Ah, there it is. “What about the UK? What about the US? Hmmm?” We’re talking about China. The state being able to disappear people is not okay anyway, which includes China, where it seems to happen a lot more frequently than other countries.
This is such a ridiculous framing, so in your opinion by this logic, if Xi was democratically elected by a free and fair election, and then proceeded to ban memes via a legislative branch that would be perfectly fine? I think what the UK is doing is equally shameful. This kind of "its ok when the west does it" type of narrative is why when I talk to Chinese students about censorship issues they can consistently point to Western censorship of topics with smugness.
"Oh but those things we ban here are anti-PC, so we are offended by them", sounds eerily similar to, "Oh but those things we ban here are anti-CCP, so we are offended by them".
There are two separate issues with China banning memes:
1. it's symptomatic of Xi's government being able to do anything it wants to (including killing people to harvest their organs) without any checks and balances
2. it violates our ideal of freedom of speech
One of those is a far more serious problem than the other. A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot.
>A democratic society can fix laws that don't live up to its ideals. A lawless, autocratic society cannot.
China has mechanisms to change laws but they have to be routed through the proper channels. From what I understand, individuals can complain all they want, as long as they don't organize outside of these designated channels.
This definitely pisses off the % of western governments that use "grassroots" movements as an attack vector to undermine unfavorable foreign governments.
To paraphrase Yakov Smirnoff: "USA and Soviet Union have same freedom. In USA I can I can drive to White House and complain about Reagan; in Soviet Russia I can also drive to Kremlin and complain about Reagan."
The only effective way to change laws is to organize. "you can change laws, but you can't organize to do so" is in effect saying you cannot change the laws. And that's by design -- China is an autocracy.
"Individuals can complain all they want, as long as it is in their own homes, with no more than two individuals present, and they must be blood-related."
1. The US has long operated offshore prisons where human rights are routinely abused (though harvesting organs is never a thing I've heard of happening in them)
2. The US routinely silences comedians when they're reported to say something impolite or against the grain - remember Kathy Griffin?
As per statements by the white house[2] and other branches[3] that twitter account is an official channel of US Government policy, I think this is reasonable and generally accepted[4].
This is such a ridiculous framing, so in your opinion by this logic, if Xi was democratically elected by a free and fair election, and then proceeded to ban memes via a legislative branch that would be perfectly fine?
I agree it's a bad idea to crush the will of the people under our feet and force them to bend to our will - which is why I completely disagree with your statement. I dislike China's government but I feel like America, with it's track record, really shouldn't start talking about how nice regime change would be.
For the time being, while the government may be autocratic, it is enforcing it's law and you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world where the rule of law rules harder.
Please expand on what this "Rule of Law" proper noun you're referring to is. I am quite curious how it is a thing that democratic societies can have while tyrannies must lack it and I reeeeally suspect that your distinction will fall under a No True Scotsman fallacy.
The difference is simply "rule of law" and "rule by law". Rule of Law means the law rules, and all laws apply to all people, without considering their wealth or connections or anything at all, other than their deeds and the law. Rule by Law means people use laws (and often selective enforcement of it) to rule over others.
e.g.
> The Rule of Law is an intrinsically abstract idea, which finds itself grounded in philosophical and moral conceptions. One of its most basic tenants is that all people, whether they be at the lowest level of citizenship or the highest, being the sovereign or government ruler, are all equal under the law itself. This means that no one is above the law, and any law that is broken should be equally punished across the board, regardless of status in society or local community.
> It is also associated with the concept of natural law, which basically claims that because we all belong to the larger human community, everyone must be treated under the same laws and possess the same rights.
vs.
> In contrast, Rule by Law is a concept that sees the governing authority as somehow being above the law, and has the power to create and execute law where they find it to be convenient, despite the effect it has on larger freedoms that people enjoy. To expand on this idea, rule by law is a method that governments and people in power use to shape the behavior of people, and in terms of governing a country, mass groups of people. This usually has the end goal of psychologically or forcefully persuading people to agree with policy decisions they otherwise would not agree with.
