The Tiananmen Incident: The 30th Anniversary Is Nearing

[Ethel mermania]

I don’t believe protests should be legal because they disrupt the economy, can threaten the public safety, and be a threat to a state’s unity and authority.

Using the military to stop protests is acceptable when martial law has been declared and the protestors are given fair warning to disperse.

Pffft! What gives? That’s a violation of the freedom of assembly. Please, STOP.

China does not have freedom of assembly

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Pffft! What gives? That’s a violation of the freedom of assembly. Please, STOP.

China does not have freedom of assembly

It should though. Rights do not vary from country to country, only their violation does.

[Ethel mermania]

China does not have freedom of assembly

It should though. Rights do not vary from country to country, only their violation does.

Not according to the chinese.

[Infected Mushroom]

China does not have freedom of assembly

It should though. Rights do not vary from country to country, only their violation does.

Rights don’t exist if they are not enshrined by law

To say otherwise is very western world centric and factually incorrect

It’s complete sophistry to say “there is freedom of assembly in Iran it’s just always 100 percent being violated. A universal law made up by western philosophers is daily violated there.”

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So you're okay with anything as long as it's done in the name of law and order? Using that logic, killing peaceful protesters en masse with tanks is a'okay.

O H W A I T.

I don’t believe protests should be legal because they disrupt the economy, can threaten the public safety, and be a threat to a state’s unity and authority.

Using the military to stop protests is acceptable when martial law has been declared and the protestors are given fair warning to disperse.

China is a shitty country so it deserves to have its authority threatened.

[The Batorys]

I don’t agree. The protests posed an existential threat to the territorial integrity of China. Russia lost tons and tons of land because it failed to adopt the Chinese approach.

I actually partially agree with you about the protesters posing a threat to the government of China (even though I disagree with the massacre), but this is just bad reasoning. Russia didn't lose any land, the USSR disintegrated into its constituent countries.

I don't think he knows the difference.

[Dahon]

Actually I would love a Democratic federation of China
My problem is specifically with the Chinese government

Democracy really isn’t that great

Promotes divisions and partisan hatred

That is indeed a major flaw, should partisanship be unchecked. But that in itself is a side effect of trying to address grievances without coming to blows or worse.

Authoritarian governments do not as a rule check grievances, nor do they present viable paths for their redress -- instead they suppress them, fully expecting them to disappear with enough time and bloodshed, when 9 times out of 10, not only do they fail to do so, they foster resentment for future generations to tap into.

Furthermore, by being so inoculated from public grievances, authoritarian governments inevitably full into the trap of assuming everything is fine and dandy, that their government does indeed provide when it doesn't. How can it be otherwise, when they have removed themselves and the public they're supposed to serve, from the mixed bag of interaction, of knowing what is wrong and what goes right?

[The Holy Therns]

So, the Tiananmen Incident.

It was a shocking incident on June 3-4, 1989, that some leader told China’s soldiers to clear the square. Within hours tanks were approaching, ruthlessly crushing protestors, and soldiers entered, firing at civillians indiscriminately, without a second thought.

Those people...... poor fellas who wanted democracy, their wish shall be fulfilled! Instead of them getting democracy, they got violence. At that time reform was at the speed of light, the economical part, but the political part, not so fast and literally was reforming at the speed of a tortoise.

It lead to bigger crackdowns. Share ya opinions.

It was carried out in the interests of law and order.

As such, I don't object to it.

Whether the protestors knew it or not, they were really pawns of the American Empire.

China could have fallen apart like the Soviet Union, but the authorities did what was necessary to keep it together.

Well. There's a deplorable viewpoint if I ever saw one.

[The New California Republic]

It was carried out in the interests of law and order.

As such, I don't object to it.

Whether the protestors knew it or not, they were really pawns of the American Empire.

China could have fallen apart like the Soviet Union, but the authorities did what was necessary to keep it together.

Well. There's a deplorable viewpoint if I ever saw one.

