're wrong, or 2.  If that fails, stop them any other legal and ethical way possible. 

4. My aim is to do both.

5. But I'm not looking for cultural peace if they're only looking for culture war.  If I need to meet them in the field to defeat them I will.  But I'm scared of being canceled for it like most are, nobody wants to lose their job or lose friends etc, so I and others have to tread lightly.  Anonymous msg boards and social media are tools here.  But what we need are people brave enough to risk being canceled and stand up to the woke cancel culture mob. 

6. Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson and Dr Phil are examples, even if we don't always agree, but at least they're trying.

7. It doesn't take much risk to virtue signal wokeness and go along with the woke moral bullies compared to standing up to them.  Standing up to Trumpsters is easy, they do it every night on late night TV to great applause.  That's why the woke have an advantage: feigning moral high ground, calling people racist etc, and getting people canceled for it.

1.  I think you're taking "common" to mean "identical".  I'm thinking about the general morality that held sway in public life perhaps about 50 - 75 years ago.
2. Yes, I'm thinking of the period before these moral fights took hold of public dialogue.
3.  Except, that in life ... such discussions are not the #1 priority for the most of us 100% of the time.  "Live and let live" is the default balance that we always try to get back to.  Same Sex marriage was an example of us coming to an agreement and moving on.  If we're fighting constantly about such things, we can't talk about bigger problems.  Lastly, there are agents that would rather have us fight over such things than move on.  This includes political extremists and external agents.
4. Your aim ?  You want to stop them ?  That's a tall order.
5. The numbers of people who agree on these issues is vastly understated.  No society would be so stupid as to commit suicide by going to civil war over bathrooms.
6. They're not examples of people who can bridge the cultural gap.  Peterson, for example, flatters his audience and makes extreme statements to ostracize and skewer those he disagrees with.  There's no war happening, so we need people to find a third way.  Dr. Phil might be ok but his influence is tied to old media.  Mahr's primary job is to entertain and amuse so he's not a good fit for the kind of public intellectual we need.  

Peterson 1.0 was promising.  He was respectful to his students, and indicated that he would use their pronouns if asked politely, and that the government should not compel him to utter a word when he would otherwise be silent ie. "compelled speech".  U of T glitched out at this, thereby affirming the right's suspicions about academia.  Rather than continue on this path, Peterson became a media figure who benefited from being outrageous and picking fights.
7.  Mahr and Chapelle can stand up to wokeness to great applause ?  It's a culture war at worst and a dialogue at best.  But you can't comment on the game if you're playing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I think you're taking "common" to mean "identical".  I'm thinking about the general morality that held sway in public life perhaps about 50 - 75 years ago.
2. Yes, I'm thinking of the period before these moral fights took hold of public dialogue.
3.  Except, that in life ... such discussions are not the #1 priority for the most of us 100% of the time.  "Live and let live" is the default balance that we always try to get back to.  Same Sex marriage was an example of us coming to an agreement and moving on.  If we're fighting constantly about such things, we can't talk about bigger problems.  Lastly, there are agents that would rather have us fight over such things than move on.  This includes political extremists and external agents.
4. Your aim ?  You want to stop them ?  That's a tall order.
5. The numbers of people who agree on these issues is vastly understated.  No society would be so stupid as to commit suicide by going to civil war over bathrooms.
6. They're not examples of people who can bridge the cultural gap.  Peterson, for example, flatters his audience and makes extreme statements to ostracize and skewer those he disagrees with.  There's no war happening, so we need people to find a third way.  Dr. Phil might be ok but his influence is tied to old media.  Mahr's primary job is to entertain and amuse so he's not a good fit for the kind of public intellectual we need.  

Peterson 1.0 was promising.  He was respectful to his students, and indicated that he would use their pronouns if asked politely, and that the government should not compel him to utter a word when he would otherwise be silent ie. "compelled speech".  U of T glitched out at this, thereby affirming the right's suspicions about academia.  Rather than continue on this path, Peterson became a media figure who benefited from being outrageous and picking fights.
7.  Mahr and Chapelle can stand up to wokeness to great applause ?  It's a culture war at worst and a dialogue at best.  But you can't comment on the game if you're playing it.

1.  Yeah it's been dead since the 1960's, for better or worse.  Moral schisms existed before, like protestant vs catholic, slavery and other issues.  A big generation of young people plus a lot more mass media seemed to change things.  Everyone believed in God in previous times.  Now more of us get morals from our logic/emotions rather than our religion.  THose days are gone. 

2. ok

3. Well i think the values we teach our kids and morals about how we deal with problems in our society is pretty important.  Are you saying you'd have no issue if Trumpism and chudism spreading more throughout our culture, our schools, government and then corporate North America, live and let live?  Ignoring or doing nothing is a political stance on your part and which you're advocating to accept what is being sold to us, and that's your choice.  And yes I do think it's a deceptive stance because it would ensure many of the political stances you happen to agree with prevail while feigning "peace and civility", and I don't believe that's just a coincidence based on my Trumpism/Chud hypothetical above.

