Chinese Economics Thread

[broadsword]

Rules are important to ensure civility in the discussions. It is an instrument to govern behaviour but not as an instrument to suppress others. If the rules are broken then it is the role of moderators to intervene. The question is whether manifestation of a political leaning constitute contravention of forum rules as alluded by t2contra. Since such an accusation has been made, it is reasonable to expect that t2contra clarify his position and the basis of his accusation. In my view "suspicion" is not an unrestricted passport, it requires something more substantive which unfortunately is not forthcoming.

I am not directly accusing t2contra of actually attempting to suppress (not yet) but nevertheless it will have such effect if accusation is rested simply on "suspicion". Hence it is important to clearly understand where t2contra is coming from and the basis of such accusation and whether it is warranted.

I am a bit baffled why you have an issue with SB's comment of "reflect reality" and concluding such a statement in respect of the article is somehow insinuating a position other than neutrality. Please help me to understand your reasoning.
If we go to ground zero, the article basically describes the recent events of the Chinese stock market, the peak and trough and how it has impacted small investors. How is the article not reflecting reality or "facts"?



Inclination or political leaning is not ground for accusation of breaking forum rules. If such a rule exist, then I am completely ignorant of it and would welcome that you point it out.

As to your reasoning, so far it appears to me is predicated on "suspicion". I have asked that you clarify your position but "WTF" is unfortunately a rather incredulous answer.

If you look at his postings, he has the habit of playing the party pooper after someone posted something good about China. In his early days here, he would start with, "I hate to rain on your parade....". It became regular that even the more senior members confronted him. So now, he seems to have changed added a new twist, posting negative reportings about China on his initiative. It is because it was so regular, it is not just about presenting a counter opinion. Sometimes, for someone to play the Devil's Advocate is a good thing because we want to get a balanced view. He does not come across as such, unfortunately, as his monkey wrenches were dismissed.

That is why you can often see other members debating with him. But when the debate gets too protracted, when intervention comes in the form of closing the thread, he always has the last say. Or when the position is not in his favor, the posts would be deleted. Or the other members got suspensions due to some infractions, but somewhere he got off the hook even though he started the derailment ball rolling.

The profile of him is someone who is using the forum to further his vendetta, seemingly by playing within the rules. But the rules are up to subjective interpretation. Don't forget that.

This is an internet forum. You are not new. To say my view of someone is libelous is WTF because then you can find libelous statements everywhere on the net. Talk about professionalism.

 

[broadsword]

I am not directly accusing t2contra of actually attempting to suppress (not yet) but nevertheless it will have such effect if accusation is rested simply on "suspicion".

Do you agree his postings, commnents as well his linked articles, represent his views of China?

Some of them were easily rebutted. And because they are so one-sided, the other members needed to show up Japan. Is his habit "professionalism"? Why is he doing this? I am very suspicious.

 

[Blitzo]

What ever you what to think that is your own opinion, not mine since I really haven't wrote my opinion on those article pieces I posted.

Actually, you did offer a very very ambitious opinion on those articles you posted (in fact, you offered opinions on every article you posted), because you wrote:
"Good or bad the articles I post are reporting actual news that happened not opinion pieces of some individual.
If you don't like what is happening too bad but that is reality."

You're basically saying that you believe the articles you post are factual, correct and unassailable because they are "actual news" and not "opinion pieces". The problem with this statement is that all facts or statistics may lack context or be interpreted in certain ways, or it may be that the methodology of attaining the facts originally was questionable -- meaning you do not get to claim articles are "actual news" with the insinuation that they are presenting "facts" and are therefore unassailable.

You're then proceeding to say that if anyone doesn't like your articles or tries to criticize them, then they are effectively rejecting reality, which is quite frankly a rather personal insult.


I'll offer you the chance to clarify what you meant -- but if you do not clarify what you meant, then I will have to assume that my interpretation of your statement is correct.

 

[Blitzo]

Rules are important to ensure civility in the discussions. It is an instrument to govern behaviour but not as an instrument to suppress others. If the rules are broken then it is the role of moderators to intervene. The question is whether manifestation of a political leaning constitute contravention of forum rules as alluded by t2contra. Since such an accusation has been made, it is reasonable to expect that t2contra clarify his position and the basis of his accusation. In my view "suspicion" is not an unrestricted passport, it requires something more substantive which unfortunately is not forthcoming.

I am not directly accusing t2contra of actually attempting to suppress (not yet) but nevertheless it will have such effect if accusation is rested simply on "suspicion". Hence it is important to clearly understand where t2contra is coming from and the basis of such accusation and whether it is warranted.

I have no major stance on t2contra's statements beyond what I've already said.

