I can say the same thing about your theme of criticism of China of late as being worked up.
Please don't confused my detailed arguments countering your points as being "worked-up." My detailed analysis is called backing up what I've stated. You seem to be going by a lot of romantic assumptions that are proven invalid by the very examples I gave you. If I used romanticism to back my opinions, it would be looked upon as bull. I've countered your romanticism with the facts. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with that. If anything I find it strange that you blame everything wrong with China and how to resolve it with the same thing over and over again. And it's the typical criticism for every issue the critics have with China. You have this romanticize "go to" one canned answer for every problem with China. If we were to believe all what the critics say, then China would not be the 2nd largest economy in the world. So from the get go anyone who uses the same criticism of what's wrong with China and how to resolve it has to be questioned and challenged.
I can tell you don't like my criticism of Hong Kong politics. You seem to want to blame the same thing and how to resolve the issue of rude Mainland Chinese with exactly what you say here on Chinese brand names. I have given the historical facts that the stereotype of Chinese bad behavior goes further back than when Mainland Chinese were allowed to travel outside their borders. So where did the rude stereotype that you help perpetuate against Mainlanders come from? People from Hong Kong and Taiwan. That says the people who judge are hypocritically no different and no more "civilized" than the accused. The difference between you and I is you go by what you believe. I go by seeing the contradictions in people's arguments. That's the best argument. Just like when you say that foreign corporations are more ethical and that's why, even though their products are made in China just like domestic companies with all the problems you say why China can't make a brand worthy name, the product made by the same workers is better quality? I don't have to go with what romantic notions I believe to counter that argument. When you murder someone, you can't say that someone else wanted to kill them more so they're worse than you. Same thing when foreign corporations use the same slave labor as is accused of China. I go by what critics of China who you seem to sympathize say. What more better to counter someone's argument than by using their own side's words against them. People don't like it that I have a good enough memory to see the hypocrisy and contradiction. They count on people forgetting. People who contradict themselves or are hypocrites aren't motivated by helping others. There's an automatic dislike by everyone of hypocrites. Why? Because hypocrites are motivated by selfishness not altruism. That's why, like in thieves, there's no honor among hypocrites because they know each other's motivations. So what does it mean when the China critics are contradicting their own arguments that I can point out? They're certainly not looking out for the best interests of China.
Well you can say I am worked up, but at least I know I don't go bget extremely confrontational. And again of course, you threw the accusations back on me.
If anything I find it strange that you blame everything wrong with China and how to resolve it with the same thing over and over again.
False. I never "blame" "everything wrong with China". I merely examined some particular points that are valid and existent. Corruptions, rule of law, such governance issues are existent and undeniable issues in China and many places, but that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate concerns. What my opinion was, was basically my theories and possible attempts to relate how these issues could potentially play a role in what we're talking about.
And it's the typical criticism for every issue the critics have with China. You have this romanticize "go to" one canned answer for every problem with China. If we were to believe all what the critics say, then China would not be the 2nd largest economy in the world. So from the get go anyone who uses the same criticism of what's wrong with China and how to resolve it has to be questioned and challenged.
I take certain criticisms and want to look at them deeper and try see where/how they are valid, and then study them further. That's also why I don't read Gordon Chang's garbage because it's just pointless bashings(and maybe only when he produces something intriguing, then will I look into it). That's also why I switched my positions away from pro-China and sometimes become the one of the few who actually bring them up(and I know what I'm doing is controversial in this forum and will invite flak like from yourself), since many of you are deep within the pro-China camp, and thus certainly won't bring those criticisms out and study them. So by playing the devil's advocate I can actually bring some of these criticisms out and hope to generate actual discussions and hope to get some meaningful talks on it. It's annoying when what I get back are usually non-constructive defence for the pro-China stance, and really not any actual recognition of the validity of some of those criticisms, nor getting hearing from the pro-China perspective on these criticisms in a more constructive way. There's plenty of BS criticisms and critics, but there are also many that are valid. People who automatically thinks every critic, criticisms are directed as bashings are the ones who can't accept/tolerate differences, criticisms. That's not my problem, but their own sensitivity they should deal with.
Plus, I don't see why "rule of law, governance, corruption" aren't a valid concerns that deserves to be discussed.
You can call those answers "canned", but I think you're completely misunderstanding me when you think I decide to use "canned" answer and then conclude the discussion. I don't do that. I like to look into those "canned" answers deeper, see the perspectives from our own discussions. I almost couldn't care less about what those critics' stances are from their criticisms(unless they provide something intriguing). That way, we can get our own perspectives on those criticisms, which is much more meaningful. I just like to take this saying by heart, "when people say something, there's a reason why they think that way."
Honestly, if you have concerns with my thoughts, you are free to ask for clarifications.
China's achievements into 2nd largest economy comes from many factors, and I don't think just what the critics say alone can change completely China's stances. And of course there are bunch of useless ones, but I just totally ignored those. Also again with China being the second largest economy currently, this also means China also have much more room for improvements as well, and I certainly don't understand why we can't invite an open-atmosphere for dialogue talking about improvements, and rather, we always have to be stuck with defending China. I don't really see that getting there, and also, it's not even like criticisms means you have to attack China; it's just something meaningful to discuss.
I can tell you don't like my criticism of Hong Kong politics.
