[cenophor]

> I've heard from various Mainland Chinese people: that many of them thinks western media brainwashes us (think the thing about Olympic photo coverage of Chinese medalists) and many condemn westerner take on social matters (the US' handling of [COVID], for example, is seen as a "proof" that the our infatuation with freedom has severe failings).

That's clearly anecdotal because I worked and lived there for a year recently and what you said is only what *some* of them think.

I have spoken to many people, particularly those who are yonung and educated, who don't think like what you have said. Many people are also very eager to speak to foreigners about their governments and, in some extreme cases, they openly criticize their own for exactly the same reasons that much of the HN crowd probably would. Also, I was just a regular worker who wasn't anyone's boss, and I spoke to them in Chinese.

I'm not interested in debating against anecdotes with more anecdotes, but I think what you said is not the whole story of "their side" and is potentially manipulative even if it wasn't your intention to be.

I also don't think "authoritarian" is a loaded word, it's just an indication of how likely or unlikely someone is willing to work with others openly. The important thing is what to do to fix it, hopefully, together, after realizing what the issues could be, not toning in down and making everyone comfortable with some illusions in the first place.

[lhorie]

> I think you said is not the whole story

Right, that's why I said "Many chinese".

What I'm reacting to is the general tone that the CCP just forces draconian measures down everyone's throats as if no one could possibly ever agree, but also not dare speak up. What I mean is that the characterization that the whole populace just puts up with crap is a bit inaccurate because there are in fact supporters, just like there are both supporters and detractors to controversial government decisions on this side of the pond.

As someone else pointed out, these initiatives get passed precisely because there's enough support for it at some relevant branch of government, rather than being some sort of dictatorial whim of the party leader. And this process doesn't strike me as being super different from the way our democratically elected representatives bring up new bills.

[cenophor]

> Right, that's why I said "Many Chinese".

No offense but I used to do this and I now think of it as a means of lying to myself that I have covered myself from the "edge cases" that don't support my obviously non-neutral arguments.

> And this process doesn't strike me as being super different from the way our democratically elected representatives bring up new bills.

This is the reason that I disagree with the rest of what you said.

There are no democratic elections in China, and the people who often end up making decisions for everyone else are selected and groomed to do that *according to the party's values* early on in life. What that means is that you won't be making any decisions in the first place if they feel that your values and motives do not, or have a chance that they will not, align with the part's interest.

So who gets in? It's people who are truly patriotic (and probably getting exploited for that), people with the relevant lineage, or mostly people who are just in it for career progression, power and money because the states control so much that you just simply can't advance without being part of the party.

In non-authoritarian countries you often have some means of recourse, including putting pressure on the government with media, if the government screws up. You can't even disagree with the CCP to begin with because the means of communication for most people are censored by the government. There are literally laws that the government can punish you with even if you just remotely disagree with the government.

Most people just want to live a normal life and value their assets and family above all. The country is generally growing well economically, so there are no real reasons for them to risk what they have in exchange for some intangible idealistic things that they have never experienced. This is literally the citizens self-policing themselves because control is deliberately built into every layer.

It is super different.

People literally do not dare to speak up, it's not anti-CCP people making up antagonistic stories.

> because there are in fact supporters, just like there are both supporters and detractors to controversial government decisions on this side of the pond.

I'm sure there are in fact supporters for pervasive control and surveillance in the name of protecting children and society. However, at least on "this side of the pond" we can oppose it without fearing any repercussions from the government. I can trash the policy all I like on any social media platform I want, I can write opinion pieces and submit to newspapers, I can organize groups to oppose the policy — all without fearing repercussions from the government. Can you do any of that under the CCP?

Get a piece of paper, divide it into acceptable and unacceptable, write down the things that fall into each category that align with your core values, then come back to read your arguments.

If you don't think there are any contradictions, great. If there are, perhaps there is nothing wrong with "the general tone" that you find problems with.

[lhorie]

Your description sounds pretty on point with what I've observed as well, and I want to clarify that I'm not defending China nor trying to belittle the very real differences between China and US ideology.

To try to address the root of your objection: the main difference IMHO is the idea of disagreeing/activism being based on notions of arbitrary freedom vs the one-way-or-highway approach being based on a notion that there is such a thing as "what's good for you". I think there are good and bad examples of both approaches/outcomes, both in this thread and various recent news topics (e.g. your point about how freedom of speech is a good thing(tm) vs the whole "mah freedom" thing backfiring royally as far as Covid goes)

If we look from this angle, neither ideology really "wins unequivocally", so I don't think I should get to call which framework is ethically acceptable or unacceptable. Instead, I'm trying to call out biases - particularly westerner-leaning ones given that this is a westerner forum talking about an article from a westerner source that quotes western-sympathetic ideas while conveniently not extending the favor to the other side. If you scroll around, you may notice that there are several comments effectively crying "dictatorship", and many failing to grasp the nuance about how this specific policy affects companies more so than children per se, mirroring an overarching anti-China narrative that I've been seeing a lot of lately. If I felt that the reporting was truly unbiased and accurate and that people were interpreting it with unbiased lenses, I wouldn't be taking the position I am here (I am, in fact, largely playing devils' advocate, as my own personal opinions fall more in line with westerner sensibilities)

[seanmcdirmid]

It depends on your environment. Say if you are at a university or something with students it will be very different than if you are working for a tech company with your Chinese co-workers. Also, southerners tend to be less nationalistic than northerners, so if you are in Beijing it is very different than if you are in Shanghai or Shenzhen (though if you are working at a tech company, your co-workers will be from all over China).

I've had co-workers who were really harmonious river crab, and some that were very non-harmonious grass mud horse...all in the same team. Outside of work, I didn't really talk about politics at all, it just never seemed to be that important beyond a lunch topic.

China was going in the right direction under Hu, if only because Hu was a weak leader. The authoritarian uptick really came back with Xi, and now that Xi has basically become president for life, it is really reinforced. It is a bit disheartening to see China move to being more liberal to more authoritarian all in a few short years. The trend probably won't change for a generation or two.

[cenophor]

> It depends on your environment. Say if you are at a university or something with students it will be very different than if you are working for a tech company with your Chinese co-workers.

That's what I thought before I went there but it turned out to not be the case. What I am about to say is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt.

I actually worked in Beijing. The work I did involved both tech companies and students, and I took the time outside of work to mingle with the locals at restaurants and shops. The amount of people who don't agree with the government was generally "surprisingly" high across all groups.

I should also point out that I never took the initiative to talk about politics, so in all cases it was either people being curious about the culture outside of China or, presumably, I was an outlet for them because I was clearly not affiliated with the government in any way.

I'm just going to leave it at that because anything I say past this point are even more subjective opinions.

[seanmcdirmid]

I was at Microsoft China from 2007 to 2016 in Zhongguancun, so I probably had similar experiences to you (we had lots of interns as well from local and nation-wide universities).

Politics eventually comes into play, but it was more likely we would talk about the Great Firewall, or some kid getting arrested by the party police during a rave, things like that. Politics came into play when there was some heated event, like the South China Sea dispute, that someone (usually more nationalistic) was really passionate about in the moment.

[eunos]

>the right direction under Hu, if only because Hu was a weak leader

Seems you imply that the right direction for China is having weak leader, which historically it was disaster. That aside, lots of the ugly things on China you heard like airpocalypse, corruption, inequality and weak governance expanded steply under Hu, so there's that.