Her accusations have been deleted and it does appear that she retracted what she said and even if the other party accused her of slander in public it weren’t have made much difference since people have already made up their minds.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
There also absolutely should be no investigation based on random Internet allegations.
If there's an investigation every time somebody makes an online accusation, you'll never stop investigating. And any semi-famous person who dislikes an official can start posting sexual assault Internet allegations. It will never end.
If there's an investigation every time somebody makes an online accusation, you'll never stop investigating. And any semi-famous person who dislikes an official can start posting sexual assault Internet allegations. It will never end.
When the system was corrupted as it was, going after everybody will just create a system-wide crisis. Corruption was the way things worked. When you found a new dynasty, you don't go around executing everyone who worked for the previous dynasty, you deal with people who continue to refuse to submit.
I just realised that I too was also assaulted by a high-ranking Chinese official.
I'm going to reveal my identity here. My name is Dilraba Dilmurat and I'm a Uyghur who was raped by a Chinese official. Here's a picture of myself for proof.
And guess who it was.
Yes, you guessed it, it was big Xi himself. He was personally participating in the Uyghur genocide.
You see, one day Xi Jinping invited me to play tennis with him. And then after we played tennis, he dragged me to his house. And then he raped me. It hurt so much. It was so painful. I cried.
Then after that I was sterilised.
I call on the CCP to investigate Xi Jinping's rape and sterilisation of me, Dilraba Dilmurat. I'm going to tell BBC and CNN. There needs to be accountability here. #MeToo
I'm going to reveal my identity here. My name is Dilraba Dilmurat and I'm a Uyghur who was raped by a Chinese official. Here's a picture of myself for proof.
And guess who it was.
Yes, you guessed it, it was big Xi himself. He was personally participating in the Uyghur genocide.
You see, one day Xi Jinping invited me to play tennis with him. And then after we played tennis, he dragged me to his house. And then he raped me. It hurt so much. It was so painful. I cried.
Then after that I was sterilised.
I call on the CCP to investigate Xi Jinping's rape and sterilisation of me, Dilraba Dilmurat. I'm going to tell BBC and CNN. There needs to be accountability here. #MeToo
No, but the accused party has the right to sue her for slander. Which in that case would force the accusing party to show if they have any proof
I am quite sympathetic to her because at that time there was a lot of.corruption and I could totally see a high-ranking official abusing his power to do criminal things. On the other hand, by waiting so long to make the accusation, finding the evidence of it happening now, is impossible.
Authorities could try to ask her the usual quick questions to check if her claims have any validity. Such as, where it happened, when, for how long. And then the authorities could check flight/train passenger records, CCTVs etc
If the authorities can crosscheck this, and her claims have some truth on their basic information (when, where, duration, witnesses etc), then the investigation can move up a gear and start intensifying
So 1st stage, verify the basic facts of where when, duration, witnesses, CCTVs etc.
If the basic facts are correct, then move to stage 2 and intensify the investigation and start taking it a lot more seriously
Personally I don't care too much about stage 1 accusations. However if it has reached stage 2 then I pay attention to it.
I would say that at this moment, this case is still in stage 1. Authorities should now investigate the basic facts to see if it can take a stage 2 status
Last edited:
I hate to say this. But this train of thought sounds very similar to FLG media's talking point that Xi's anti corruption drive is nothing but an excuse to destroy his political opponents. Namely, corruption charges are for officials don't fall in line.
First step for China to do is kick out the WTA tournaments from China. Since they threatened China, China should kick them out first.
Second step is to apply sanctions to the top officials of the WTA.
Third step is to investigate if Peng Shuai has had any contact with Western intelligence agencies or Western NGOs. This could be a deliberate strategy to use famous Chinese people to accuse top government officials to bring them down.
1. Because of what politics is in any culture - not just in China or the West.
Politics is a civilized substitute for war. It's a "social construct" , or better yet a "behavioral phenotype of populations", which emerges through natural selection from a less sophisticated form of behavior because it allows for greater degree of social complexity which results in better ability to adapt to changing environment and therefore better fitness. From there you have the "survival of the fittest".
Elections replaced wars because the first culture which replaced civil war with elections became capable of greater degree of competitive cooperation. Humans could cooperate together because their competition did not result in bloodshed which would immediately end the cooperation.
Short but necessary digression: Humans compete all the time for reproduction. Even parents and children do it to some degree. We are not aware of that because this dynamic exists very far away from the typical conscious mind but it governs everything about our lives - including the conscious mind itself. We are gonads (testicles, ovaries) with brains for better use of gonads not the other way around. And that's without including the memetic part of evolution which I will omit for simplicity. Therefore even if you cooperate you compete. It's in your genes. You can't help it. You can only make it more sophisticated, more oriented for long term effects, more constructive as opposed to it being a competition that is primitive, short-term focused and destructive like among most animals. Therefore humanity can't ever "end war" but it can evolve war into a non-destructive contest. End of digression.
State is centralized violence. State is not a "good thing". It's the exact opposite. It's all the worst traits of human society put into one place, bound together by rules and conventions and thrust into full view. We can't ever resolve the evil that is part of our nature but we can manage it better. Societal evolution is all about "managing it better" than our primate cousins.
Because of that state also attracts predators or more precisely the predatory traits in human behavior. Politicians are not good people. They are the next-to-worst (the worst refusing to become public on principle). They are the power-hungry, the ruthless, the cruel. We put them in one place and say "we're going to give you some of what you want but only if you do something for us." This way we resolve their negative traits with benefit to society because they do things that most of us won't do. Western societies are the best evidence that even in democracies people just don't want to do politics.