You, sir, think way too much. True, I don't like your criticisms of Hong Kong wasn't because of politics; it's your stances when you literally denounced, scoffed at, that Hong Kong people and culture is an identity of its own. Everywhere has its own culture; Shanghai has its own, Beijing has its own, Vancouver has its own, Toronto has its own, New York has its own, a tiny village has its own; it's basically their way of life, their norms, their traditions. There's a bigger culture everyone shares, but also smaller culture that's shared by small pockets of groups within. That's the culture and identity I was talking about. And that time you
literally laughed and
denied HK have its own culture, and that I feel insulted, hurt, violated. You literally denounced a group's existence with those words - one of the most ignorant, bigot, insulting thing I've heard. You basically denied my background and heritage. What you've said that time was pretty much bigot, racist, flame-baiting, and I've rarely called out on regular forum members like that. To illustrate that a bit more, if someone here today says Palestinians don't exist or have their own background, that member would have been reported for flame-baiting. Substitute HK for Palestinians, and that's basically the flame-bait you have said. It was completely ironic because while you promote Chinese self-determination and identity and how Chinese are at the grand scheme of things, you were downright denying or recognizing smaller pockets of local Chinese communities. It's because people like that thinks HK belongs to China, therefore they don't respect HK's culture. That's the same thing as saying because my friend and I are Canadians, therefore I don't need to obey speed limits in Toronto; it's just as fallible and disrespectful. It's also these people that's reinforcing the bias of local HK residents, so both are to blame.
However, despite our opposing stances and what you have said as extremely offending, I didn't even bother thinking back to that again. And now it's YOU, who ironically are the first to bring this back up, when I already put it behind me.
You seem to want to blame the same thing and how to resolve the issue of rude Mainland Chinese with exactly what you say here on Chinese brand names.
That is you thinking wayyy too much. I don't even know how that can logically connect, and in fact, that never even crossed my mind.
Remember, you don't know me, so don't act and pretend like you do, especially when we think so different.
I respect many of your ideas because you bring many good points, and I appreciate your contributions in this forum in providing an interesting perspective, but....can you please keep your distance and don't try to probe into my mind? You already offended my background, I don't really need you to probe deeper when so far almost every assumptions you had made were
wrong,
wrong, and
wrong.
You should seriously learn to accept people can have different opinions and not always throw it back into their face.
I have given the historical facts that the stereotype of Chinese bad behavior goes further back than when Mainland Chinese were allowed to travel outside their borders.
Here we go again..I didn't even think about that topic anymore. And for your information, these days I flag racist videos made by HK people against mainland Chinese, and I always argue against the HK's bigots ways.
I have given the historical facts that the stereotype of Chinese bad behavior goes further back than when Mainland Chinese were allowed to travel outside their borders. So where did the rude stereotype that you help perpetuate against Mainlanders come from? People from Hong Kong and Taiwan.
I've seen it myself that there were some rude Taiwanese, rude HKers, and rude Chinese, and also hard-working of all three groups. I don't buy the argument at all that one group is responsible for everything anymore.
That says the people who judge are hypocritically no different and no more "civilized" than the accused.
I do agree with this. I have been arguing with some people in HK and basically saying the same thing.
The difference between you and I is you go by what you believe.
I think you do as well, and aren't you judging me by saying this? Remember your quote:
That says the people who judge are hypocritically no different and no more "civilized" than the accused.
I go by seeing the contradictions in people's arguments. That's the best argument.
It's very interesting, but the problem with this approach is that when people do not explain themselves clearly, you will make mistakes with your assumptions.
Just like when you say that foreign corporations are more ethical and that's why, even though their products are made in China just like domestic companies with all the problems you say why China can't make a brand worthy name, the product made by the same workers is better quality? I don't have to go with what romantic notions I believe to counter that argument.
Confused. Not really sure what you're trying to say here, even though it seems like you're trying to repeat my idea, which even I don't really recognize right now.
When you murder someone, you can't say that someone else wanted to kill them more so they're worse than you.
Someone with an intention to murder is worse than someone who accidentally kills someone...but this is for another discussion.
Same thing when foreign corporations use the same slave labor as is accused of China. I go by what critics of China who you seem to sympathize say.
Those critics and such claims never crossed my mind.
People don't like it that I have a good enough memory to see the hypocrisy and contradiction.
I don't mind that. It's just unfortunate you make it quite antagonizing sometimes, but also seemed to misunderstand what I mean for many times. I accept criticisms, but if you misunderstand what I'm talking about, it's not a progressive dialogue.
People who contradict themselves or are hypocrites aren't motivated by helping others. There's an automatic dislike by everyone of hypocrites. Why? Because hypocrites are motivated by selfishness not altruism.
That's a very strong assumption. My experiences and thoughts in psychology tells me cognitive dissonance, rationalizations happens a lot. Many people aren't even aware, and perhaps if they are aware, they will change. However to count on them to change or to notice their hypocrisy can take a long time, if ever, that they realize. Also, there are genuine hypocrites and those who aren't aware of it because of their bias/preference. To say they are not generous is going very far in concluding who they are with very limited knowledge. There are plenty people who may do hypocritical thing, only to start changing their mindsets after, or still lead a very generous life. There can be people who are racists, but when it comes to certain moments, they may do something that are very altruistic.(and subsequently they change their thoughts). Everyone go through different things in life and some may change their thinking. For you to judge them as conclusive of who they are is also very fallible.
That's why, like in thieves, there's no honor among hypocrites because they know each other's motivations.
You are assuming they are all aware and choose this lifestyle. I really think you shouldn't conclude so quick. Many probably live a happy life thinking they are right and moral and do good things, but without realizing what they're doing is bias and hypocritical. Plus, we don't know what they have gone through.
So what does it mean when the China critics are contradicting their own arguments that I can point out? They're certainly not looking out for the best interests of China.
Critics is a word to describe everyone who criticizes China..but I think it's better to separate bashers from critics. Critics demonstrate something constructive. Bashers don't.
Finally, by making this assumption on all critics, you're dismissing all critics and their ideas. Now my question is, then who are you going to accept an open dialogue from??