Don't underestimate the power of the radical minority:

 

Yes foreign agents can absolutely be a part of things, but when morals turn into policy then you have to accept it or not no matter where it's coming from.  Maybe some of the 60's revolution was a psy op fed by the Soviets.  Frankfurt school and French socilaist academics and yada yada.

4.  Why would I want Trumpsters and anti-vax chuds to prevail?

5. I think that's true.  Most seem pretty moderate and reasonable.  And then there's Black Dog and Shady who are addicted to twitter and knee-deep in the culture war and taken stark sides and want each other to die haha.

6.  Sure I agree we need someone like you're saying.

7.  Why not? 

Mahr has already had a show cancelled due to cancel culture, but it was conservatives back then doing it.  He's got balls to risk it again.  They tried to cancel Chappelle too but his career was too popular.  Had he been a mediocre comedian maybe they'd have been successful, or maybe on another network.  Netflix has been pretty good with the censorship stuff.  Jimmy Kimmel isn't going to get cancelled in Hollywood for criticizing Trump or taking a pro-trans rights stance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Yeah it's been dead since the 1960's, for better or worse.  Moral schisms existed before, like protestant vs catholic, slavery and other issues.  A big generation of young people plus a lot more mass media seemed to change things.  Everyone believed in God in previous times.  Now more of us get morals from our logic/emotions rather than our religion.  THose days are gone. 

2. Well i think the values we teach our kids and morals about how we deal with problems in our society is pretty important.  Are you saying you'd have no issue if Trumpism and chudism spreading more throughout our culture, our schools, government and then corporate North America, live and let live? 

3. Ignoring or doing nothing is a political stance on your part and which you're advocating to accept what is being sold to us, and that's your choice.  And yes I do think it's a deceptive stance because it would ensure many of the political stances you happen to agree with prevail while feigning "peace and civility", and I don't believe that's just a coincidence based on my Trumpism/Chud hypothetical above.

4. Don't underestimate the power of the radical minority:

 

5. Yes foreign agents can absolutely be a part of things, but when morals turn into policy then you have to accept it or not no matter where it's coming from.  Maybe some of the 60's revolution was a psy op fed by the Soviets.  Frankfurt school and French socilaist academics and yada yada.

6.  Why not? 

7. Mahr has already had a show cancelled due to cancel culture, but it was conservatives back then doing it.  He's got balls to risk it again.  They tried to cancel Chappelle too but his career was too popular.  Had he been a mediocre comedian maybe they'd have been successful, or maybe on another network.  Netflix has been pretty good with the censorship stuff.  Jimmy Kimmel isn't going to get cancelled in Hollywood for criticizing Trump or taking a pro-trans rights stance.

 

1. Ok, yes.  YES.  We are on the same page on this after all.  You can look back on times when there was more social peace, for example the 1980s and 90s when the boomers hit age of maturity.   Is it a coincidence that these were also boom times ?  The 1990s version of populism in the US was not about social change but deficits.
2. It's kind of a paradox because, from my POV, "live and let live" is not a part of Trumpism or Chudism.  What would happen if it became pervasive ?  Hard to say.  If we're talking about the moral and economic sphere they pine for, ie. the past, let's say the mid 20th century then, well, it's still hard to imagine because social peace was maintained through a rigid public sphere dominated by big media, religion and so on.
3. My take on this is that you get very upset over reports that the world is ending due to minor incidents.  For my part, I do watch such things and I would say that I give them due attention.  The paradox on you is that you seem to recognize that the DeSantis' of the world are trying to scam us and yet you fall in for their social alarmism.  
4. I don't get what that clip means to our discussion, which is about domestic political and moral spheres.  How do we deal with external threats ?  Differently, I guess.  Domestically, liberal political economy is a salve to extremism.
5. Seems like a double standard on propaganda there, if you think wokist ideology is a big problem but offshore propaganda only merits a shrug.
6. Well you CAN but I want to listen to people whose goal isn't to "win" at any cost so I can make my own mind up.  And Chapelle and Mahr stand to lose when the war is over because they won't have that to talk about anymore.
7. Or there's the other possibility... that Kimmel and others actually believe what they're saying.  You have even implied (I think) that I'm cowed by progressives to post certain opinions on here.  With this being an anonymous message board, that makes zero sense. I can see that there are a ton of people who don't agree with socially progressive politics, let's call it.  But there are also a ton who do.  And most - the grand majority - don't care enough to resist just going along with most of it, including sex ed and bathrooms.  So my perspective is that anybody who sees this fight as a great rebellion or uprising against wokism, or "the right" is too much in the fight to be fully trusted for objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau has the Communist ideology to a certain degree.  Most Canadians and most Premiers oppose raising the cost of the carbon tax on April 1st and Trudeau says he knows it may be unpopular but he is going to do it anyway.  He is an authoritarian dictator who said he admired the Chinese Communist system.  That tells it all.

What gives him the authority to do this against the will of the people?  I thought a PM's powers in such an area depended on the approval of the voters and population.  Apparently not.  He will do it because he can.  That's how China operates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...