The Mainland Rhetoric

| June 8th, 2011

lecture

"It seems to me that every mainland and Hong Kong exchange event would turn into a mainland losing face event eventually." I stated, holding my microphone in a auditorium filled with around 500 other mainland students participating in a such event.

These hundreds of students were from several mainland universities enjoying their cultural/social/intellectual exchange tour in Hong Kong. The last event on their schedule that day was to watch this award winning documentary, and to have a question and answer session with the director. The documentary was about the very young piano genius. It has showed how proud he is with himself and how different he was from other kids. After the screening dozens of hands were in the air quickly.

One humble speaking young man started his question by saying things like "Dear director thank you so much for this wonderful piece of art. I really learned a lot" but then he went on talking about his own thoughts and problems in college life. Three long minutes later he finally came up with a unrelated question which I forgot now. In fact I forgot his question that night.

Another question was from a young female teacher with a similar empty praising start. She mainly talked about her problems of being a young college teacher, which I think was more suitable for pillow talk rather than formal event like this.

Finally it was my turn, here is what I said. "It seems to me that every mainland and Hong Kong exchange event would turn into a mainland losing face event eventually. Tonight is not exception. Most of the questions are about your own personal life which are not even remotely related to the documentary we watched tonight. I wonder how many people have really watched it tonight. Can’t we ask question because we are curious not because we want to show off?…" My voice was shaking in the end and I only received a handful of applaud.

That humble young man replied almost immediately. He became louder and more emotional. His comeback end with an classic term "I believe…!" The crowd applauded and cheered for their hero, louder than they did for the documentary. I escaped the scene.

What frustrate me that day was the familiar mainland rhetoric. The first one is to start your question with unnecessary long and almost often empty praising words. The second one is filling one’s ignorance with unrelated personal thoughts. The third one is using "I believe!" and louder voice instead of logic and evidence.

As a mainland Chinese myself I know there are many more than the above three. Our way of speaking was once something I took for granted but now in Hong Kong it became dramatically more oblivious and awkward for me. I cannot stop wondering why are they still practicing the same way to speak when they are now in a completely different environment.

I encountered a classic CCTV newscast rhetoric in a seminar held by HKMGA, Hong Kong Mainland Graduates Association. It was a seminar about the then to be built high speed railway. One serious middle aged mainland man went:"The protest against the high speed railway is a conspiracy of a small group of people. They cannot represent Hong Kong people’s view. I hope the Hong Kong government can speed up and build this meaningful project."I was surprised by his statement not just by how wrong it is but by how similar it is to a CCTV newscast statement. Just replace "The protest against high speed railway" with any sensitive word you want and you get a classic CCTV style explanation: everything is plotted by "a small group of people" and no one can "represent the people"(except the speaker). Yet this guy was not a CCTV newscaster but just another mainland man living in Hong Kong.

I got up and "asked", "To build this high speed railway or not is one thing. The protest of it is another. The protest not only serves for its obvious purpose of stooping the project but it can also help strengthening civil society and political awareness. Why are we mainlanders still see it as ‘a small group of people’? Why are we still using CCTV language? Why can’t we see the positive meaning of it? Do we mainlanders came to Hong Kong in vain?" The whole crowd turned to me as I was speaking and laughed and shake their heads.

Some audience surrounded me after the seminar. They spoke loudly and passionately. While I could not remember most of what they were saying but I did remember this one statement "We are from mainland China and did not enjoy most benefits Hong Kong people enjoys. The high speed railway is one thing we can take advantage of. So why not? Hong Kong government is rich." he could have said this earlier.

The latest encounter was during the Hong Kong film festival. After the screening of the well-received movie Guanyin mountain. One of the Actress, Sylvia Chang came to answer question, which like many Q&A sessions I attended, were mostly in mandarin. One question was rather professional. It was about the relationship between A&B in this movie. And A&B can be any pair of abstract and remotely related concepts such as hope and dreams, love and fears or passion and reality. In the end I did not get a chance to ask question but was "fortunate" enough to witness a very special question. A young man asked "There are many scene of train hitchhiking in this movie. You know this is dangerous and illegal". The audience laughed. Sylvia Chang answered with wit, "Well, life itself is dangerous" and then left the theatre. The audience laughed harder and cheered. I do not know this guy but we share the same background and speak the same Putonghua. So I laughed too but felt awkward at the same time as if the audience were laughing at me too.

