Seems like if everything costs more, and you get paid more, the things the government purchases probably cost more too, so the tax rate should be the same right?
I would like to address several of your posts together, using my own experiences.
As a fellow Chinese who lived in Europe for a couple years and lived in several cities across Canada, each a couple years (so not 2 week travels):
1. It forced me to abandon my old friends and make new friends. Is this a good thing? not necessarily. An easy thing? absolutely not. A good thing? I think so. First of all, distance kills friendships. And I'm forced to make new friends when I feel lonely. When I have new friends, I learn about their cultures, about their hobbies. I spent 20+ years in China and never got drawn into bodybuilding, now I do it everyday because my new foreigner friends introduced me to it and it becomes an integrated part of my life and source of happyness. I still keep in touch with a few close close friends remotely, who lives all over the world now.
2. It forced me to do things I normally won't do/step out of my comfort zone. This is related to your comment:
>Which when I thought about it is super ridiculous, why can't I enjoy these things if I was going by myself??? Or put in another way, why can't we see our local city and people in our local community with the same freshness, open-ness and kindness as we'd if we were tourists or backpackers traveling in a distant land?
You certain can, but it's difficult. Human brain is designed to find patterns. We get used to things fast. There's no incentive for us to step out of our comfort zone in familiar environments. Once we know about a shortcut, we'll always take it. It's the not knowing of the shortcuts that forced me to be out of my comfort zone a lot (and back to 1, I wont force myself to make new friends if I dont have to). Things like, I public speak a lot more than before, I try actively making friends, and again I workout daily now.
3. By doing all 1 and 2, I gained new perspectives about myself. About what really makes me happy. If I didn't live abroad, I'll probably anchor my happiness a bit more on the traditional Chinese values such as having a big place in the tier 1 cities in China and having kid(s), and make sure the kid(s) excel in all the stuff, just like my high school classmates are doing right now. Now instead I saw so many different ways of living one's life. So many different ways of finding happyness, I incorpated those into how I define my happiness. I do things that truly make me happy rather than things my peers are doing. On the flip side, I dont give fucks to many things anymore, because I saw ppl who dont give fucks to those and they are fine. I wont know those people in my old city with my old circle, or at least not as many.
4. It satisfied my curiousity. You can know a lot about the world by means other than traveling and experiencing in person. But can you be sure the experience is the same? Different or not, I was curious to know.
5. Lastly, if I can change history about myself, I'd travel sooner in my life. This is probably related to 3. People say traveling broaden's one's perspectives. Concretely I think what that means is it makes you better at problem solving. With more perspectives, you either gain new approaches to solving problems, or some problems become too trivia you give little amount of fucks than you previously would, or some problems become irrelevant to you. One example I think is I'm not as easily influenced by commericals, marketing, or news as much. And many of those are intentionally stress inducing. When I see things that are utterly important in one culture are not important elsewhere, it helped me stop accepting messages that tell me what's important.
>A strike was intended to open a new arena of resistance, but organizers said only 8,943 union members participated in a city-wide poll, falling short of the 60,000 threshold to go ahead, even as 95% of the votes were in favor.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/hong-ko...
HK protestors have failed to organize any long term strike for a while now. If the majority of HKers strike, that will deal a real blow to the government.
whenever I see misinformation my blood boils. I thought moving out of China would help my anger management. But alas here we are. I have been wondering instead of wasting time telling HN or any community what China is like, maybe there's something I can do to help China become a better place where I wanna live in future, no matter how small I can contribute. Many westerners (government bodies excluded) are good intended, but the solution they got mostly will only get things worse.
It’s close to impossible to stop misinformation given most westerners Have a much higher trust level of their media E.g Fox News reporting hospitals are getting paid to attribute deaths to Covid-19 regardless of the cause. I’m sure many on the right-wing actually believes it. And also this forum is of western mainstream view and Values so bias is expected. dang teaches a good lesson in how to live here so nowadays I rarely get triggered
Here's one of the most important things I can think of that's pushing me back to China more and more each day:
I live in one of the major NA cities and I dont feel safe walking outside after dark (after 8pm).
