Chinese Soft Power and Media Discussion and Updates

zhangjim said:

I don't plan to waste too much time on this issue（It also deviates from the theme too much. I just want to say the long-standing conservative atmosphere in China）, because the cost of checking relevant papers is very high：

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A 1985 paper elaborated the problems in the punishment of "hooligan crime". The biggest problem is that there is no strict standard for "other hooliganism", which leads to any behavior that is intolerable to conservatives will be reported as "hooliganism".
For convenience, I reprint the article of Luo Xiang（罗翔）, a famous Chinese legal authority：

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He mentioned many details, for example, the family dance was considered to be a mass sexual act at that time, the invitation of women as human models in painting was considered as a "hooligan act", and even the temporary cohabitation of men and women was considered as a "hooligan act".

You may think that some defendants are indeed too "licentious", but I agree with this legal scholar that "hooligan crime" has too strong moralistic color, so no matter how many judicial interpretations are made, it will lead to a legal provision with too broad management scope.

I don't have the energy to look up those newspapers, magazines, periodicals, papers and news. If you think this is not enough, then I won't waste time again.

Click to expand...

You stated that kissing and holding hands would get you a death penalty in China during the 80s. It is completely false and an outrageous accusation. Now, you decided to claim that hooligan crime has no strict standard and was used to shape behavior. This is a complete different accusation.

At the time of 80s, there were enormous changes in China. Crimes were skyrocket and people started to break boundary. It is inevitable that some people would get into trouble for breaking boundary such as the civil rights movement in the US and women rights movement in the West. With or without hooligan laws, there would be pushed back from the society for changes. Your accusation and attempt to make it like this kind of things that are uniquely Chinese is laughable.

Firstly, you make an outrageous accusation out of no where with nothing to back you up. Secondly, you generalize conservatism as something that uniquely Chinese. Lastly, Hooligan laws were a response to a turbulence period of Chinese development. A time when the nation is under enormous pressure to find a way forward and a time when crimes and inflation were out of control. Extreme time needs extreme measure.

To be honest, I don't think hooligan law has been applied fairly or balance. Many people probably would only get a detention for what they did during 80s if it happened now. However, without a tough on crime during the 80s and 90s, the Chinese society would have been in serious trouble as mafia would rule the streets with guns and machine guns. You only think about how hooligan law might have applied unjustly but without thinking about without hooligan law and tough on crime what would have happened to the Chinese society. Forming an opinion of a past event without taking into consideration of the history aspect of such event is just the most unfair and unbalance way of analyzing a law.

tonyget said:

Um，who banned Chinese people's access to TikTok International version？Don't tell me it's the West

Click to expand...

Bytedance decides to have an international version of Douyin that doesn't need to follow and conform the Chinese laws which Bytedance thinks would appeal to the Western audiences so that is TikTok. TikTok follows international law, Western law, the US law but not the Chinese law. Why should China allow such app to get accessed to Chinese audience that doesn't follow Chinese law.

tonyget said:

Define "open up"

Click to expand...

What, shutting down Confucius institutions isn't crazy enough for you. US has become spineless chicken shit that even mention anything positive about China would get you a nasty response. What a joke as the world sole superpower.

tonyget said:

Don't get it? too bad

Click to expand...

Of course not, you don't even know what yourself wrote. Such as a worthless post and response that shows such immaturity.

tonyget said:

So you are denying that special interest group in China has been abusing and manipulating the censorship system，I see.

Click to expand...

Do you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that Google, FB, and Twitter are far worse than anyone and have been in CIA payrolls that any sensible person wouldn't allow them in China. Where did I mention anything about Chinese interest groups.

zhangjim said:

Lu Shuming, the actor of Guan Yu who died a few days ago, is the victim of the crime of hooliganism. He attended a dance and was sentenced as "mental pollution".
1983 was an important time point. The sentencing of "hooligan crime" was raised to death penalty. Since this is a very arbitrary crime, the severity of the sentence depends entirely on the judge and the police station.
In sentencing, the "bad social impact" is often considered. However, if the citizens demand that the criminals be punished severely and quickly, the trial results will be extremely unfavorable to the defendants.
Regardless, the charge, which was created in 1979, was finally dropped in 1997.

Click to expand...

But you said people got the death penalty for holding hands and kissing. You only put evidence for "hooliganism". Why are you moving the goal post now with your outlandish claims. Just admit that you lied or at best grossly exaggerated because what you describe, with the death penalty for holding hands and kissing" did not happen. Either way you have lost all your credibility.

KYli said:

You stated that kissing and holding hands would get you a death penalty in China during the 80s. It is completely false and an outrageous accusation. Now, you decided to claim that hooligan crime has no strict standard and was used to shape behavior. This is a complete different accusation.

Click to expand...