Having watched too much CCTV may cause all these. It shaped how we speak. The recent internet phenomenon, the "high rank" young pioneer league member Huang Yibo, can speak like a typical government official and he is just 13 years old. Everyday at 7 o’clock. Every channel broadcasts CCTV newscast all of a sudden. There is nowhere to hide. Education shaped us too. There was a course lasting throughout our 6 years of middle school called "Moral principles and politics" , a course is a mix of Marx philosophy 101, socialist economy 101and socialist political science 101. Like our education, the solely depends on written test. The written test is not about thinking and expressing but about linking the given principles in the text book to the questions asked. If the question ask the student how to make the economy better. One should answer "according to Marxism philosophy. Material factor is the defining factor so we should firstly focus on material development…" Our thoughts are well practiced patterns and our answers are well recited text on the book. Having went through some of the reasons, I am now at loss. Should I be a critical bicultural observer or should I be a sympathetic cross-boarder mainland Chinese? Or should I just be thankful that I had lived in Hong Kong (or any other outside place)?

41 Comments | Leave a comment | Comment feed

  1. jc.yin says:

    “Everyday at 7 o’clock. Every channel broadcasts CCTV newscast all of a sudden. There is nowhere to hide”

    You know, there’s this magical thing called the “off” button on most TV’s, if you press it something wonderful happens. The TV turns off! No more CCTV all of a sudden! You should give it a try.

    • jack liu says:

      My dad won’t let me! But now since I am on my own I don’t even need a TV

    • aflame says:

      There’s also this magical thing called the public loudspeaker, which doesn’t have an “off” button.

      • kailing says:

        Agree with aflame. And also the TV in themetro and buses that will give the Xinwan Lianbo; most people is reading their phones, ipods, ipads, or listening to music or sleeping. Nevertheless CCTV Xinwen Lianbo is there for you…

  2. greenlight says:

    I think the blog is great and answers a lot of questions about the mainland china rhetoric. I myself have recently tried to avoid these blogs since the internet is said to be bad for you, but failed. I therefore believe that CCTV may be good for some, and I stand by that! I believe!

  3. Craig says:

    The thing that always bugs me is the typical news story on CCTV/Xinhua: that A has met with B and after several days of talks they’ve announced that they will “continue to speed up and improve X”, or “continue along the path of Y”. Utterly pointless, taking up valuable time that could be spent covering real news…

    And then there’s the identikit corporate and local government events, with cloned pop singers dozing their way through awful paeans to the motherland and a big banner with the slogan they always use: “better X, better life”.

    So I consider myself lucky to have mainland friends who are original thinkers…

  4. meh says:

    It’s to be expected. Didn’t Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong say that ‘critical thinking’ is not good for students before university? Well, most Chinese don’t go to university…

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ME19Ad01.html

  5. Yang says:

    After living in Britain for three years, I feel many friends around me who are from mainland still speak in a CCTV style, especially when they talk with westerners. No matter where they are, they just focus on the domestic issues, watching mainland TV programmes and news, never trying to look through the world around them. Their minds are shaped since they were born…

    Good things, we still have some people with an open-mind.

    • This is the defensive mind-set. A very common reaction when one moves from a closed environment to an open one–I’ve personal childhood experience with fundamentalist, religious sorts who had the same exact reaction upon leaving the cult/nest.

      I can well sympathize with the writer of this article; he is also attempting to cope with the shock–thankfully with quite a bit of self-consciousness. These other mainlanders he examines are sadly the norm when it comes to such reactions though. They’ve been fed one line their entire lives, and they’ll have to reconstruct their entire understanding of the world, humanity, the universe, and themselves before they can understand different perspectives, or forms of rhetoric. It’s a daunting prospect which probably dissuades most from even trying.

  6. Li Da Zhao says:

    I find that most Americans speak in what could be called “Foxnews” style or perhaps “NY Times” style. In this style the person talks as if China is an evil nation who starts wars, spread guns and porn or export financial ruin to the world…when we all know what nation really does that! For instance NY Times still writes articles claiming there was a “massacre” of “thousands” at Tiananmen when the US government itself in documents exposed to Wikileaks show they had known since 1989 that the “massacre” was around 150 protests dead and 50 security forces for a big total of less than 200 people! How many people does US kill every day in illegal air strikes on Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and beyond? Tell me that? The average American can only answer this with “NY Times Speech” where they say “We Number One! We Number One!”. Number One at what? Dropping bombs? Perhaps, perhaps…

    • Yi Fen Dang says:

      Since I’m in China, I will look for links to ‘Tiananmen Square’ to get the correct understand of what happen there. Wish me luck.

    • Voice of China says:

      Li Da Zhao,

      you are absolutely right. To add to it, I think its obvious that the blog writer is uneducated.

