Movies in General

About the book, what's this with dedicating the book to a certain political group? Depending on who's reading it, the fictional content in the book can easily be interpreted as the author's political opinion, or as his call to the use of violence means for a certain political cause.

Like I said in my previous post, there will always be people who are willing to believe anything and everything they hear, being it alien landing, us humans being offspring of aliens, Soviets invading the "peaceful" West, and even Star Wars, whatever. As long as someone says something, some people with too much time on their hands and too little brain will believe it. The thing is, do you have to be one of them? Based on what I understand of your use of words, you don't like neo-cons and think they are crazy. If so, why do you want to do the kind of things that they do, like boycotting a fictional movie? If you think they are absolutely paranoid and crazy about being upset about Jack Bauer being tortured by the Chinese, what would you get upset about some fictional movie depicting Chinese invading the US? DON'T BECOME ONE OF THEM!!

You can't get everyone on this planet to like the Chinese, just like not everybody likes the US, or any other nation, for that matter. There will always be China haters, whether there is a movie about China invasion of the US or not. No matter what you do, they will find ways to hate China. If you don't boycott the movie, they will hate China because China is "invading" the US. If you boycott it, they will hate China because they will see it as evidence that Chinese people and society are not open and won't tolerate dissidents. They will explain it as evidence of Chinese govn't being a tyrant. So no matter what you do, they will hate China. So why bother? Leave it alone and enjoy your wonderful life.

It's a movie! It's a movie! It's a movie!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I wasn't referring to the average readers. The sentence should've been phrased like this: To the people in the political group (who the book was dedicated to by the author, and who were former independence fighters and probably still are) the fictional content in the book can easily be interpreted as the author's political opinion (in relation to their cause), or as his call to the use of violence means for their cause.

The author shoudn't have dedicate the book to any political group since by doing so he's showing his support to their cause, and the content of the book has relevance for them, for better or for worse.

Quickie said:

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I wasn't referring to the average readers. The sentence should've been phrased like this: To the people in the political group (who the book was dedicated to by the author, and who were former independence fighters and probably still are) the fictional content in the book can easily be interpreted as the author's political opinion (in relation to their cause), or as his call to the use of violence means for their cause.

The author shoudn't have dedicate the book to any political group since by doing so he's showing his support to their cause, and the content of the book has relevance for them, for better or for worse.

Click to expand...

I was NOT talking about the book you mentioned. I was talking about the movie that "Assasinmace" mentioned.

About the book, what;s wrong with one person trying to get his opinion heard? If he wants to align himself with a particular political group, good for him. It simply means it is the opinion of the author himself. It does NOT mean the US govn't will have to follow the opinion of every book published. I think we should allow people will publish whatever they want to say, freedom of speech, my man!

It is not for any individual, including us, to decide what is good for the people any nation to read/watch/listen. Everyone has the right to let his/her voice be heard, be it pro-China, anti-China, pro-US, anti-US.

Talking about Assassinmace. I have been thinking about the word. IS it the correct translation? The Chinese term is "Sha Shou Jian". So if you combined the first two words (Sha shou) alone, "sha" means kill and "Shou" means hand. So it literally means "killing hands". It COULD mean "assassin". I guess that's how the "Assassinmace" came. However, "sha Shou" is also a term used in Chinese Kung Fu to describe a certain move/combination of moves that will become the final blow and defeat the enemy. This fits the meaning of the term better and does NOT suggest the use of assassins at all.

I'm thinking the term comes from the ancient times when warriors fighting on horseback usually used long weapons like spears. However, many of them
hide a mace in a back pocket of their armor. When they cannot defeat their enemy face-to-face using their primary weapons, they would pull out the mace when the opponent was not paying attention and hammer the enemy with the mace. Since the heavy mace is short and is a weapon hidden from plain view and can only be used at a last resort, it can only be used when the user was sure he/she could get a killing blow. So the term assassinmace is used to describe the exact situation: you cannot win with conventional means; you need something hidden in secrete (a secrete weapon) that will almost surely deliver the killing punch with one hit. So it has nothing to do with assassins. Although assassins could be used as a secrete weapon to defeat enemy, that's not what the term actually means. It actually talks about a face-to-face situation.

Another term similar term is "sa shou Jian", meaning a throwing mace. Under the similar battle condition as above, a warrior can throw his mace at his enemy, instead of having to get close to his enemy to use the mace to hammer the guy with it. I think some people actually use the two terms (Sha Shou Jian vs. Sa shou Jian) interchangeably, further suggesting that it has nothing to do with assassins.

No offense to our fellow forum member "Assassinmace"

vesicles said:

I was NOT talking about the book you mentioned. I was talking about the movie that "Assasinmace" mentioned.

About the book, what;s wrong with one person trying to get his opinion heard? If he wants to align himself with a particular political group, good for him. It simply means it is the opinion of the author himself. It does NOT mean the US govn't will have to follow the opinion of every book published. I think we should allow people will publish whatever they want to say, freedom of speech, my man!

It is not for any individual, including us, to decide what is good for the people any nation to read/watch/listen. Everyone has the right to let his/her voice be heard, be it pro-China, anti-China, pro-US, anti-US.

Click to expand...

The author is claiming the book is purely fictional and non-political - which I think is not possible due the content of the book.


Freedom of speech is of course the basic right of everyone, but don't forget freedom of speech can be misused too, sometime to the detriment of innocent people. Just look at the freedom of speech of the foreign media in action whenever there are riots in China and you'll see why the Chinese people are so foreign media phobic during these difficult times.

Assassin's Mace is an ancient Chinese military term to strategically win the war before it even starts.

