Google v. China

[GRT]

um, the rise of the Nazi party was NOT a change in social progression for Germany, because Germany, like Italy which you also mentioned a page or two back, are countries that are more toward collectivistim on the cultural value spectrum, so was the American south. Studies have suggested the formation of the two type of cultural values were due in large part to the difference between the two basic economic entities: agricultural vs. industrial (along with other factors such as landscape and whatnot)

and also like i've said a few posts back, a people's social value is not identified by what happens to them, but how they respond: the very happenance of hate crimes post 9/11 and lack of surpression of these social disturbance identifies INDIVIDUALISM, hello?

dude, when you said "collectivism and individualism are overplayed" i thought you at least knew what the two terms meant; turns out after 5 pages of discussion you still can not grasp the basic concept? what gives?

owait, am i being trolled? i'm being trolled aren't i? lol

[Beckwin]

but how they respond: the very happenance of hate crimes and lack of surpression of these social disturbance identifies INDIVIDUALISM, hello?

So when Chinese commit hate crimes/riots against Uyghurs, it's because they're collectivists. When southern whites did it, it's because they were individualists.

...you're saying the American south is/was collectivist?

god I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore. you're saying the south is/was collectivist because of their social-backwardsness, yet say that the appearance of hate crimes (of which were far more common in the south than the north) indicates individualism.

honestly man what the fuck are you on? You can tell me I don't know my terms until you're blue in the face, but it still stands that you're tripping all over the place trying to attach labels in a way that fits your argument yet ignores history.

[Beckwin]

all your labeling basically leads to this conclusion: Individualism = freedom, human rights, social progress. Collectivism = social regression, bad stuff.

[GRT]

lol, stop quoting my words and deleting stuff in the middle

and no, you kept bringing up new shit to argue, racism, history, sifi? lol

and every time I prove you are an idiot, and you say I'm tripping all over the place?

come on, bring up something new, since I've already proven your epeen isn't as large as you think it is, dare you bring up the size of your actual one?

[GRT]

all your labeling basically leads to this conclusion: Individualism = freedom, human rights, social progress. Collectivism = social regression, bad stuff.

ROFL

you're under the mistaken assumption that change has to be positive.

YOU said collectivism was social regression, nice try spinner

do you always end your losing arguments like this? say your point was mine and my point was yours? damn, that's a clever method, I bet most people were stupid enough to fall for it too

[Beckwin]

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said collectivism = social regression, I said that social change is not always gonna be progress/positive.

And now you're on to claiming victory in an e-argument because you yourself say so, and talking about penis size. And I'm the one with no valid points? lol

[GRT]

Change always happens in China: modernization, higher standards of living etc etc, without having someone gathering a crowd and go "I'm not satisfied, give me more."

Every time something like that happens, the progress is impeded and sometimes even reversed. Name me one "movement" in China that didn't result in major setbacks in social progression and not requiring twice as much effort to even recover from.

my post

you're under the mistaken assumption that change has to be positive.

your post

my post says collectivistic China progress without social disorder, social disorder are hiccups in general progression

your post says social disorder brings about changes for the negative, and since those are "changes" instead of "hiccups", there is social regression

there, your rebuttel?


edit: you also have not named me any social disturbance in China or any other collectivistic society that resulted in actual change/progress, whether positive or negative, instead of just a setback

quit throwing peripheral cues like "freedom, human rights, bad stuff" around to look righteous, cuz it actually makes you look like a 12 year old

[Kuya]

I don't know what you two are saying.

[Beckwin]

Ok, the Xinhai revolution was a social disturbance that was a change (now I'm just gonna wait for you to call it a setback, thus dismissing it in your mind).

[GRT]

A change of what? Ruler? Government? That governs the people the same way as Qing did and the same way Mao later did? Was it any less totalitarian or "corrupt" than either two? Didn't I already talk about the rise of the Nationalist Party of China like 2 pages ago? Are you the guy from Momento? Have you came to like not having longterm memory?

[GRT]

And while you are digging through wikipedia for another snapshot of an example, I have to give you kudos on brushing aside your own contridictions that I pointed out two posts ago. Here's another one though

Is Chinese society the same as it was 200 years ago? Or have revolutions, riots, movements, etc changed things?

Just because China isn't the same society as 200 years ago, that must be "revolutions, riots, movements etc" right? I said no, there were other reasons. And here was your response.

I never said social disruption was requisite for change.

If you were in a presidential debate, you are equal to a corpse on the podium by now. But lucky for you, this is the internets, so nobody cares how much hypocricy or preditable reversals are in your posts.

[Demosthenes11]

I don't know what you two are saying.

dude i dont even think they know what they are arguing. im glad i ducked out when i realized i was supposed to be arguing something i didnt say

[GRT]

meh, the real discussion was settled on page 2, rest was just dead body twitching

but w/b, brought beer?

[Demosthenes11]

only the finest 青岛

[Beckwin]

So you're saying there was no change from Qing to Nationalist to Maoist?

. . .

I'd say there were some pretty radical fucking changes. Did Qing China control economy in the same way that Mao did during the Great Leap? Did Mao's China have the same views about the old nobility and academics that Qing China held?

If you just wanna say "well you see it's all just dictatorships, it's teh same!!!!!!!!!" then I guess there's not much point in discussing things further.

[GRT]

In the general direction of China's social progression, There. Was. No. Change.

Mao's great leap forward was a HUGE FUCKING FAILURE of a experiment with Marxism, such as communism, social hierarchy and cultural preservation, every single historian/sociologist will tell you that. It took Deng Xiaoping all his life to set things back on the path that the Chinese were already beginning to take before the invasion of Japan. So yes, it is a fuckin setback, a big fuckin one.

Please, go back to school for a few years. Then maybe I'd consider you worth my time to have this discussion once again.

[Beckwin]

oh, right, you call it setback instead of a change in order to fit your absurd characterizations. When there's an entirely new system of government and a host of social transformations spurring from a large-scale social disruption... oh it's just a setback, not a change.

So was the Russian revolution just a "setback" as well? I mean the Czars were authoritarian leaders and oh look, Stalin was too! It's practically the same, but just a setback.

and keep the ad hominems coming; they really make your argument look good

[GRT]

What new system of government? What? Socialist government vs. aristocracy? Lol... did you know who named the last two chairmans of the CCP? Deng Xiaoping did. Change my left asscheek.

Is your Russia reference an argument? Cuz I don't see it. Hint: mocking something without giving a reason why is not an argument, it's just mocking. You seem way better at mocking than arguing.

Besides, do you still have anything left in your chamber to argue about the two concepts, or are you just throwing random facts you found on wikipedia while embarassing yourself by having no idea what you are actually talking about?

[Beckwin]

Are you saying that single-party communism and Qing dynastic rule are the exact same? I can't tell if you're trolling or not here.

Your chief failure here is trying to define social change strictly as social progress, as if there's some clear one-dimensional continuum on which society exists. If that is NOT the case, then you cannot say that new governments and societal transformations aren't change.

[GRT]

There's no social progress without social change, but there can be social change without social progress. Get it? Wait wait wait, think about it more than 5 seconds...... now get it?

And single party communism? Do you even know what communism is? Jeez, every time you type something you prove you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I'm done arguing with this pretentious idiot.