      How else can you explain why he starts off a speech by giving his mainland Chinese audience a big slap on the face? It goes against understanding the fundamentals of basic human psychology.

      The blog is a disingenuous attempt by the writer to negatively personify the character of mainland Chinese. The so called ‘mainland rhetoric’ is simply an adaptation of what is taught in the book ‘how to win friends and influence people’, which states the most effective form of communication by:

      – starting with praise – and avoid putting the receiver in a defensive stance
      – then put forward the opinion that you wish for the other person to accept

      The fact the writer fails to identify and apply these basic principles in his own negotiation and efforts to influence people can be reflected in his continual failure to cause anything but self-humiliation and rejection in all of his ‘attempt’s to speak in public. LOL.

      I find it incomprehensible why the blog writer takes offense to logical arguments and comes back not with a counter argument but an alternative argument which offers very little independent merit and certainly in no way deflects the original statement put forth. Not only is he making a strawman argument but he isn’t even hiding as one would expect someone with a reasonable level of intelligence.

      • Craig says:

        And… unclench!

        As for Li Da Zhao, you are absolutely not right. First off, most Americans I know would take huge offense at the idea that they’d celebrate civillians deaths with a chant of “we number one!” (sic). Not sure if you’d noticed, but the US is rougly split 50-50 on partisan political lines, but even among Republicans support for those wars is very much in the wane…

        As for T-square, good luck ever comprehending it…

      • voiceofchinka says:

        Of course hes right He bashed America!

        What country do you live in again!?!?!?

    • bomber says:

      This is a classic logic fail. You have not addressed the points brought up in the original post. Instead you have attempted to deflect attention away from the Author’s point by claiming, without evidence, that some other group is bad.

      Original argument:

      A does X

      Your argument:

      B does Y

      Conclusion, A is absolved of responsibility for X because B does Y… Totally unrelated.

      Also, the blog author cited specific and documented personal examples from his own life. You just rattled off a bunch of shit about how you ‘feel.’

      Lastly, if you ever actually talk to Americans, you will find that many despise the wars, hate the bombings and death, and are deeply bitter about the country’s current situation. Ask a typical (note: not ALL) Chinese about Tibet or Taiwan, however, and any sign of a rational, thinking person vanishes and emotional, robotic rhetoric spews forth.

      If someone was to say to an American : “You know, America is fucked up. These wars are killing lots of people.” you would expect a range of responses – anything from “Fuck you, America, Fuck yeah!” to “I hear ya, but we gotta get those terrorists.” to “I agree these wars are terrible.” to “Fuck the American government and their war-mongering and bloodshed!”

      The difference, is the discourse. Not ALL foreigners are thinkers, but many are. There are civil and established ways of discussing things, and generally fallacies such as appeals to emotion / fear / authority / status quo / etc., non-sequiturs, red herrings, ad hominum, post hoc, etc. are meant to be avoided and not used triumphantly. but hey, one look at American politics would reveal that Americans are still constantly fooled by this empty rhetoric, but hey, whatev.. peace

      • meh says:

        Thank you for the breakdown.

        This fallacy always comes up when I talk to mainland Chinese students. Li Da Zhao, the US wasn’t mentioned in the article, and the US is culturally distant from mainland China. Perhaps you should have focused on how Taiwan, HK, or even Singapore Chinese differ in debate and discussion.

        I’ll add that you can hardly find a crowd of European or American expats rallying to support contentious policy like wars in the countries in which they reside. Contrast this with mainland Chinese living in Europe, America and elsewhere, who often mobilize to support all contentious PRC policies. Often times if you confront them about it, they are quick to say you are racist because they think of the PRC as the sacred guardian of Chinese culture. I wonder where they get this from?

        I must say, in my experience, mainland Chinese are usually very nice people, but in a rally they are just as crazy, emotional, and illogical as fanatic Muslims who chant for death because of a perceived threat to their culture.

    • If Li Da Zhao honestly can’t differentiate between Fox News and the New York Times, it’s really not surprising that he can’t differentiate between the myriad viewpoints available in American national discourse.

      It may indeed be a bit defensive of me to say this, but I find that Li Da Zhao’s viewpoint is common amongst the Chinese minor demographic that belongs to well-connected, wealthy families who move outside China for education and work opportunities only to be laid low by culture shock: “What, the rest of the world doesn’t have a 100% positive view of China? What, news media whose editorials consist of paeans to the greatness of the Communist Party, China’s 5,000 year history, and China’s perfect, harmonious society? What? What? What?”