I have a friend got robbed on knifepoint around 11pm this past March. The case hasn't been closed. Numerous friends' homes got broke in and stuff stolen and cases are all cold.
And I was almost hit by a left turning car on a quite street. The car sped away without checking if i'm ok.
Yes I miss getting my privacy striped away by all the CCTV cameras and feeling safe. I miss all the speed cameras and red light cameras. All the cameras that the existence of them having the deterrent effect for thieft and robberies and traffic violations.
I'm aware of the quote: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Because I've been telling that to my friends before I left China and live in NA. But now I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs more often than that. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#:~:text=Maslow'...)
Culturally I'm just used to a higher level of safety I guess. Japan, Singapore, Taiwan other than PRC are like that too. So it's more of an Asian thing.
And that heirarchy actually explain a lot why Chinese seems to be not on the same frequency with westerners on human right issues. Because I guess Chinese are still at a lower level of that hierarchy right now.
If your only examples are North America and China, it may feel like there is a direct tradeoff between safety and privacy. But that would be a false analysis: most Western nations have far lower rates of violent crime than the United States, without the need for omnipresent surveillance.
maybe. I've lived in Europe for a bit and it's a bit better but not to the point I feel safe everywhere during the night in cities(but at least I dont live in fear of getting hit by cars that much). And other than China I've mentioned I feel safe during night in Japan, Taiwan, or Singapore. Again I'm not sourcing any data here because it's just my personal experience of whether I'd feel safe in cities during night.
I'm often curious what makes someone feel safe or not. I've never felt unsafe wandering around (including in lots of "sketchy" places), but I suspect a lot of that is an accident of my genetics. I just don't look like an easy person to victimize.
From my perspective, a lot of that is simply busy areas. Areas with a lot of pepole moving around are safer in cities than areas without a lot of people.
In Asian cities, there is plenty of nightlife on the streets. In Europe, places outside the city centre seem to shut down after dinner.
The sense of social solidarity versus atomization plays a part, for me. Do I feel like my neighbors will look out for me or do I feel this is a "no snitching, mind your own business" culture?
> Yes I miss getting my privacy striped away by all the CCTV cameras and feeling safe.
I'm sorry to break it to you but that feeling is nothing more than a feeling. There is no assurance of safety from CCTV camera coverage. There is only the assurance that the ruling regime is spying on you. Case in point: I personally know of a case where a popular restaurant was robbed at gunpoint in a city area that was extensively covered by a network of CCTV cameras, and still the robbery was never solved.
And the robbery looked like an internal job.
So no, CCTV coverage does not mean safety. If it was, London would be crime-free, and it's one of Europe's capitals with he highest crime rate.
I didn't notice any difference in perceived safety. I routinely walk late in the night, even past midnight, but I live in Europe. North America might be different. I don't have any recent direct experience there. SF and NYC were ok about 20 years ago. Lot of people walking around in the night.
SF off of Market St at night is mostly overtaken by various night dwellers now. Certain areas and surrounding areas around Market you do not want to walk alone at night, or even during the day for some streets. However is too be expected when law abiding citizens are punished for defending, or trying to defend, themselves. People robbing others in this country are called the victim. Those attempting to reduce crime by carrying concealed are also punished, especially in California. The problem with the US is mostly political with one side wanting defense and the other anarchy.
You are misinformed. When people carry concealed crime numbers drop because criminals are also scared to die and only want easy targets. And you won’t see the gun if they’re carrying concealed so the class of people you’re talking about, open carrying and brandishing, are not the same people concealed carrying.
Well you can’t get a concealed carry permit in Europe, and you cant compare two countries like this, where one has extreme gun control and the other doesn’t and then further go on to compare crime rates. This doesn’t even fit into the proper definition of experiment, where’s the control?
