Google v. China

[Khajit]

This is of course ignoring the fact that china has no respect for patent and copyright laws so they could just steal blueprints for anything they want to make that a company refuses to help them with. Hell they've been doing that with companies they paid once they figure out how to make their own knockoffs.

[Beckwin]

Considering that he says he's a socialist, i find this post lol.

You and the other guys missed my point. "hive mind" is a common pejorative for collectivist ideas, and the whole collectivism/individualism dichotomy has been grossly overplayed since the colonial days. collectivism is not, in and of itself, the suppression of individual thought and personality; it's more about group cooperation in actions for mutual benefits.

The Confucian hierarchical-collectivist (where from a critical standpoint, the benefit is really not so mutual) has been indoctrinated for quite some time. This is compounded by the more modern indoctrination of the CCP and how they control information (for example, many urban west coast Chinese may not know a whole lot about the treatment of Uhygurs by their government). So to say that Chinese don't care about human rights because they are collectivists (which must involve having some kind of zany asian-communist brain that's different from our liberty-loving ones), rather than ignorance or fearing repercussion for dissent, is overly-simplifying the issue.

and yeah demo11, I'd agree that individualism has been indoctrinated in the west, especially America.

[GRT]

The thing I don't agree with your idea that collectivism vs. individualism is "overplayed" is that you seem to think people are using collectivisim purely as an excuse for the "inhumane acts" of the CCP. It really is not. Without the basic belief/social structure in place, the CCP may never have taken hold in China. In fact, one can argue individualism and a form of democracy has been tried and failed in China, and that led to the rise of the CCP.

As for supression of information, individual thoughts and personality, I think that's just your inability to see what collectivism really entails. It's not about group cooperation, it's about the group norm. I don't think the average individual in western societies is aware of how strong they are bound by the social norm, but if you are, try imagine that bound being five times stronger. This is way over-simplifying it, but we value right-and-wrong over social order, they are the other way around. The average Chinese would point to the development of democracy in Taiwan and say they can never imagine themselves accepting that chaos.

Frankly I don't understand why they control information about the Uhygurs (and I dont' even think they've done it successfully with how much sub-mainstream discussion about it there has been recently over the recent riots), because I doubt it would be much of a big deal. Have you talked to Chinese people in bars or night markets in China about Tiananmen Square "massacure" or the outcast of the Falun Gong religious group? I think you would be rather surprised at their response/attitude.

[Kuya]

Well as long as we don't start rashly attributing things to "nature".

[Beckwin]

Alright, first off, the post I originally responded to:

Look up individualistic vs. collectivistic societies.

Not saying it's how it should be, but 0.0001% of the Chinese actually gives a fuck at our precious "human rights" standards.

To me, this says they don't give a fuck about human rights because they are of a collectivist society. Nothing to do with indoctrination, educational ignorance, poverty, etc.

Remember, when we talk about human rights, we're talking about rights to necessities for living, freedom from persecution/violence, etc. I'm pretty sure that if you asked most Chinese in bars, they wouldn't say they themselves are cool with being violently persecuted if it mean preserving order. I don't think they'd be cool with it for friends and relatives either. Now maybe they'd be cool with it for Uhygurs or Tibetans, because CCTV told them that those groups are militant radicals.

Y'know, kind of like CNN told us that Iraq was a danger to America and was a massive terrorist training camp.

But you do mention Tiananmen. That represented a rather large movement of dissent against the social order (aka anything imposed by the government). Doesn't quite fit your .00001% assessment.

You may have a fairly valid point if we're talking about Collectivism vs. Individualism in respect to social harmony and individual liberties/expression. It might be fair to say that some more collectivist societies don't value unlimited freedom of speech as much as some more individualist societies. But then again, Germany and England have a bit fewer freedoms of speech than we do, yet we consider the people largely individualist and of course concerned with human rights. But you brought up human rights, and I feel oversimplifying human rights as an issue of individualism v. collectivism marginalizes Chinese who are concerned and active and also glosses over a lot of root causes.