      This culture shock, unfortunately, most often leads to a reflexive denial of everything that doesn’t fit with the narrative of China given them by family members complicit in the system. And who can blame these poor, wealthy chauvinists? They are merely representing their elitist demographic: given BMWs, solid state jobs and easy opportunities to invest and build fortunes of their own, of course they attack any who question that status quo.

      • correction, *don’t consist of paeans…

        • Voice of China says:

          The American media mouthpiece is collectively owned by a few wealthy elitists who together have a monopoly over the flow of information to the American public. Together it is used as a tool to control the collective interests of themselves and to serve the purposes of their puppet regime government.

          Research has shown that freedom of speech is often more restricted in democratic societies – with Singapore as an example. America is another one based on biased reporting of events shaped to coincide with the xenophobia and supporting their oppressive regime of conquest on weaker nations.

          Most readers including Jones Jr are showing typical symptoms of insecurity mixed with fear and contempt that countries like China refuse to ‘conform’ with the traditional hierarchy based on white supremacy. As well as the deviation from what he “perceives” to be normal based on his view on white culture and the vilification of China and its resident’s as per the American media.

          Of course, it could also be that Jones Jr is simply uneducated, since he is throwing words he doesn’t understand. For example, that Chinese in general are inherently chauvinist – (which adds no merit to the argument) or claiming that they are poor and rich in the same sentence.

          I can only blame it on the American state media, which inherently vilifies China unnecessarily. Sometimes calling China – ‘communist china’ with the word ‘communist’ providing no real contextual or adjectival use in the context of the sentence its used. You don’t see China calling America “Democratic America’ do you?

          All in all a terrible attempt by the author to communicate with the public, a poorly written and not well thought out argument prone to criticism, and the usual trolls banking in to write their opinion on why Chinese are so bad. All this is typical of an English blog that translates Chinese news. With the target demographic audience being generally consisting of:

          – People who have mental disabilities – Korean_guy?
          – People who have or are continually rejected in Chinese society – e.g Korean_guy again
          – Self deluded, quasi-academics – Eg. Jones Jnr
          – Chinese girls who are dating/married with a white guy, trying to justify their decision, while being bored at home and trying to direct traffic to their failure of a site – Eg. ??

          And then there’s me – the guy that earns more than you, is much more academically qualified and who is on here to get a weekly laugh at what trash has accumulated in the comments section.

          P.s I also find it equally entertaining to see:

          a.) How angry some commentators get
          b.) How frustrated quasi-academics are when they realize they simply can’t argue with logic and resort to ad-hominem attacks.

          Please, keep me entertained :)

          • voiceofchinka says:

            You forgot dipshits like you who sold out for a foreign passport and praise the CCP while enjoying citzenship and human rights in other countries. Kill yourself.

          • Please do read what you’ve written again. Hypocrisy much? Ad hominems and misreadings abound.

            You start with a false comparison: Singapore is not typically considered a paragon of democracy or free speech–don’t forget to cite which research, btw, or you can’t even aspire to the status of a quasi-academic.

            Certainly I won’t claim that American media is perfectly immune to populist, chauvinist, or corporate bias, but I just have to laugh at your suggestion that it’s worse than the one-sided garbage to be found at CCTV, China Daily, or Global Times, amongst all the other government mouthpieces existing in mainland China. Who do you think you’re kidding? It’s like the CCP version of Fox News, Fox News, and nothing but Fox News, without even the option of opposing biased viewpoints to balance things out, or uncensored blogs to call them on their mistakes.

            You move on to try and create a false link between racism and the various checks and balances currently lacking in mainland China’s government.

            If you wish to go out on a limb to suggest that all whites fear non-democratic hierarchies perhaps it would also be fair to say that elite beneficiaries of exclusive hierarchies based on partisan and Han supremacy–such as youself?–fear and hold contempt for more transparent, accountable, accessible forms of government?

            Then you move on to the meat of your argument: ad hominems against me. “Uneducated”, “quasi-academic” “self-deluded”, blah, blah, blah. As you provide no proof, I’ll ignore the intentional misdirection. I will, however, address some of your “honest” mistakes.

            First, I suggested the generalization that poor (as in, unfortunate), wealthy elitists have an incentive towards chauvinistic mind-sets, defensive of the status quo that has given them a life of luxury. You mis-characterize this generalization as to apply it to all Chinese. Clearly this was not my intention, but I can understand how you would be confused, given that CCP propaganda continually (intentionally) makes the mistake of conflating criticism of the Chinese government/elite with criticism of the Chinese people or the Chinese civilization as a whole.

            As I live and work in China, I’m quite well aware that the views of fenqing, the government, and the elite are just one more minority viewpoint in a stew pot full of them. It is this very multiplicity of perspectives–most unrepresented or underrepresented in government and media–that feeds the notion that China would benefit from democracy and freer media.