Based on what I understand of your use of words, you don't like neo-cons and think they are crazy. If so, why do you want to do the kind of things that they do, like boycotting a fictional movie? If you think they are absolutely paranoid and crazy about being upset about Jack Bauer being tortured by the Chinese, what would you get upset about some fictional movie depicting Chinese invading the US? DON'T BECOME ONE OF THEM!!

Click to expand...

Yes and I like making fun of neo-cons because for people who have the world's most powerful military in history, they act like little innocent girls who think they're about to be raped. See I just did it there.

Why do I do the things that they do? Because it's a game. Sometimes the only way to communicate with someone is to speak in their own language. If I say it and it sounds extreme or absurd coming from me, then what does it mean when I'm just repeating what the other guy just said? If you have a problem with something I just repeated right back at you, then it's not the ideology or the act that's wrong. The crime that some see is only determined by who says it. Instead of asking why I do it, anybody here who has a problem with me saying such things should really be asking why you don't have problem with the other guy saying it. That's my point. Of course some people would rather have me plead and beg about how Chinese people are good people and I would have to bend over backward to prove it to them. Humiliatingly bending-over backward to prove to someone that is filled with hate that Chinese people are good people is the point of why some would rather have me do that. Many Chinese don't trust the very people who hide behind democracy and human rights because simply they were the most recent invaders of China that denied all those very things. Do you see them bending-over backward to the Chinese people to prove they are a good people? No, so why do I or the Chinese have to do it?

other nation, for that matter. There will always be China haters, whether there is a movie about China invasion of the US or not. No matter what you do, they will find ways to hate China. If you don't boycott the movie, they will hate China because China is "invading" the US. If you boycott it, they will hate China because they will see it as evidence that Chinese people and society are not open and won't tolerate dissidents. They will explain it as evidence of Chinese govn't being a tyrant. So no matter what you do, they will hate China. So why bother? Leave it alone and enjoy your wonderful life.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who is a critic of mine thinks I'm trying to get them to like Chinese people. Really I don't care if people hate Chinese people because the people who tend to hate Chinese hate them for the very reason why it's only wrong for me to do the very things they do.

Why would some people, that at the same time defend these Red Dawn type movies, have a problem with me advocating China make the their own versions with the bad guy invader roles reversed? Is it because they don't want the same negative messages that their Red Dawn was meant to put out to public being sent about them? The negative reaction from my critics reveals the whole point they know of their movie. It isn't as innocent as entertainment as they say. I'm sure too their Red Dawn movies were also an attempt to get Chinese people to bend-over backward to prove to them Chinese people are good people. Look at how Paul McCartney had to call a press conference to tell everyone he wasn't going to the Bejing Olympics for whatever political reason he was upset at China for. What was the point of that? Because he was arrogant enough to think that Chinese people valued him, because you know McCartney's handlers keep telling him that everyone alive worships the Beatles, enough that revolution and change would occur simply from his words.

What's unnatural is for them to think offending people gets them to love them like a wife who's abusive husband tells her all the abuse is about love. What's natural is when you're advocating hate, the people you hate are going to hate back. What's the simple solution to all of this is don't offend people. What's not so simple is expecting the unnatural to occur.

Quickie said:

Freedom of speech is of course the basic right of everyone, but don't forget freedom of speech can be misused too, sometime to the detriment of innocent people. Just look at the freedom of speech of the foreign media in action whenever there are riots in China and you'll see why the Chinese people are so foreign media phobic during these difficult times.

Click to expand...

But who gets to decide when the freedom of speech has being misused? The govn't?? You see where the problem is? The moment you begin to attempt to regulate things, you create misuse of power and censorship.

Anything can be misused by wrong people. Innocent cough drops have now been used by teenagers to get high. A piece of harmless paper can be folded into a weapon that can kill. Does that mean we should not make cough drops and should not make paper? The benefits outweighs the harm.

Additionally, it's not up to us or the govn't to decide what, when and how people should say things. When we have the freedom of speech, there will be many voices, some good, some bad, some true and some fake. Because of the openness, the truth will eventually come out on top. Since most people are sane, most of the people will be able to make good and sound judgment about certain things.

Along with freedom of speech comes responsibility. You cant sit in a packed movie theatre, watching the afore mentioned movie, and a bit way through, start to yell out "fire fire" can you?

vesicles said:

But who gets to decide when the freedom of speech has being misused? The govn't?? You see where the problem is? The moment you begin to attempt to regulate things, you create misuse of power and censorship.

Anything can be misused by wrong people. Innocent cough drops have now been used by teenagers to get high. A piece of harmless paper can be folded into a weapon that can kill. Does that mean we should not make cough drops and should not make paper? The benefits outweighs the harm.

Additionally, it's not up to us or the govn't to decide what, when and how people should say things. When we have the freedom of speech, there will be many voices, some good, some bad, some true and some fake. Because of the openness, the truth will eventually come out on top. Since most people are sane, most of the people will be able to make good and sound judgment about certain things.

Click to expand...

First of all, all my previous comments is nothing about government censorship and their media control, and I would appreciate if you can commend on them separately in another post and not in the reply to my post.


Let me make it clear that I'm all for the freedom of speech (and freedom of media, too) as long as it is practised with goodwill.

Unfortunately, it's also a fact that too many a times we've seen it been misused by some media, sometime to the detriment of the life of some people. For example, why did an Al-Qaeda branch in Algeria suddenly declared that they'll attack chinese workers based over there? The answer is it's all because of the false news reporting they were getting - thanks to some foreign media - that the Chinese were killing many muslims indiscriminately in Xinjiang. See how destructive the seemingly harmless media can be when it's being misused - in this case, probably by someone with an agenda? Of course, all these negative reportings can be countered with your own reporting, but most of times the damage have already been done, and there's only so much you can do to remedy the damage. As for now, for the Chinese workers over there, the threat to their life is still there.

I think I'll just stop here on this topic.