[dave_sullivan]

> I don't think anything is gained going back and forth here. You have your set of friends who tell you one thing, and I have my set of friends who tell me something else.

That is kind of the stalemate isn't it? But I'm just wondering, what are you actually advocating here?

I don't think you're advocating for authoritarian rule generally as you mention you wouldn't want to become a Chinese citizen yourself.

I think you're advocating for people to learn Chinese history and that the CCP's decisions would make sense in that context.

I do know a bit about Chinese history and their government's decisions do make sense in historical context (as did Stalin's decisions), but they are still bad decisions made by practically evil people.

They are an authoritarian government. The people are happy living under authoritarian rule? Fine, Stockholm syndrome is a thing. That still doesn't make authoritarian rule OK in my opinion. Some may differ on that, but I actually would go so far as to say "authoritarian governments are bad" full stop. And yes it's a sliding scale in that the US is authoritarian in many ways, I'm not ok with that either. I think China's people are in an abusive relationship with their government; many of them are so abused that they've come to love their abuser, or think they do. A whole society trading their freedom for gold and rationalizing it any way they can. But do we actually disagree?

[PakG1]

I'm not sure we actually disagree on many points. We do disagree on some points. For example, what you view as an abusive relationship, I think is more simply a completely different worldview as to what are considered acceptable norms in society. But it's easy for you to look at the relationship and think it's abusive because of your foundational worldview about what is normal and what is OK, especially considering the likely difference between power distance index values between yourself and Chinese culture.

edit: This reminds me of a business case about cross-cultural work I had to learn for my MBA. It is amazing how much a real-life company failed in China only simply because lack of cultural understanding led to immense distrust between the two parties, even though both parties really actually wanted to work with each other. But their cultural ignorance could only lead them to both believe that they couldn't trust each other, as they were completely misunderstanding each other's messages and signals. I can see that happening in general when analyzing another person's society. The point of the case was that cultural misunderstanding tends to lead to negative assumptions, rather than benefit of the doubt. :endedit

I am definitely mostly saying that I've learned that the world has a lot more nuance than I realized when I was younger, and that we'd all do well if we realized that. It allows for better dialogue among people, especially with those who are different from us. For example, I imagine if Americans can figure that out, the American government and society will be much stronger; instead, there just seems to be an insane amount of partisanship that makes things worse, and no way to cross the aisle and bridge the gap.

I will say that despite all the issues I have with the Chinese government, I will not say that "authoritarian governments are bad" full stop. I used to think like that. I don't anymore after realizing how the world is not so black and white. If we demonize a third party, it is easier to not understand the third party. The people responsible for deradicalizing ISIS converts that ran away from Europe are able to understand deeper root causes. They don't just hate people for joining ISIS, nor do they just simply hate ISIS. They are able to understand the other side, and it is because of their expansive knowledge and empathy that they are able to communicate with such people.

As Ender Wiggin once said: "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."

Martin Jacques is an excellent scholar who I think understands China really, really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw

[dave_sullivan]

> I will not say that "authoritarian governments are bad" full stop. I used to think like that. I don't anymore after realizing how the world is not so black and white. If we demonize a third party, it is easier to not understand the third party.

I just don't buy this moral relativism.

In some societies, it's ok to beat your wife. But I think to normalize this behavior as a simple difference in cultural practices would be doing a disservice to the global political discourse and the larger concept of human rights.

Concepts like "due process" and "freedom of speech" are maybe less clear cut than "Is it ok to beat your wife?" But are they really? I think every society ought to have those things. They are major political innovations to come about over the last few hundred years. To do otherwise would be a regression. Yes that's a judgment. So is "beating your wife isn't ok". Understanding why someone beats their wife doesn't make it better either. It's just something that you shouldn't do.

As far as governments, disappearing people for saying mean things about the president is something that they shouldn't do. There's nothing to understand, they just shouldn't do it. I don't think this should be a controversial opinion. It's possible to understand different cultures while still standing up for what I would consider to be basic human rights and due process. I'm lucky I can do that from here, because to do so in China would be a jailable offense.

[PakG1]

I don't disagree with your logic. But I have come to believe no government is innocent either, though some countries are more guilty than others. I am not defending the Chinese government. I am saying it doesn't help to paint them as 100% evil because of some practices with which I really disagree and label to be terrible, because then I'd have to paint most countries as 100% evil. Even if it's true, it's not productive and only escalates the tension, which is a shame because there are good things we can also teach each other. But I'm also not saying pull a Neville Chamberlain and give up what I think is right for "peace in our time". It's complicated and thank goodness you and I are not the diplomats that need to take care of foreign relations with China on behalf of our western countries (I presume you're from a western country).

Change it from beat your wife to spank your children in clear cases of wanton disobedience to make my logic easier to digest. I wouldn't spank my future kids. My wife definitely won't, and she has an even stronger opinion than I do on it. But my parents spanked me when I misbehaved. Did that make them bad parents? Should I paint them evil? If I want them to change for when they babysit my future kids, does it help to paint them evil? It certainly won't open any dialogs. It would close the dialog. And understanding why they spanked me from a cultural and historical perspective allows me to better have that dialog with them.

Look, my original point was simply this: I reported that many of my Chinese friends did not feel horrified or afraid of their government. Though they know there are issues, they are for the most part satisfied. We've really gone on a tangent to talk about some of my own opinions, but I do think it's always good to have dialog with others anyway.

[PakG1]

>> I do know a bit about Chinese history and their government's decisions do make sense in historical context (as did Stalin's decisions), but they are still bad decisions made by practically evil people.

When I talk about how Chinese history affected my understanding of current Chinese government policies, I am talking about 5000 years of Chinese history, not the small blip that is post-Mao.