That's nothing. He started victim blaming the students who were crushed beneath the tanks, and the wounded who were bayoneted...

[Pasong Tirad]

You gotta give it to them, though, the CCP knows perfectly well how to revise history.

[Dahon]

Well. There's a deplorable viewpoint if I ever saw one.

That's nothing. He started victim blaming the students who were crushed beneath the tanks, and the wounded who were bayoneted...

For extra edge, though, he could've argued that since Chinese views on governance must necessarily predominate in China and not Western ones, the Party from Deng on down should've paraded such a forthrightly patriotic defense of law and order against Western imperialist puppets before China and before the world.

You know, instead of hiding it and practically airbrushing the massacre from Chinese history, like they did something monstrously, monstrously wrong, even when viewed through a Chinese lens.

It's only logical.

[Ethel mermania]

That's nothing. He started victim blaming the students who were crushed beneath the tanks, and the wounded who were bayoneted...

For extra edge, though, he could've argued that since Chinese views on governance must necessarily predominate in China and not Western ones, the Party from Deng on down should've paraded such a forthrightly patriotic defense of law and order against Western imperialist puppets before China and before the world.

You know, instead of hiding it and practically airbrushing the massacre from Chinese history, like they did something monstrously, monstrously wrong, even when viewed through a Chinese lens.

It's only logical.

They view tieneamin square as a necessary step to preserve order and harmony, teaching it would not help promote harmony, therefore it is not taught.

[Dahon]

For extra edge, though, he could've argued that since Chinese views on governance must necessarily predominate in China and not Western ones, the Party from Deng on down should've paraded such a forthrightly patriotic defense of law and order against Western imperialist puppets before China and before the world.

You know, instead of hiding it and practically airbrushing the massacre from Chinese history, like they did something monstrously, monstrously wrong, even when viewed through a Chinese lens.

It's only logical.

They view tieneamin square as a necessary step to preserve order and harmony, teaching it would not help promote harmony, therefore it is not taught.

Negative reinforcement (ie, "And this is what we do to traitors!") is a thing.

[Ethel mermania]

They view tieneamin square as a necessary step to preserve order and harmony, teaching it would not help promote harmony, therefore it is not taught.

Negative reinforcement (ie, "And this is what we do to traitors!") is a thing.

Why put being a traitor in their mind in the first place. Social credit is the way to go.

[Dahon]

Negative reinforcement (ie, "And this is what we do to traitors!") is a thing.

Why put being a traitor in their mind in the first place. Social credit is the way to go.

Being low on social credit is in effect being a traitor, so why not call the pathetic miscreant a traitor and display his bayoneted innards before a (presumably patriotic) public and (presumably hungry) vultures?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

For extra edge, though, he could've argued that since Chinese views on governance must necessarily predominate in China and not Western ones, the Party from Deng on down should've paraded such a forthrightly patriotic defense of law and order against Western imperialist puppets before China and before the world.

You know, instead of hiding it and practically airbrushing the massacre from Chinese history, like they did something monstrously, monstrously wrong, even when viewed through a Chinese lens.

It's only logical.

They view tieneamin square as a necessary step to preserve order and harmony, teaching it would not help promote harmony, therefore it is not taught.

Dictatorships DO NOT function for the purpose of protecting utopian ideals.

Dictatorships function to keep themselves in power.

Any Chinese person with half a brain would notice the hypocrisy of shooting and bayonetting unarmed protesters in the name of "order and harmony" - the Tiananmen Square massacre was cold-blooded slaughter carried out to keep the protesters from posing a threat to the rule of the CCP.

[Ethel mermania]

Why put being a traitor in their mind in the first place. Social credit is the way to go.

Being low on social credit is in effect being a traitor, so why not call the pathetic miscreant a traitor and display his bayoneted innards before a (presumably patriotic) public and (presumably hungry) vultures?

The goal is to reeducate your citizens so you can welcome them back into the warm, productive and happy community where the citizens both work for themselves and society to2ards a happy society under the benevolent leadership of the Chinese communist party.