[GRT]

I thought we were talking about values and beliefs, and now you are just bringing up western propagenda. I said they don't give a fuck about our "human rights" standards. You said they don't give a fuck about "human rights."

Human rights standards.
Human rights.

There's a difference there. See it? Good. Go ahead and blame it as an eye trick, I believe ya.

As for Tiananmen Square being a "large movement of dissent," I would ask you to look up a social psychology phenomenon called "deindividualization" (I find the term ironic, don't you?). Many well respected psychologists use Tiananmen Square as one of the major demonstrations for this behavior, to the dismay of large numbers of human rights organizations.

You don't have to believe it, but then you should look up another major movement called the Social Revolution, where way, way, WAY more Chinese participated in (some estimate over 90% of the entire Chinese population for an entire decade). Was that also an expression of these people's "individual thoughts and personality?"

Again, I'm not going to argue whether it is right or necessary that the CCP does what it does, but collectivism isn't an excuse; the CCP and its governance are in many ways a logical extension of that belief system.

[Feedmenow]

This is of course ignoring the fact that china has no respect for patent and copyright laws so they could just steal blueprints for anything they want to make that a company refuses to help them with. Hell they've been doing that with companies they paid once they figure out how to make their own knockoffs.

Speaking of which, the hackings included a lot of blueprints from some companies (google being protected oddly enough) being taken as well. This could be devastating for the companies that will suddenly get 100 Chinese-brand copies of their product/website service.

http://www.sphere.com/world/article/...firms/19317169

The attack also revealed the growing threat posed to the U.S. economy by Chinese hackers. Several experts believe the operation's main goal was the theft of intellectual property (IP) -- such as the source code that powers software programs, or blueprints for new technologies. That kind of top-secret information would allow China to speed up its transition from an export-based economy, which simply manufactures goods designed by other nations, to one based around cutting-edge research and development. Indigenous firms could then start to challenge the Western competition.

Again, I'm not going to argue whether it is right or necessary that the CCP does what it does, but collectivism isn't an excuse; the CCP and its governance are in many ways a logical extension of that belief system.

Edit: reading comprehension fail inc:
Does that justify them enforcing their ideals onto individuals, even those just wanting to do business with China? Aren't you slightly worried about the Human Rights Activists that were located due to the Gmail hackings?

[GRT]

Please don't quote me to get a response if you aren't gonna read my entire post.

Apparently you didn't even read what you quoted.

[Feedmenow]

Please don't quote me to get a response if you aren't gonna read my entire post.

Apparently you didn't even read what you quoted.

Completely misunderstood it after rereading, my bad.

Anyways, what's the exact difference between human rights standards and actual human rights? Is the difference basically stating that China will never have reasons to provide rights for the individual because of it's cultural view of the individual?

[GRT]

You are still under the impression that it's the government surpressing it's people, while I'm arguing that to some degree, it's what the people wants. They don't really care about treating prisoners with as much comfort as we provide ours or give death penalties such careful consideration. They don't really care about freedom of speech, not to the degree of freedom we exact. They don't give a damn about one person one vote.

I said they don't care, but not that they don't want. What they want MORE than all of that, though, is social order. If you've paid attention, the general populance of China was way more "oppressed" a decade or two ago. They are slowly changing for the better, and the average citizen have better lives and more freedom. They love these changes... as long as there has not been any kind of social disruption to brought about these changes. If someone tries some bullshit like mass suicide (like Falun Gong did), you can be damn sure the government will come down on them like an avalanche whether or not the intent is just and nothing the world can say to make it unacceptable to the rest of China.

[Beckwin]

You're gonna need to get a lot more lucid with your terms, GRT. Saying "human rights" and "human rights standards" are two entirely different things needs some explanation. I offered the difference between human rights and individual liberties.

yes, deindividualization is a familiar concept. most would just call it "blending in" and the mental comfort it provides. what does this have to do with the Chinese people not caring for human rights, or what does it have to do with the Chinese government suppressing human rights activists?