>The increasing censorship within China leaves less and less opportunity for the greater Chinese population to learn about the capabilities of other countries.
Most of my friends back in China, especially devs, use VPN daily. Many Chinese learn English via English media or TV shows. check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
>The CCP news tells me how terrible the USA is, yet, these elements in my life are excellent beyond what is created by my own country.
just not true. I was really shocked about the homeless situation in NA which was never really reported back in China.
and also from u/bpodgursky
>the Chinese students with the education and wealth to study abroad are already among the top 5% in China.
Not the case for most graduate students. Especially the ones received scholarships (such as me).
Please check your sources guys. Try learn a bit Mandarin if you could or at least talk to Chinese ppl living around you. China is sick yes. But imagine diagnosing the illness of a patient without looking or talking to them but only via a malicious translator.
> Most of my friends back in China, especially devs, use VPN daily
This is such a tired argument. You've got a tiny percent of the population with the ability to proxy out of China. You cannot easily share the information you find with non-VPN friends. Not even with VPN-enabled friends. Sharing any politically sensitive info under your identity is a big no-no.
I once did an experiment on Weibo and posted screenshots of an article about Xinjiang concentration camps. The original English version stayed up for quite a while. Then posted a google translated Chinese version and it was quickly taken down. After posting it again my account was banned.
That individuals can obtain certain information isn't a big threat to the government if you cannot effectively disseminate it in the general population and organize around it.
basically some guy got detained because he whistleblowed something food safety related. We talk politics, in ways you normally wont imagine. But not the politics you expect.
>Xinjiang concentration camps.
That's an interesting topic because most Chinese dont care when you shove it into their throats in one way or another. If you used Weibo, I wonder do you have Chinese friends? Have you asked their opinion about those camps?
According to this ZDNet article [0] 14% of Chinese internet users use a VPN daily. If you do the math that's roughly 7% of the Chinese population.
> We talk in person, during lunch or on dinner tables, in office. When we talk politics online we invent new words to avoid auto detection. The recent hot topic is this: ...
basically some guy got detained because he whistleblowed something food safety related. We talk politics, in ways you normally wont imagine. But not the politics you expect.
Right, so even to discuss local drama that doesn't even involve big politics you still have to use coded language and can get detained for it. That's not exactly an environment that fosters free spread of information.
> That's an interesting topic because most Chinese dont care
And that's the sad part. Chinese citizens are being detained often for years without any due process and people don't care. That's exactly what decades of government propaganda do to people. Not even going to mention the organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners which gets somewhat censored even in the Western media too. Most people in China (and the West) are simply unaware of it[1].
Please dont break my sentence half way. Western media has been doing that and they wonder why the Chinese ppl are not receptive of their messages or ideas. I feel it's too impolite so I will not follow up on the rest. Sorry.
I don't think any re-wording of your statement was intended by breaking up your sentence, it is pretty common to abbreviate when quoting, even mid-sentence. At least I hope it was not intended... I can see that the quoted part makes it into a different statement.
Personally I appreciate your insight on this topic, I feel it is difficult to have a good discussion on these sorts of topics with all the misinformation going around.
Thanks. I'll try give more info on the parent comment then. First 7% of the Chinese population is like 100 million people... Considering most of them cluster in tier 1 cities (beijing, shanghai, shenzhen)[1], I'd say there's density for certain things to happen if they want.
and I wont call food safety issues local drama. Now that people noticed the air quality is improving[2], food safety is probably the no.1 issue Chinese people care. Especially milk products for babies. Many chinese emigrated for food safety as one of the important reason and most chinese buy foreign milk for their babies. Shoot me email if you'd like to talk more :)
1. China's wealth distribution is really not great. We got tier1 cities like developped countries. then there's tier2, tier3, then east rural areas, and west rural areas.