[Ethel mermania]

They view tieneamin square as a necessary step to preserve order and harmony, teaching it would not help promote harmony, therefore it is not taught.

Dictatorships DO NOT function for the purpose of protecting utopian ideals.

Dictatorships function to keep themselves in power.

Any Chinese person with half a brain would notice the hypocrisy of shooting and bayonetting unarmed protesters in the name of "order and harmony" - the Tiananmen Square massacre was cold-blooded slaughter carried out to keep the protesters from posing a threat to the rule of the CCP.

Dictatorships stay in power by keeping the people reasonably happy and docile.

The standard of living in China has improved enormously since the 1970's. More and more of the people have risen out of poverty to join the middle class. They are graduating more doctors and scientists than ever before, and they do listen to the people, for example China's about face on carbon dioxide 10 or so years ago is due to the people being concerned about it, not the leadership.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Dictatorships DO NOT function for the purpose of protecting utopian ideals.

Dictatorships function to keep themselves in power.

Any Chinese person with half a brain would notice the hypocrisy of shooting and bayonetting unarmed protesters in the name of "order and harmony" - the Tiananmen Square massacre was cold-blooded slaughter carried out to keep the protesters from posing a threat to the rule of the CCP.

Dictatorships stay in power by keeping the people reasonably happy and docile.

The standard of living in China has improved enormously since the 1970's. More and more of the people have risen out of poverty to join the middle class. They are graduating more doctors and scientists than ever before, and they do listen to the people, for example China's about face on carbon dioxide 10 or so years ago is due to the people being concerned about it, not the leadership.

Depends on the dictatorship. Regimes such as China and the UAE keep their people satisfied with the government through economic prosperity, which works as long as such economic growth is maintained - otherwise, the highly educated people will turn against the government. This approach is similar to how democratic governments stay in power, only without the fair elections. However, most dictatorships (North Korea is a prime example) stay in power through the exact opposite means - keeping their people as poor, uneducated and oppressed as possible to minimise their capacity to rebel - using the North Korea example, most North Koreans are too poor, uneducated/brainwashed or isolated to rebel.

Nevertheless, just because an action had to be done to keep the government in power does not make it morally good. From a utilitarian perspective, dictatorship is undesirable as it gives high levels of pleasure and minimal suffering to the elite at the expense of the general population, as opposed to more even distribution and higher aggregate pleasure and lower aggregate suffering in a stable democracy.

[Ethel mermania]

Dictatorships stay in power by keeping the people reasonably happy and docile.

The standard of living in China has improved enormously since the 1970's. More and more of the people have risen out of poverty to join the middle class. They are graduating more doctors and scientists than ever before, and they do listen to the people, for example China's about face on carbon dioxide 10 or so years ago is due to the people being concerned about it, not the leadership.

Depends on the dictatorship. Regimes such as China and the UAE keep their people satisfied with the government through economic prosperity, which works as long as such economic growth is maintained - otherwise, the highly educated people will turn against the government. This approach is similar to how democratic governments stay in power, only without the fair elections. However, most dictatorships (North Korea is a prime example) stay in power through the exact opposite means - keeping their people as poor, uneducated and oppressed as possible to minimise their capacity to rebel - using the North Korea example, most North Koreans are too poor, uneducated/brainwashed or isolated to rebel.

Nevertheless, just because an action had to be done to keep the government in power does not make it morally good. From a utilitarian perspective, dictatorship is undesirable as it gives high levels of pleasure and minimal suffering to the elite at the expense of the general population, as opposed to more even distribution and higher aggregate pleasure and lower aggregate suffering in a stable democracy.

Theoretically a technocratic government would be the best way to govern as the technocrats could govern, without always having to pander with a dog and pony show, which certainly is what politics in the United States is.

Do you think the citizens of the United States are happier than the citizens of the PRC? I detect a heck of a lot of strife in this countryn

[Infected Mushroom]

Dictatorships DO NOT function for the purpose of protecting utopian ideals.