Social revolution is a broad term. Are you referring to China's communist revolution or Mao's later Cultural Revolution? I'm assuming the latter- do you really contribute it all to collectivist behavior when it was instigated and enforced by a totalitarian dictator and resulted in the deaths of millions?

[Beckwin]

the general populance of China was way more "oppressed" a decade or two ago. They are slowly changing for the better, and the average citizen have better lives and more freedom.

so... they care about human rights? there've been people with ideas different from the status quo and they've been able to institute changes?

also, we're not really talking about suicidal cults be suppressed, because we're talking about human rights activists being suppressed (and because individualist western countries also crackdown on suicidal cults and fringe crazy groups).

I will agree that social harmony/order is valued more in some countries (China included among them), but again I don't agree that we can simply write off human rights because they have collectivist tendencies.

[GRT]

Most in western societies would see human rights and individual liberties as the same thing. And that's also the way it is being taught about China that make it seem that lack human rights concerns. I mean, which category do you think free speech belongs to?

I don't know where you found your difinition of deindividualization, but it has nothing to do with "comfort." It is a phenomenon that allows people to behave without social constraint because they are lost in a crowd.

Oh ya I meant Cultural Revolution, and I believe that the use of the phase "if you don't believe that (the theory of deindividualization) then look this up" is a transition that leads Cultural Revolution as an example of that theory, not collectivism. Collectivism has nothing to do with the size of either movement.

[GRT]

so... they care about human rights? there've been people with ideas different from the status quo and they've been able to institute changes?

again, they do not care about "our human rights standards," for example: democracy equals freedom

there've been people with ideas different from the status quo, and those who instituted changes didn't care about democracy or whatever, but standards of living, such as how much tax is collective from imported goods etc etc

those who called for a fundemental change in governmental structure have been prosecuted and exiled, and so far I'm trying to make you understand why (e.g. collectivism is not an excuse)

[Beckwin]

in common contexts, deindividualization does have to do with comfort. in extreme circumstances, yes it removes social restraint. but again, this doesn't have so much to do with Chinese collectivism as it does with the extreme circumstances (again, propagated by a dictator and enforced by military): deindividualization has been documented and reproduced in the west. Nazi germany, the behavior during riots, Abu Ghraib prison guards. Standford university psych experiments. etc.

[Beckwin]

again, they do not care about "our human rights standards," for example: democracy equals freedom

there've been people with ideas different from the status quo, and those who instituted changes didn't care about democracy or whatever, but standards of living, such as how much tax is collective from imported goods etc etc

those who called for a fundemental change in governmental structure have been prosecuted and exiled, and so far I'm trying to make you understand why (e.g. collectivism is not an excuse)

ok, thanks for clearing a few things up. your points are making more sense now.

I think democracy being a part of western human rights standards is a contentious point, but for sure it's not part of the universal standard.

[GRT]

read each letter: i said as soon as i brought it up, deindividualization has NOTHING to do with collectivism, i used it to explain the size of the Tiananmen Square movement that you held on to dear life

and I don't know where you learned your history about the Cultural Revolution, but it needed little military enforcement. A generation of young adults basically militarized themselves and eventually China became a 5 billion people mob. That is deindividualization at its worst.

[Beckwin]

it actually needed enforcement in several ways... among them to protect lots of historic sites from being ravaged. and I don't think the Cultural revolution was of the people by the people... maybe more of the Mao and by the people with some help from Mao's army.

[GRT]

I've read some first hand accounts of when the thing started. It was amazing how widespread it was by the end of the first week with how lacking of ways of communication that general public had access to. By the first year relatives were turning on relatives, sons were turning on fathers. You can't tell me that's mostly because of military force of the dictatorship.

[Beckwin]

and I don't think you can chalk it up entirely to deindivdualization. it had a lot to do with Mao's cult of personality and indoctrination. he set up specific programs in the schools during the great leap forward to teach kids basically that he's always right.