            Finally, you apparently can’t resist the urge to end with yet more ad hominems (I suppose KoreanGuy might actually deserve them in the sense that a troll deserves a troll) and some pointless self-aggrandizement–I suppose you also have four supermodels as mistresses and drive a flying Ferrari that occasionally transforms into a mechanical mastodon for the crushing of your foes.

            I suppose you are *a* voice of China, but thank goodness you’re not truly *the* voice of China.

            Note to other readers: look up the word ‘Chauvinist’ in the dictionary. You’ll soon see why ‘Voice of China’ was so quick to disparage this apropos adjective/noun. After all, we should definitely see chauvinists/jingoists/fenqing as serious purveyors of logical arguments as well as truly representative of all citizens of their respective countries.

            • Read the final sentence as sarcastic irony, by the way. I wouldn’t want anyone to be confused.

            • Voice of China says:

              Jones,

              I write here because I enjoy laughing at the stupidity of pseudo intellectuals like yourself – the word ‘quasi academic’, which I used earlier was a bit too gentle ;)

              Perhaps Singapore isn’t a paragon of democracy. Perhaps China isn’t a paragon of communism. Or Perhaps it was just an example I gave off the top of my head. Would you be a good boy and find me the page which the collective indexes? No, I didn’t think so. And neither will I, because it’s not necessary. Are we done here?

              The American mouthpiece is at least as biased as the CCPs. Fox news, CNN, and a number of others (which I can’t even remember now) are just examples. One only has to look at press coverage of the ever notorious and yet praised? oppressor the Dalai Lama to see America’s media bias. You’ll be lucky to find 1 article out of 1000 that shows his link with nazi germany, his funding by the CIA, his reign of fedualism when he was in Tibet. No opposing views whatsoever.

              The anglo fear of China is self evident in the number of political stances the United States has taken including many disingenuous attempts to vilify China through media, to which China has mitigated to some extent by censoring news and effective use of their own media.

              However, the fear of China isn’t purely political. Most countries, and their residents would fear that their power is being usurped by a developing nation. To some extent, fear and contempt by the United States is merely incidental to China’s growth and is understandable.

              Since you are creating a strawman argument, let’s visit it. The ideology that anglo-democratic nations fear non-democratic nations is self prevalent both as a norm in society with the word ‘communism’ having a negative connotation despite being related to socialism which has to do with catering to the collective interest of the nation.

              Let’s go back to the various wars that the US has participated to stop communism. Interfering with the sovereignty of nations in the guise of a mission to stop communism and to create ‘domino effect’ so that every communist nation is destroyed. Come on, they don’t teach you that in school?

              – So no, while there is a genuine basis to which you suggest that I’m saying there is an anglo fear of non-democratic nations. The same reasoning does not at all apply to han supremacy.

              – And No, building strawmen arguments and then using false reasoning to create a logical fallacies does not make you a genius. It makes you look stupid – now go reread everything again so you understand what I’m teaching you.

              First, I suggested the generalization that poor (as in, unfortunate), wealthy elitists have an incentive towards chauvinistic mind-sets, defensive of the status quo that has given them a life of luxury. You mis-characterize this generalization as to apply it to all Chinese. Clearly this was not my intention, but I can understand how you would be confused, given that CCP propaganda continually (intentionally) makes the mistake of conflating criticism of the Chinese government/elite with criticism of the Chinese people or the Chinese civilization as a whole.

              Let’s revisit your post: you state Li Dao Zhao’s view is common towards a minor demographic of wealthy families, blah blah blah… Then you claim ‘they have an incentive towards chuavanims… etc etc’.

              Considering you haven’t really established Li Dao Zhao’s identiy and just assume any Chinese person who can speak English on this blog is a wealthy, chauvinistic, person who protects China no matter what the cost, then I maintain my position despite your intellectual dishonesty.

              Wait, let me go back, in your first comment, didn’t you essentially state the same thing about the general chinese population without the words ‘chauvinist, poor/rich’ on the general population. Tsk Tsk Tsk…

              Jones, You may live and work in China, but the fact you have shown yourself to be a narrow minded pseudo intellectual makes me cast serious doubts on your qualifications.

              Working as an accountant in a small business does not mean you have a thorough understanding of the government, the elite, fenqing. Using the word “Dr” next to your name as if it means anything is laughable and shows your insecurity and need to sell your own arguments not based on merit but on a title based on a qualification which may or may not exist.

              I comment on this site purely for laughs when I’m bored, or procastinating. Ad hominem attacks are fun when guys like you take it to heart. The fact is I’m playing with your head. I can do it using your own game while being blatantly honest with what I think.