This crosses into nationalistic and ideological flamebait as well as personal attack, none of which is allowed here. We ban accounts that do this. No, we're not party members. We're just trying to prevent this community from destroying itself, including from turning into an ugly mob.
not a party member btw. Am Chinese. I will follow up here on any questions you(qbaqbaqba or anyone else) have though. and if you are interested here's my thought on the whole topic in one piece:
https://medium.com/@theseadroid/the-china-problem-ce0c1a0e57...
I read and appreciate that blog post. Yet to address any China problems without recognizing any Chinese government fallacies means we're not even having a complete discussion here. I acknowledge the fear of including them, but one's stance on government policies is required to really get their thought on the whole topic.
Thanks. I dont fear Chinese government actually and I think it is bad. It's just we have a lot difference on where it is the worst part and how to make it better and by how much time. Truth to be told there are so many solutions proposed by smart ppl but I dont see many that wont hurt regular Chinese ppl more than what the current regime is doing :(
Please do not take HN threads into nationalistic and ideological flamewar like this. It's not allowed here because it leads to community-damaging discussion and, unfortunately, ugly mob behavior.
HN is supposed to be a place for people to exchange their views with openness and curiosity, regardless of how much distance separates us and/or how wrong we feel the other is. Comments like the one you posted here pour poison over all of that. Please don't.
I’m skeptical of the data presentation. It is not surprising that asymptomatic patients have a minimal or low long term IgG antibody count if they didn’t need it to fend off the virus in the first place.
Non violent actions such as strikes brought us many human rights improvements such as 40 hour week and safety and health regulations. Many societies reformed after their citizens striked extensively. I'm curious why there's no sweeping strikes in Hong Kong yet?
Can you provide an example of a time peaceful strikes worked against a well-organized, massive, and authoritarian government like the CCP? I don't think comparing wins in civil rights in Western democracies is a good basis for policy here.
That's an interesting one, but mostly because it's tied to the collapse of the Soviet Union at the same time. China is not anywhere near the same state of affairs. Poland was also a relatively small economy and war power.
> They don't care about image as they can suppress and buy PR - Tibet.
Yes and no. China is almost crazily touchy about their image. They claim that it's an insult to their nation if anyone admits that Taiwan exists as a separate entity. You can't even mention Winnie the Pooh in China, because some people use it as a derisive label for Chairman Xi. (Imagine having the NSA notice every on-line mention of "Orange Man", and ordering the hosting site to remove it.)
Now, they may not care about their image as much as they care about suppressing Hong Kong. But the rest of the world can make them pay a price in terms of image - a price that China seems to find rather painful.
Just for info sake. Only memes with Xi and Winnie are banned. Literally the first thing I saw in China were Winnie the Pooh images in Hainan airport toilet.
Their concern for their image isn't egoism, it's propoganda. With Taiwan for instance, if you get everyone to agree for long enough that Taiwan does not exist internationally, Noone will care when you roll in and squash it.
The non violence movement in India against Imperial Britain? You can argue the particularity of every historical event but to me striking is one of the immediately reachable weapon against CCP that is not employed. With the same logic we can say protesting is not effective against CCP yet ppl still do it?
Imperial Britain is still not China of today. There are some cultures that will simply read your nonviolence as weakness and stomp over you.
Our modern tendency to compete on who can most hyperbolically denounce Western Imperialism strips us of any ability to calibrate between cultures. Do you know what Imperial Rome would have done to the nonviolent Indian revolt? They'd have executed it at its infancy and it would be a historical footnote. They wouldn't have even waited for it to become a big movement; the death penalty would have been used early and often. To some degree, even as entertainment.
My read on China is closer to first-century Rome than 20th century Britain. YMMV.
And a single city with guns would be able to topple Rome with modern weaponry?