Dictatorships function to keep themselves in power.

Any Chinese person with half a brain would notice the hypocrisy of shooting and bayonetting unarmed protesters in the name of "order and harmony" - the Tiananmen Square massacre was cold-blooded slaughter carried out to keep the protesters from posing a threat to the rule of the CCP.

Dictatorships stay in power by keeping the people reasonably happy and docile.

The standard of living in China has improved enormously since the 1970's. More and more of the people have risen out of poverty to join the middle class. They are graduating more doctors and scientists than ever before, and they do listen to the people, for example China's about face on carbon dioxide 10 or so years ago is due to the people being concerned about it, not the leadership.

I agree with this.

Basically, what Ethel is saying is that dictatorships don’t stay in power through “oppression” alone, although they have to be willing use force from time to time to suppress. Tienammen is one example of this.

Dictatorships stay in power by producing results that satisfy the people. The long lasting ones like the CCP are the ones that follow Roose Bolton’s model: “A Peaceful Land, A Quiet People.”

Peaceful land = results, economic mostly (consider how chinas economy quadrupled in the late 20th century)

A quiet people = suppression of protests, keeping the population docile

[Dahon]

A lot of North Koreans are being "satisfied" right now.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Dictatorships stay in power by keeping the people reasonably happy and docile.

The standard of living in China has improved enormously since the 1970's. More and more of the people have risen out of poverty to join the middle class. They are graduating more doctors and scientists than ever before, and they do listen to the people, for example China's about face on carbon dioxide 10 or so years ago is due to the people being concerned about it, not the leadership.

I agree with this.

Basically, what Ethel is saying is that dictatorships don’t stay in power through “oppression” alone, although they have to be willing use force from time to time to suppress. Tienammen is one example of this.

Dictatorships stay in power by producing results that satisfy the people. The long lasting ones like the CCP are the ones that follow Roose Bolton’s model: “A Peaceful Land, A Quiet People.”

Peaceful land = results, economic mostly (consider how chinas economy quadrupled in the late 20th century)

A quiet people = suppression of protests, keeping the population docile

Protests do not have a significant impact on peace. In liberal democracies where the right to protest is guaranteed, protests cause negligible harm to the economy.

And for fuck's sake, China's economic growth is not due to dictatorship - it was due to economic liberalisation under Deng Xiaoping. If only dictatorships could attain similar economic growth to China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan (all democratic) would have never become developed nations, and Brazil, India and South Africa (all democratic) would not be part of the BRICS.

[The New California Republic]

Peaceful land = results, economic mostly (consider how chinas economy quadrupled in the late 20th century)

And for fuck's sake, China's economic growth is not due to dictatorship - it was due to economic liberalisation under Deng Xiaoping.

Exactly. The dictatorship has existed since 1949, but the real economic growth only began in the 1980s due to economic reforms. Attributing the economic growth to the dictatorship itself is entirely spurious.

[Ethel mermania]

I agree with this.

Basically, what Ethel is saying is that dictatorships don’t stay in power through “oppression” alone, although they have to be willing use force from time to time to suppress. Tienammen is one example of this.

Dictatorships stay in power by producing results that satisfy the people. The long lasting ones like the CCP are the ones that follow Roose Bolton’s model: “A Peaceful Land, A Quiet People.”

Peaceful land = results, economic mostly (consider how chinas economy quadrupled in the late 20th century)

A quiet people = suppression of protests, keeping the population docile

Protests do not have a significant impact on peace. In liberal democracies where the right to protest is guaranteed, protests cause negligible harm to the economy.

And for fuck's sake, China's economic growth is not due to dictatorship - it was due to economic liberalisation under Deng Xiaoping. If only dictatorships could attain similar economic growth to China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan (all democratic) would have never become developed nations, and Brazil, India and South Africa (all democratic) would not be part of the BRICS.

Disagree, the Chinese have very carefully owned and managed their economic growth ever since Deng's reforms. The current PRC is ehat you get when you send communists to the London school of economics and they all get A's.