It is more about having a divided government. Many democratic societies have a separation between at least two, sometimes three branches of government, allowing for one to check the other. In the USA’s case, the judicial branch interprets law.
China lacks such separation, the judicial branch cannot check the power of the party/official class, they cannot interpret law and they definitely cannot enforce what the official don’t want to enforce (see China’s constitution that with freedom of speech, assembly, and so on...). By definition, this concentration of power is authoritarian, so these things go hand in hand.
But within the US we observed that the judiciary was hijacked by the congress with their failure to appoint a justice in a timely manner and lately the congress has been acquiescing to the executive - going against prior initiatives and momentum to stay in good political graces owing to the intense cult of personality over the executive.
I think from country to country the amount by which different branches check one another will vary - and I agree that stronger checks leads to a stronger government - I just disagree that this is a black and white issue rather than a grey one.
Are your interactions with the ruling sovereign within a given jurisdiction arbitrary or governed by Law?
Are the actions taken by the enforcement arm of the sovereign power fairly predictable according to the code of law they publish, or is there are there numerous uncodified “rules” you must also abide by?
Are political enemies executed or punished during regime changes, or are regime changes regular, peaceful and governed by law? Are the families of political enemies also punished?
Does the legislative power pass ex post facto laws or Bills of Attainder? Are property rights respected? Do laws pass through a formal process or at whim? Are Courts of Law and Equity independent?
Rule of law is not about whether the outcome in a particular case is good or bad, or whether a particular law is good or bad. It's about whether the outcome is arbitrary, and whether you have recourse when the outcome does not align with the law as written. When the state can arrest people and imprison them (or release them) arbitrarily, you don't have rule of law.
Does that mean if the law says the police have arbitrary discretion to decide who to imprison, then the outcomes align with the law as written and you still have rule of law?
How about if the law is written so strictly that everything is an offense, such that it's impossible to enforce on everyone, and you choose to not enforce it against people you like? Any case where it is enforced, you can still point to the law and say the outcome aligned with it.
And what if the law unequivocally says a certain group of people are slaves, is this justified simply because the outcome is not arbitrary and there is a codified rule of law? Whether the law is right or wrong does matter.
The relevant metric is whether you can reliably predict the outcome of almost any interaction with the government. If government actors are constrained by the law, you can reasonably predict what they will do. If the law is just a fig leaf, you won't be able to predict their behavior. No society is entirely autocratic or entirely governed by the rule of law, but they tend to cluster at one end or the other.
If I can predict that almost any interaction with the government will end in my destruction, that is not a sufficient standard of justice. The problem is not that chinese citizens can't predict the behavior of their government.
> So if the lady in China went down to the police station, called a lawyer, and got released 6 hours later, everything's ok?
If China elected Xi in a free and fair election, if they developed faster than light travel and clean fusion power then everything would definitely be ok!
But here in the real world I'd like to hear the story of this hypothetical Chinese lady who got a phone call, let alone a lawyer. Was she rich and a well connected communist party official? Or more likely this is just a made up happy fantasy, like warp drives?
It also scares me that so many people are willing to say, "At least we have the rule of law unlike that video." If the end result is exactly the same, that's scary.
But also, as long as somebody can show you horrendous atrocities happening elsewhere, you are willing to let minor local infractions of the rule of law stream by? Just show orphanages getting carpet bombed and it's not a big deal if we mistreat immigrants. Show immigrants getting mistreated and it's ok if we arrest homeless for sleeping in the park.
When I was young, Germans were bad guys. Then Russians. Then Chinese or North Koreans. Back to Russians. Or Mexicans. Or Canadians. Fight for justice in Africa. Feel safe and secure in your own benevolent democracy.
Watch two videos of the exact same behavior and excuse one of them because it is happening in a place that practices the rule of law. Condemn the other because of their voting system.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.