To be clear, neither I or you are certain what the majority of HKers want to trade for democracy. Realistically if they want democracy so bad, what else they can do other than the protesting they are doing? Long term striking seems to be something they can do TODAY, RIGHT NOW. Equiped with weapons or not, one of the bet they have to make is that the international community would not sit idlely while many HKers get killed.
"And a single city with guns would be able to topple Rome with modern weaponry?"
I don't know how that's relevant to anything I said. My point is about culture. Nonviolent protest requires you to be protesting an amenable authority. There have been plenty of examples in history of authorities that will just spill as much blood as it takes. To my eye, the only constraint on China doing that is their fear that people might stop paying into their economy.
Bear in mind that if China decided to roll into Hong Kong and simply kill everybody there, it would only increase the current Chinese government's death toll against their own people by somewhere between 16% to 40%. It wouldn't even double it! This is the government that brought you the "Great Leap Forward" in which they killed 18-45 million of their own people. This is a government being credibly accused of engaging in ethnic cleansing.
Are you sure advising "nonviolent protest" against that is a good idea?
"one of the bet they have to make is that the international community would not sit idlely while many HKers get killed."
That is not something I'd advise anyone to bet their lives on.
I thought it was relevant because my initial reply was to someone saying
>They are too scared of weapons and (justified, defensive) violence to make Chinese occupation unviable.
To that end I felt striking is probably a better option to try before more violent forms of fighting get involved. Maybe nonviolent protest is not a good idea, but it's probably not a worse idea than violent ones.
>That is not something I'd advise anyone to bet their lives on.
Say without international community support, is there any winning strategy you can think of?
I personally think once the confrontation becomes more heated, at least a dozen western countries would allow HKers to immigrate to their countries, which doesn't require too much resources to do? One example is last year Sweden has already started granting China's Uighurs refugee status.
Guys; We do not 2m students. It is not 2015. It is the whole Hk.
We are trying our best to find a way. The recent approach is not to do any business with anyone who is Communist blue. (Well, the Communist control many things and this strategy should not work. But it hurts a bit. ) Strike is hard but we will see.
For so call violence, there is a lot of police violence and they have used this to suppress the protest, down to even sing a song in mall.
Tomorrow we will try. But how many will suffer from police we do not know.
Democracy and human rights is core to our belief. We will fight even as said here not very hopeful. Fighting a communist state with resources like that ...
It is not because we have hope we persist but by persistence we might have hope. One of our belief as well.
A thorough reading of history shows that violent uprisings are de facto _what_ is effective, and certainly in post-industrial modern times. Empires cede control of territory when they become too expensive to maintain. Usually, that is in terms of violence, which threatens mercantile stability and integrability.
Unfortunately, the violence and instability that often accompanies secession doesn't always end up resulting in prosperity after independence. That is because violent or not, uprisings do not necessarily upset the power balance between the colonizer and the colonized. Some say the alphabet agencies that form the worldwide practice of SIGINT operate on this inertia -- well, I don't want to speculate about what I don't know about, but I think that at least my own country's declassified documents are telling. The USA has had a hand in kingmaking much of LatAm and the Middle East. Historically, I think this kind of proxying only ends when the empire itself shrivels.
As it pertains to statecraft, what is the point of bringing up "insurrections"? It just seems like a pedantic red herring to avoid discussing war. Insurrections are either aborted attempts to start wars and brutally suppressed, or they become protracted wars, which folds into the empire cost benefit analysis I pointed to. When it comes to wars, I think that territory, violence, the threat of it, and its costs are the attendant free variables in which decisions are made.
The US is a great example to consider: compare the odds of success of a violent secessionist movement in Hong Kong to those of the Confederacy winning the Civil War.
Sorry I wasn’t clear about what I was trying to say. My argument was that most violent independence movements aren’t successful, an example of which was the Civil War, which was also called the “War for Southern Independence” by the rebels. Having a revolution sounds great if you expect it to turn out like 1776, but the majority of the time it doesn’t work out that way.