Whatever you think. It's a little too expensive for me to find evidence that would convince you. I am a very stingy person. I will not waste money to buy expensive papers, old books or other things, just to have more confidence when arguing with you.
In this matter, I believe more in the opinion of the authority of law, and the cases he contacted are more representative.

manqiangrexue said:

Nobody cares about your childish hate. Go find a country you think is fair and move there. In my experience, no country is fair. Some countries have royalty. India has caste. Other countries have corruption. Other countries might shoot you or let you off with a warning depending on skin color. What we citizens can ask for is general fairness among the population and China is very good at delivering that. What you ask for is situation and person specific! If you want fairness to anyone then you need to build yourself and have an equal platform to that person before you ask for fairness with that person. All over the world, famous people and billionaires can do things, then go to court and go free while a poor person who does the same cannot afford the lawyer or the compensation and will be incarcerated. There is no perfect equality anywhere. Your complaint is childish and unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Huh? You're avoiding the question. It is a cruel reality that there is no absolute fairness, but you can't say "this is right" in this kind of thing.
You're actually acknowledging that her privilege is justified.
”childish hate“？She opposes and stigmatizes her own country and people, but she only gets moral condemnation, and those humble people's right to speak will be said by people like you that "You should strive for equal conditions with her".
You make me feel... disgusted.

What topic are we discussing? “chinese soft power and media discussion”. The core of the question is whether it is reasonable for people like Fang Fang to occupy the most important propaganda position?
I'm afraid the harm she caused in that position is far greater than that of ordinary people，what she has done in the past two years is no different from collaborating with the enemy.
Every time the government "cleans up" the Internet, it will never be lenient, but how can it let such people go?

How can I have confidence in the government's propaganda ability when such people occupy important positions?

zhangjim said:

Whatever you think. It's a little too expensive for me to find evidence that would convince you. I am a very stingy person. I will not waste money to buy expensive papers, old books or other things, just to have more confidence when arguing with you.
In this matter, I believe more in the opinion of the authority of law, and the cases he contacted are more representative.

Click to expand...

That's cute. You just made an outrageous accusation and state it as a fact that kissing and holding hands would get you a death penalty in the 80s in China. Now, you said that you have nothing to back up your claim but it doesn't matter because someone has hint that might be the case.

I have nothing against you at least before you made such an absurd claim. Now I really do question if you are who you claimed you are.

KYli said:

That's cute. You just made an outrageous accusation and state it as a fact that kissing and holding hands would get you a death penalty in the 80s in China. Now, you said that you have nothing to back up your claim but it doesn't matter because someone has hint that might be the case.

I have nothing against you at least before you made such an absurd claim. Now I really do question if you are who you claimed you are.

Click to expand...

He's not, he's been here for a while now and almost always does this. Just report him for flame-baiting.

KYli said:

Bytedance decides to have an international version of Douyin that doesn't need to follow and conform the Chinese laws which Bytedance thinks would appeal to the Western audiences so that is TikTok. TikTok follows international law, Western law, the US law but not the Chinese law. Why should China allow such app to get accessed to Chinese audience that doesn't follow Chinese law.

Click to expand...

Firstly, who says TikTok is for the West？There are more non-western users of TikTok than western users，you go to Indonesia Brazil Pakistan Egypt etc，all these large population countries use TikTok .

Secondly，Bytedance is a Chinese headquartered company. What makes you think that Chinese gov can not enforce Chinese law on Bytedance？Apple can not violate US law even when operating in China.

KYli said:

What, shutting down Confucius institutions isn't crazy enough for you. US has become spineless chicken shit that even mention anything positive about China would get you a nasty response. What a joke as the world sole superpower.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I have never been a fan of Confucius institution，I think it's a pure waste of money.
Secondly，the "闭关锁国" cut off country from outsides policy never end up well，throughout history

KYli said:

Of course not, you don't even know what yourself wrote. Such as a worthless post and response that shows such immaturity.

Click to expand...

Right，attacking me personally just shows the level of your maturity

KYli said:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that Google, FB, and Twitter are far worse than anyone and have been in CIA payrolls that any sensible person wouldn't allow them in China. Where did I mention anything about Chinese interest groups.

Click to expand...

Because my original post was about special interest groups，then you replied with this. Since you avoid to talk about it in your reply，I'd just have to assume that's you position on special interest groups.

manqiangrexue said:

LOLOL Why is that a criteria? Many people in China have various levels of English proficiency. Every educated Indian speaks English. I speak both Chinese and English. I'm not authentic? Your Chinese experience is authentic but not mine? LOLOLOL

Click to expand...

If you speak Chinese then why are you replying this？Because I made it clear the advise is for those who don't speak Chinese

manqiangrexue said:

Not really. Most young folks interact with each other over chat apps privately. Very very few people go to public forums to argue or discuss. Among my Chinese friends, I am the only one. When I tell someone I do this, I usually get asked why I waste my time talking to foreigners.

Click to expand...

Firstly，that's just your perception. Online discuss can happen in many different forms in China，such as reply webo post，zhihu post etc. Many chinese internet users are involved in one form or another.