              My handle ‘voice of china’ is very appropriate. Haven’t you heard, I have a status of a god within the Chinese commentator crowd to the dismay of idiots like yourself. Do you really think someone who is articulate, bilingual and educated as myself wouldn’t know the minds of my fellow Chinese. You have to be kidding right?

              • Seeing as very few Chinese laobaixing can actually access this site, due to censorship and the language barrier, I feel fairly confident in my assumptions about both you and Li Dao Zhao. I could be wrong, as there are no absolute guarantees on the internet, but it seems to me that the simplest answer (usually the correct one, no?) is that the Chinese who are outside China are most likely to be posting on English-language websites made inaccessible by CCP censorship (that was the point of the censorship, was it not?), and Chinese who are outside China–and with excellent English, no less–are extremely likely to be elite, wealthy Chinese who benefit from a status quo that does not similarly benefit all Chinese. Your boasting doesn’t exactly hurt my case, either, even if we can’t guarantee that you are being honest in your boasts.

                Sadly, being articulate, bi-lingual, and educated does suggest that you have lived a pampered life compared to most Chinese: thus, that it’s highly unlikely you understand the thoughts and concerns of ordinary Chinese. Furthermore, you have incentive to misrepresent them, as so-called ‘voice of China’ as your continuing privilege is at odds with their needs.

                At least you’re honest enough to admit, now that I’ve pointed it out, that your posts are rife with ad hominems. Do you really want to be no better than KoreanGuy?

                You merely project your own faults on others. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and then put up Singapore as a prime example of how free media works in a democracy? You claim it’s not necessary to research your chosen example because it’s ‘just an example [you] gave off the top of [your] head’? So not only do you know/care little of the ordinary Chinese people, but you know little of the varieties of democratic governments in the world. Thanks for admitting that you are just talking out of your ass.

                Your goal, openly stated to be trolling, only detracts from the credibility of your “blatantly honest” opinions. I could go point by point through my responses to these opinions, but your description of the Dalai Lama alone demonstrates that you are not interested in a balanced critique of him, much less any of the other issues that beset China.

                As for being “Dr. Jones Jr.”, perhaps you should watch some classic Hollywood movies. It’s an inside joke, not a claim to academic greatness. I am, however, always happy to debate.

                Question: If a troll is deified on a censored website, does anyone care?

                • Voice of China says:

                  it seems to me that the simplest answer (usually the correct one, no?)

                  Citing Occam’s razor does really help your case.

                  Most Chinese internet users have been using proxies and vpns for years. How can you be up to date with Chinese society, when you can’t even keep up with old technology.

                  Further not all Chinese immigrants in overseas countries are wealthy elites driving BMWs. Selectively choosing a target demographic under the guise of a a logical fallacy is ludicrous.

                  Sadly, being articulate, bi-lingual, and educated does suggest that you have lived a pampered life compared to most Chinese

                  Again, another logical fallacy. So your reasoning is that education requires money. Money allows one to live comfortably. Therefore because I am educated, I must be pampered. Come on.. really?

                  Do you really want to be no better than KoreanGuy?

                  Korean guy has a mental illness. His parents were beaten to death in front of him when he was 12. He was sent to China to work illegally in a toy factory where he was found by American missionaries and sent to the United States as a refugee. Please don’t compare me to Korean_guy.

                  You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and then put up Singapore as a prime example of how free media works in a democracy? You claim it’s not necessary to research your chosen example because it’s ‘just an example [you] gave off the top of [your] head’? So

                  Singapore is an example of a democratic society with extremely high levels of censorship and restrictions of freedom of speech. How is bringing it up being intellectual dishonest?

                  So not only do you know/care little of the ordinary Chinese people, but you know little of the varieties of democratic governments in the world.

                  Caring about ordinary Chinese people and knowing about them are not synonymous in meaning.

                  Knowing about democratic governments is also not related at all to caring or about ordinary Chinese people. Your attempt at a strawman argument is again FOILED.

                  Further, in no way did I demonstrate any interest in discussing the types of democracy with you. So in essence, your sentence made no sense and was full of fail.

                  our description of the Dalai Lama alone demonstrates that you are not interested in a balanced critique of him

                  My use of the Dalai lama as an example was not meant to be a “Balanced Critique”, it was to illustrate Western Media bias. If you wanted the other view, please go search google news, you won’t find anything else.

                  Now, do you actually have something useful to say or are you just a sucker for intellectual masochism?