If you or anyone else wants to criticize or defend his statements, then I suppose one can look back on samuraiblue's posting history... but I'm not going to bother, because like I said, I have no interest in applying the forum rules against samuraiblue.

I am a bit baffled why you have an issue with SB's comment of "reflect reality" and concluding such a statement in respect of the article is somehow insinuating a position other than neutrality. Please help me to understand your reasoning.
If we go to ground zero, the article basically describes the recent events of the Chinese stock market, the peak and trough and how it has impacted small investors. How is the article not reflecting reality or "facts"?

Okay, there are two major problems to his post which I have issue with.

number 1: he is using the claim that his articles (note plural -- I'm not referring to his single article but rather his articles that he posts, as he himself used the phrase "articles I post") are "reflecting reality" as a way of deflecting the pattern of the kinds of articles that he posts -- i.e.: virtually all the articles he posts (in at least this thread) are content which has negative bearing towards China in various domains.

Now, I've never said that his articles were not reflecting reality or that he was not posting facts. I am not directly challenging the veracity of his articles, when I say I have a problem with the phrase "reflect reality". So for this problem I have, the veracity of the articles is not relevant (that comes in problem 2).

The issue here, is merely using the phrase "reflecting reality" as justifying the pattern of his posts. If he just came out and said straight up, that "yes I tend to post articles which have a negative assessment of China in XYZ domain" then I would have no problem with it.
By saying that he's merely "reflecting reality" justifies the patterns of his posts as somehow being unbiased, and thus that the patterns of his posts reflect reality as well, rather than acknowledging his posting pattern virtually overwhelming tending to be the articles which happen to "reflect reality" in a negative way towards China.


number 2: this problem comes in two parts
part a: his post makes the presumption that his articles of "actual news" are reporting "facts," where the article's source of the facts and the interpretation of the facts (in the articles he posts) are correct.
part b: more importantly, he is also directly insinuating that anyone who challenges his "actual news" is therefore somehow unwilling to face reality -- and this is arguably the biggest problem of the two. It reeks of arrogance and borders on a personal attack against anyone who counters whatever articles that he posts.

Now, he may not have meant those things consciously or even unconsciously, but that is how it is being interpreted.
If he does not mean those things, then I fully offer him the chance to clarify his meaning.

 

[Blitzo]

I am a bit baffled why you have an issue with SB's comment of "reflect reality" and concluding such a statement in respect of the article is somehow insinuating a position other than neutrality. Please help me to understand your reasoning.
If we go to ground zero, the article basically describes the recent events of the Chinese stock market, the peak and trough and how it has impacted small investors. How is the article not reflecting reality or "facts"?

I'd like to add and clarify something here to my previous reply above (#5744).

You seem to have misread his original post (#5729) -- he said "Good or bad the articles I post are reporting actual news that happened not opinion pieces of some individual. If you don't like what is happening too bad but that is reality."

He did not say "the article I posted" -- in other words, the use of the plural makes one reasonable to assume he is referring to all or at least most of the articles he posts (in at least this thread) -- he is not only referring to the single article about people being burned in the stock market.

If he was only claiming that the one specific article was meant to "reflect reality" then it would be a much simpler case to merely debate the merits of the single article in question.
But by claiming many or most of his articles (plural) which he posts as "reality" and "actual news," he is making a far more ambitious and broader claim, and arguing that not only are all his articles individually reflective of reality, but that the summation of the articles he posts is reflective of reality.

It is this basis which is the root of the contention, which I describe in #5744

 

[Brumby]

If you look at his postings, he has the habit of playing the party pooper after someone posted something good about China. In his early days here, he would start with, "I hate to rain on your parade....". It became regular that even the more senior members confronted him. So now, he seems to have changed added a new twist, posting negative reportings about China on his initiative. It is because it was so regular, it is not just about presenting a counter opinion. Sometimes, for someone to play the Devil's Advocate is a good thing because we want to get a balanced view. He does not come across as such, unfortunately, as his monkey wrenches were dismissed.

That is why you can often see other members debating with him. But when the debate gets too protracted, when intervention comes in the form of closing the thread, he always has the last say. Or when the position is not in his favor, the posts would be deleted. Or the other members got suspensions due to some infractions, but somewhere he got off the hook even though he started the derailment ball rolling.

Before I address directly your points, It appears to me you are merely venting your frustration rather than pursuing the notion that political leaning and expression is somehow breaking the rules. As such, I will move on unless you have something to add.

It seems to me there is an accumulated history that has crystallised into some kind of embedded view that just get in the way of interaction. I suggest to call out and challenge the postings if you find it unacceptable as they happen but don't bring history into the picture. In other words deal with the issue directly as and when they occur. IMO, making accusation is not helpful because it makes it personal as oppose to challenging the facts or arguments.