Secondly，the number of Chinese domestic netizen who only post on Chinese forum，is an order of magnitude more than those Chinese who post on english forum. So even from a statistical perspective，Chinese domestic forum is far more representative than any english China forum

manqiangrexue said:

Not if there is sampling bias selecting only the small portion of people who go online to public discussions. I already explained why that is flawed and how 10% angry people can look bigger than 90% people who are content and go about their lives privately.

Click to expand...

I just said Chinese language internet discussion is differ from english version Chinese forum，I did not say how they are different from each other. Why are you so anxious about it and rush to bash all Chinese domestic netizen as "angry people"？You scared of non-Chinese people actually go visit Chinese domestic forum ?

manqiangrexue said:

That's true, but they represent the most educated and most wide-seeing group. They are fit to advise leadership and direct the country, hence thier opinion is weighted more heavily.

Click to expand...

“fit to advise leadership and direct the country”，wow，so much arrogance. Chinese national security adviser just happen to be all reside overseas，only incompetent idiot stays in China right？

Also，in any country，the representative of the population are rank and file not elites.

manqiangrexue said:

Being slightly less wrong is still wrong. You understand who you are and we understand who we are. It's annoying and stupid when someone who is not you claims to be an expert in who you are and even shares funny methods to do it. It's like a cow swearing it knows what it's like to be a fish.

Click to expand...

Then you should tell Chinese scholars who study different countries to abandon their work，because they will never understand those countries anyway

tonyget said:

To members who don't read Chinese：

If you are interested in exploring more common Chinese people's view on various topics，I strongly recommend you follow the way I did when I try to study specific countries. Which is surf native language forum with the help of translation software，DO NOT rely on informations from english version forum unless the the majority of that country's population are fluent in english.

This is especially true for countries like China Russia Japan Korea etc. If you do this，I promise you that you will find a whole different world that is vastly different from the english version XX country's forum，SDF included. Make no mistake，english version forum DO NOT represent the majority common folks opinion，native language forum is the real deal. For China，even domestic forum is under strict censorship and tons of topic is forbidden to discuss，you'd still get much more authentic experiences than the "international version China forum" like SDF.

I know it's labourious to navigate in non-english forums with translation software，but if you really want to dig deep into regular local people's mind，it's absolutely worth of the time.

BTW, I surf Russian native forum recently，and I can tell you people's opinion over there is totally different from the english language Russia Defence Forum.

Click to expand...

I used to translate for fun at 龙腾, I know exactly what people say. Is netizen comments on big platforms really all that representative? Zhihu found a problem with Russia/Ukraine bots, mostly on one side (I'll let you guess which one), but are we suppose to believe that there were never bots used for domestic purposes?

为什么俄乌战争后知乎里面数千个以前极不活跃用户全跳出来了？而且这些用户每个帖子都有千把个点赞支持的？​

这些反思怪，汉奸，香蕉人人有组织成规模的团伙作案，不就是为了让人觉得他们势力庞大吗？

Click to expand...

tonyget said:

Firstly, who says TikTok is for the West？There are more non-western users of TikTok than western users，you go to Indonesia Brazil Pakistan Egypt etc，all these large population countries use TikTok .

Secondly，Bytedance is a Chinese headquartered company. What makes you think that Chinese gov can not enforce Chinese law on Bytedance？Apple can not violate US law even when operating in China.

Click to expand...

TikTok is for the international market and was focusing on the West especially the US.

More importantly, Bytedance is Bytedance. It is the parent company of TikTok. TikTok is HQ in the US. Please have the basic understanding of HQ meaning. TikTok left the HK market in a heart beat in order not to get into trouble of the US sanction. For the last few years, TikTok has tried to distance itself as a Chinese company. China can shut down Bytedance but can't dictate how TikTok is run everyday. In addition, TikTok is working hard to store its data in the West and some other places.

Why would Apple violate the US law? Apple isn't a social media. You are basically making no sense. Google left China so it doesn't need to conform to Chinese laws. TikTok never considered entering Chinese market in the first place so it never has taken any steps to abide Chinese laws. It is a simple fact but you keep dancing around it.

tonyget said:

Firstly, I have never been a fan of Confucius institution，I think it's a pure waste of money.
Secondly，the "闭关锁国" cut off country from outsides policy never end up well，throughout history

Click to expand...

Tell that to the US.

tonyget said:

Right，attacking me personally just shows the level of your maturity.

Click to expand...

Writing a incomprehensible post and acting like jerk, you expect any response. I am already being polite.

tonyget said:

Because my original post was about special interest groups，then you replied with this. Since you avoid to talk about it in your reply，I'd just have to assume that's you position on special interest groups.

Click to expand...

Your original posts were talking about allowing Google, FB, and Twitter entered Chinese market. But then when you can't make a response to my post so started talking about special interest groups which are totally different thing.