                  • bomber says:

                    You see, what we have here is a problem of respect. VOC, where in your post did you address the point at issue in the article? At what point did it need to develop into the typical and intellectually lazy “China vs. The world” dichotomy. This dialectic is so exhausted and dull that it is quite tiresome to read through it again and again. I understand that you feel deep patriotism and love for your country. But please, do understand that China is just another country. It will continue to be the subject of criticism and praise so long as it continues to exist.

                    Reacting with such anger and emotion during an argument embarrasses you and detracts from the point you are trying to make. I struggle to see in any of your writing in this thread a cogent, well-reasoned rebuttal to the comments in the original article.

                    You accuse others of committing logical fallacy, while continuously deploying the red-herring, taking the issue from where it originated (the rhetorical style of mainland Chinese students at a university in Hong Kong as noted by a student there) and turned it into the argument that you want to have, namely, that since other countries are bad, China is therefore absolved of wrongdoing or embarrassing conduct.

                    Perhaps you fool yourself by boxing everything up into this dialectic, but I assure you the readers of this blog, though they may not all be responding, are aware of it, too. In fact, it is the silence which speaks volumes, but perhaps you don’t understand western culture as well as you claim to?

                    • Voice of China says:

                      Bomber,

                      based on your previous comments, I’ve already ascertained that you aren’t really worthy of a response.

                      But But seeing as I’m feeling generous, and you keep lurking here begging for my attention. It might make you feel significant, but just this once. Haha.

                      where in your post did you address the point at issue in the article

                      The very first comment I made.

                      If you read carefully, you’ll see I’m insinuating the whole article is based on non sequitur and logical fallacies.

                      The mainland rhetoric does not exist. The verbal technique of starting with praise is not unique to CCTV.

                      Saying that everyone who knows how to ‘win friends and influence people’ must follow cctv is simply incorrect.

                      At what point did it need to develop into the typical and intellectually lazy “China vs. The world” dichotomy.

                      I didn’t, I merely responded to the comments left in this section where pseudo intellectuals such as Jones, begged me to address.

                      I understand that you feel deep patriotism and love for your country.

                      My comments do not reflect patriotism. The fact you would derive such a tone, is merely incidental to my criticism of the United States. I am merely being objective in my comments, neither praising nor criticizing China in the process.

                      I struggle to see in any of your writing in this thread a cogent, well-reasoned rebuttal to the comments in the original article.

                      Because your intellectual capacity for comprehension is low. I’ve reproduced a summarised version of my first comment above.

                      Further, most of my comments have been to entertain myself with humiliating people like you :)

                      You accuse others of committing logical fallacy, while continuously deploying the red-herring, taking the issue from where it originated

                      Being able to regurgitate the title of the various types of fallacies is a useful skill to have.

                      But you clearly haven’t adopted how to apply them to the case in point. Try and grow the mental capacity to distinguish between:

                      1.) comments directed at commentators
                      2.) comments directed at the article

                      If you read carefully, you might be able to tell when I’m doing 1 and when I’m doing 2. If I am doing 1, then there is no red herring arguments or strawmen, or whatever word you want to pluck out of google.

                      Like right now, I’m addressing 1, and why you are stupid. This comment is not a red-herring argument merely because it has nothing to do with the article; it is not intended to be directed at the article. Do you understand?

                      Similarly, my agreement with Li Da Zhao, and the following argument Jones brought up to which I destroyed is not a red herring. Do you now understand? Good boy.

                      silence which speaks volumes, but perhaps you don’t understand western culture as well as you claim to?

                      How old are you? I used to play these games when I was about 12. How about I proclaim that if Key doesn’t say anything, then he is on my side? :D:D:D Seriously……

                      Now, don’t nerd rage on me Bomber. Take a deep breath and get away from the screen. Refrain from responding with a four page essay. As I said, I felt generous today. In all honesty, retards like you and gook_guy don’t deserve responses and you might not get another one, depending on how I feel :)

                    • Voice of China says:

                      One other thing Bomber, before I leave you to rage.

                      I am confident that your ethnicity is Korean, regardless of what citizenship you currently hold.

                      You can take it as an insult, you can deny it depending on how highly you regard your bloodline.

                      And it’s not just a random guess. Koreans tend to have the worst case of inferiority complex, yearning for acceptance and a false sense of objectivity.

                      Your comments scream of all three characteristics with the addition of stupidity. It’s disgusting. Tell me I’m wrong and you’re not Korean or lie and forsake your own pride by being too embarrassed to admit it. No-one will know anyway since its the internet.

                      Or you could not say anything. In which I can just play your game and equate silence as agreement. LOL.