The profile of him is someone who is using the forum to further his vendetta, seemingly by playing within the rules. But the rules are up to subjective interpretation. Don't forget that.

It should also be noted that from post #5699 to #5710, it had posters with comments sniping at Japan (even though it is a thread on Chinese economy) and baiting SB to reply. Under such circumstance, the guilt should go round and not principally direct at SB just because he took up the offer.

This is an internet forum. You are not new. To say my view of someone is libelous is WTF because then you can find libelous statements everywhere on the net. Talk about professionalism.

There is a reason why personal attacks are considered against the rules and accusations make it personal rather than the issue.

 

[broadsword]

I suggest to call out and challenge the postings if you find it unacceptable as they happen but don't bring history into the picture. In other words deal with the issue directly as and when they occur. IMO, making accusation is not helpful because it makes it personal as oppose to challenging the facts or arguments.

History is relevant. It is what makes the person. Even the mods judge our history.

It should also be noted that from post #5699 to #5710, it had posters with comments sniping at Japan (even though it is a thread on Chinese economy) and baiting SB to reply. Under such circumstance, the guilt should go round and not principally direct at SB just because he took up the offer.

The exchange started from here actually,https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-economics-thread.t3715/page-567#post-401012

Before I address directly your points, It appears to me you are merely venting your frustration rather than pursuing the notion that political leaning and expression is somehow breaking the rules. As such, I will move on unless you have something to add.

It seems to me there is an accumulated history that has crystallised into some kind of embedded view that just get in the way of interaction.

It is because his behavior that derails threads, resulting in closure of threads, suspensions, etc. But he always got off the hook.

There is a reason why personal attacks are considered against the rules and accusations make it personal rather than the issue.

You have a point. But I think I was spot on in my description of him.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Personally I don't have any problem with you or anyone else choosing to post mostly news which has a negative portrayal of China in whatever way (or vice versa!), and that's why I've never bothered to bring up forum rules against you or other members whose posts could may well constitute country bashing or chest thumping, or insulting govts or a nation's people... this is because both sides of the argument constantly contravene these rules in discussions. I myself do not claim to be unbiased in my postings either.

But what I do have a problem with, is hypocrisy, when any one side of a debate claims that their posting pattern is meant to be reflective "of reality" as if that means they are therefore unbiased.

All sides should simply acknowledge where they stand, admit they have certain biases, and proceed along.

My position on using forum rules to shut down other people, is that I personally prefer to avoid doing so, because even though there are many members who I think do a good job of crossing certain rules, I don't think we need to be particularly sensitive to it, because sometimes those individuals offer interesting discussions.
I have no issue with others using the rules as a basis for arguing certain individuals have been insulting countries, or bashing govts or a nation's people etc, so long as there's evidence for it.
In other words I have no problem with what t2contra is accusing samuraiblue of, even if I personally would not accuse samuraiblue of it myself... so for me, t2contra's attempts at "censorship and suppression" are not a conversation I am a part of.

But I did have issue with samuraiblue's "holier than thou" attitude that his postings "reflect reality" therefore insinuating he's somehow not biased and coming from a particular position.

Augh you do understand that you are contradicting yourself.
You state that you do not have issues with "anyone else choosing to post mostly news which has a negative portrayal" and goes on that " I do have a problem with, is hypocrisy, when any one side of a debate claims that their posting pattern is meant to be reflective "of reality" as if that means they are therefore unbiased. " But basically the original post I place with news article mostly does not have any of my opinions and even if they did it would be no more than an observation but you go on that you have an issue about "holier than thou" attitude but the reality is I do not go on wasting my time stating this is bad or this in not ethical, etc.
If you ask me if I have an opinion, my answer is yes but I do not dwell on meaningless speculations and only present my argument based on the information presented within the article at hand.

In short you have similar opinion as t2contra calling me a hypocrite but still saying you have no issues in posting of news that reflect a bad light in China itself.

In my dictionary that is considered as hypocrisy.

 

[solarz]

I think we should all keep in mind that you only need to type "China" into google news to get pages upon pages of articles that portray China in a negative light.

I believe it is far more constructive to dismantle the anti-China bias of such articles using facts and logic, pointing out fallacies or distortions of facts where we find them.

If certain forumites like to post a lot of such articles, then it simply gives us more material to work with.

 

[tphuang]

alright, so it seems like SamuraiBlue tend to post stuff that get discussion heated and off topic on this forum.

SB, please stick to posting in military related stuff. I can't be bothered to have to delete posts from threads you are involved in every time I log into this forum.