It works like this: Imagine an excited child which runs around the house breaking things. You can either close it in its room and wait as the room is inevitably demolished or you can give it a stick and tell it to go to the fields and chase off the birds eating the newly planted seeds. One is counter-productive. The other is not. The families which lock their children in their rooms have to fix the rooms. The families which send them to the fields end up with better harvest.
Politics is the same. But it only works for as long as we re-direct those impulses. If you change the rules of the game from cooperative competition to direct competition you get civil war. You get the Cultural Revolution which was a destructive, insane attempt by Mao to regain power which he rightfully lost as a consequence of his incompetence earlier on.
------
2. Because men and women compete differently
Everything in human behavior is about reproduction but female and male aspect (sexes) have evolved with different strategies.
Male aspect embodies active physical or mental fitness which is then displayed through various behaviors allowing for resource acquisition. Female aspect embodies passive physical or mental fitness which is then displayed through phenotypic traits.
Females refine the genetic pool into its best possible shape. The ideal female is the ideal genotype for both male and female offspring.
Males introduce change. The ideal male is the best new adaptation for both male or female offspring.
Males seek best existing traits for their offspring. Females seek best adaptations for the offspring. That's because male strategy is quantity and female strategy is quality. It's a misconception that "men want body, women want money". Females want traits which resulted in money and males want traits which resulted in body.
The above could be reduced to "male power is strength" and "female power is sex". And that means that both male strength and female sexuality can be used for violence. And while for males it seems obvious it is counter-intuitive for female violence. That is until you realize that your organism is built to respond with highest priority to sexual cues and an attractive woman displaying her sexuality is causing stress to men by just being in their presence in the very same way in which an aggressive threatening male is causing stress to a woman by simply being in their presence. Women can do much more harm with expressing their opinions than men because female opinion manages direct competition between men. "You couldn't beat him" is a challenge that is understood implicitly to be rewarded with sexual favour.
This is also why humans evolved courtesy, social norms, clothing etc - to manage those stimuli and reflexes. And this is why every single society "oppresses women". It does- it oppresses female predators much like it physically eliminates male predators. Men can be culled. Women can't because of reproductive limitations. So we kill bad men but only "oppress" bad women.
Women also victimize their prey by playing victim.
Think about justice as a system of balanced actions and consequences. When a criminal harms someone we restore that balance through punishment of the criminal or restitution to the victim. When a criminal harms someone and there's no restitution or punishment we talk about "injustice". But the same happens when someone is punished or restituted without harm being done.
Male and female strategies evolved to utilize the opposite extremes. Male strategy is to victimize the target without consequence. Female strategy is to gain victim status and lay blame on the target without harm being done.
The funny thing is that older cultures - both hunter-gatherer and agricultural - would understand this intuitively but modern cultures are confused because of the disruptive influences of industrial revolution and contraception.
The problem here is that we can't "solve" female predation without returning at least partly to "outdated" customs. They evolved for a reason. Industrial revolution put it on its head. Unfortunately all industrial age ideologies got confused about the role of men and women. Capitalism and socialism alike think they are equal. They're not. They're yin and yang. They are mutually supportive balance that propels our ecology forward. Until we return to that there is no "solving" to female aggression entering in direct conflict with male aggression.
Now I am not saying that we have to return to the past. I'm saying that the past had an understanding of human nature that was simpler and yet more correct. We know infinitely more today and yet somehow draw all the wrong conclusions. It's time to put the knowledge to the use of wisdom again.
------
If we now put 1 and 2 together we'll see that in essence it is not a female victim being rejected by a fair and just state that should resolve the issue but a female predatory strategy in the context of political competition. China is doing the right thing by eliminating it as a factor.
They can't solve political infighting and corruption because that's what politics is and must be. When we learn how to change human nature politics will become irrelevant. We won't improve politics. We will abolish it. Until then it is what it is.
They can't solve male vs female aggression in political terms because that's inherently biological. You could as well turn the children against the parents and parents against children - and that's what we call a "pathology" and a "dysfunction" in developmental psychology.
So they isolated her. Correctly so.
When that tennis-playing trollop engaged in a sexual behavior with the CPC official she was not a poor victim. She was trying to "hunt" the high-status man as much as the man was trying to "hunt" the attractive woman. He won, she lost. Now she is being used against him as a weapon.
The reason why those matters are front and center in the West is because the political system is different in the West.
In the West consent is explicit and continuous therefore the drama is continuous - in particular because women vote and as such they are targeted with issues that have the highest emotional impact and they are obviously different than those that impact men. "The leader is a rapist" is an effective emotional strategy that is not without merit. Leaders must be people with discipline otherwise they are unfit to lead. Obviously in the media it's just smears because it's pot calling the kettle black.
In China consent is implicit and only relevant during unrest and therefore the drama is not necessary. It's destructive to societal harmony. Politics is resolved internally.
But don't be fooled. The top of the power pyramid in the US is identical to the top of the power pyramid in China as both are identical to the top of the power pyramid in the ancient kingdoms or in the primitive tribes. And all of those are almost indistinguishable from the politics in the animal kingdom - from primates to insects.
Hopefully this is somewhat instructive.
How are those even related?
So you think it makes practical and political sense to spend the resources to investigate those old corruption cases when corruption was basically the norm? Do some calculation. Say, 20% of officials were engaging in some sort of corruption. How many people do you need to investigate one corruption case? How much resources do you need to investigate all of them? How demoralized the entire system is going to be? And for what purpose? This is real life, where actions have costs.
This is the wrong approach and that's why I keep saying that half the propaganda against China would not be effective if the Chinese government and citizens did not give the West ammunition.
The correct approach-at least for a non Chinese audience - would have been for the government to release a statement with bulls1t like
"these are serious allegations and we will work with Peng to investigate any wrong doing on the part of the official and if any illegality is found appropriate sanctions on the official will be taken"
This way you shut up everyone including your detractors in the West by your seemingly transparent actions.