      • expatrick says:

        I agree with you. Chinese people have no logic or reasoning – they are a complete waste of air and space. How dare they criticize the west when they don’t even have FREEDOM?

        Everyone knows that the CCP is ruled by 1 ruthless dictator that forces people to worship him. I’m so sick of those slit eyes criticizing the West! WE BROUGHT THEM CIVILZATION WHEN THEY WERE STILL LIVING IN CAVES.

    • haha says:

      .Its pretty simple. If these countries dont want American gov/foreign policy there…..STOP TAKING OUR FUCKING MONEY…

  7. Jane says:

    Everytime I read a co-worker’s script or article, it always started something like ‘Spring is here, birds are singing, flowers are fragrant……’ I almost started to believe this is mainland Chinese literature. They also believe when shouting louder they can eventually beat you. When I had the ‘privilege’ to train them, even after I asked them to feel free to throw in anything they wanted to say, they just sat there and wrote down every word that came out of my mouth. Sometimes I just want to snatch their pens and paper and throw them away.

  8. fireworks says:

    Has to do with the mind numbing education system which emphasize on ROTE learning (being told instead of ask questions or challenge the professors) rather than fact finding, developing a opinion or discourse based on reasoning or based on philosophy or scientific view points. Its only when people get alternative education system and they start to learn how to learn or research and come to a conclusion.

  9. EastinWest says:

    No matter what Voice of China says he cannot dispute the fact that in in the US I can openly critize the government for whatever reason I want, and back in mainland I will be arrested. There is no freedom in China, there is no hope in China unless you are rich.

    I cannot “make it” in China as a hard worker and honest person unless I have guanxi. In America I can make enough money to support family and have some left over for travel or fun things.

    Chinese people are rude and intolerant, yes, because the Communist government has created that atmosphere. Chinese people are intolerant of other races and nationalities because the Communist government has closed us off from real education and more neutral world views.

    Anyone who defends the Chiense government is not well informed of the horrible things the Chiense government does to it’s own people just to keep secrets.

    Hey Voice of China, go try to find out how many children have been kidnapped and sold into slavery in mainland China. You won’t be able to because the central government has said this is a state secret. At least in America this almost never hapens to a child, and when it does it makes headline news all over the country.
    Hey Voice of China, how many people in America are forced to sell a kidney? Hey Voice of China, how many people in America eat oil that came from the sewer? Hey Voice of China, how many people in America stand and watch an old person die in the street because they are afraid to help for a fear of being blamed and sued for helping?

    You can defend and argue economic policy all the day, but you can never, never in a million years compare China to America when it comes to treating their citizens fairly and justly.

  10. angelus512 says:

    I am living in Shanghai for the last 4 years so far. I enjoy living here and there are lots of great things. Unfortunately the people are not one of them. As one poster pointed out earlier “Korean Guy?” I think.
    China is evil. Not in a traditional sense but spend a few months here and imagine if the rest of the world behaved and thought like these Chinese mindless zombies do?

    My god now that is an apocalypse……imagine a world overrun with these racist, internally focused carpet spitters? And every 2nd person can cultivate a nose picking nail on their pinky for fun. Seriously, nothing better than cro-magnon man here.

    • Well Said says:

      And angelus512, keep in mind that Shanghai is one the 5 first-tier cities that the Central government points to as an example of modern, sophisticated China… lol

      The most backward and rural place in the US/Canada/UK is fourteen-thousand times more civilized than Shanghai, Shenzhen, Xiamen, etc, and I love it when I hear the Chinese say “well, we’re a developing nation!” as if that excuses the truly awful and mind-blowing things that happen here. Like that one guy said, people that stand and watch an old guy die on the street because they refuse to help really is the epitome of a country that just plain doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything.

      • angelus512 says:

        Dont forget “well said” that they have 4,000+ years of continuous culture!!

        Wait what…?

        They’ve achieved so much…..

  11. wenwens says:

    Finden Sie gnstige Ferienh?user

  12. Bless you for this particular info I had been exploring all Bing to uncover it!

Leave a Comment


3 × three =

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. China: the Mainland Rhetoric · Global Voices
Kepard - Premium VPN Service

Latest Posts

Recent Comments

I would like to sell 75% of my liver & want to sell kidney or lung please contact me. My …» more

I know this is an old thread, but thought I'd try... I have a friend who married a Chinese woman …» more

Where are the articles by Anie Lee? I miss them! » more

you're truly a good webmaster. The site loading velocity is incredible. It kind of feels that you're doing any unique trick. …» more

Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! Han's clothing is WRONG!! qipao is for manzu =..= wth? » more

Subscribe by email

Enter your email address: