China, you're a disgrace.

[Humodour]

After peace prize, China targets winner's friends

(AP)

[Gorgon]

Sticks and stones. They need the guy to be a criminal, otherwise it would be on them. Even if it's not the same people in charge anymore.

[Walsingham]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

[Volourn]

China. China never changes.

[Gorgon]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

[Rostere]

I think it's peculiar to talk of a country in such a way. Let's just say that large (I think) parts of Chinese government are to blame for this. Don't forget that China is not essentially a democratic country, I bet most of the people living there would not approve of people being detained in this way.

[Volourn]

"I think it's peculiar to talk of a country in such a way. Let's just say that large (I think) parts of Chinese government are to blame for this. Don't forget that China is not essentially a democratic country, I bet most of the people living there would not approve of people being detained in this way."

 

Who is blaming the Chinese civilians? Why would we blame the people who have no power and influence over Chines gov't decisions? L0LZ

[Rostere]

"I think it's peculiar to talk of a country in such a way. Let's just say that large (I think) parts of Chinese government are to blame for this. Don't forget that China is not essentially a democratic country, I bet most of the people living there would not approve of people being detained in this way."

 

Who is blaming the Chinese civilians? Why would we blame the people who have no power and influence over Chines gov't decisions? L0LZ

 

"China, you're a disgrace." and so on.

 

But it's not only this topic, it's something you'll see in news everywhere. It's a dangerous thing. Suddenly you subconsciously demonize an entire country with something as banal as a choice of wording. You'll find on other places on the Internet texts where "the Chinese" are talked of in less than polite ways. I know, it's very subtle, but it's also important to think thoroughly about what you intend to say. China has gotten such a tarnished image from the fact that a few (in proportion to the entire population) people subjugate others through their type of government. We are risking the same situation as during the Cold War, where people thought the Soviet Union to be "evil" when in fact there was a small minority controlling the masses through terror. Direct confrontation as such is in modern times entirely pointless (with nuclear weapons and all. Plus we learned our lessons from the big wars in the 20th century), what is important is to reach through to the Chinese civilians and the elements of government which are not as authoritarian.

 

Sooner or later, China's economy will crash or at least stagnate and the people will charge the leadership with responsibility, and that's when we want a Gorbachev in power, not a Stalin. A confrontational attitude towards China will only lead towards increasing nationalism there and with that also nationalist buffoons in power.

[Volourn]

"China, you're a disgrace." and so on."

 

This line doesn't prove the writer is bashing Chinese civilians that have no power or influence but is bashing those who have the power to do this. ie The gov't.

 

Don't look for bigotry when it's not there. there's enough real bigotry that exists to battle including real bigotry against the Chinese let's not make stuff up.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Volourn

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

China, you are disappoint.

[Orogun01]

This is the main problem with totalitarian regimes; the hard liners feel the need to prove a point, the people are the ones that pay and the few people in the government that actually care are afraid of joining them.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's shocking that a communist dictatorship would behave this way!

[I want teh kotor 3]

Yup, communism blows. What a surprise.

 

Also,

in before LoF

.

[Walsingham]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

 

Trying a lot is not the same as succeeding a lot.

[Orogun01]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

 

Trying a lot is not the same as succeeding a lot.

Yeah but the Nobel prize is now for future deeds and not for what it has actually been done.

[Blarghagh]

Word of mouth from a Chinese immigrant I know - China's about as communist as Fox News.

[Rostere]

Word of mouth from a Chinese immigrant I know - China's about as communist as Fox News.

 

Well, technically, that is. They don't even have universal healthcare, proper state schools or numerous other social reforms. In fact, I wouldn't even say they're socialist. China is just a country ruled by an authoritarian regime using socialist rhetoric. Also, they have a stock exchange and numerous other things not usually found in communist countries.

[Gorgon]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

 

Trying a lot is not the same as succeeding a lot.

Yeah but the Nobel prize is now for future deeds and not for what it has actually been done.

I think that sunk in about when they gave it to Arafat and Rabin. Leave the cash prize and the pat on the shoulder for the doctors and poets, the peace prize is supposed to be reaching.

[Walsingham]

Well, while I can see the coherence in your view, I think it's not what the peace prize is about. If you give it before the fact then

 

a) How the hell do you decide who gets it?

b) You are going to wind up giving it to politically charged people as it was here. This effectively inflames the situation.

 

I think a is important. B is even more important, and although you could avoid it with judgement, but in light of the Obama prize I think the Nobel committee are hardly qualified to make sober and careful awards that mitigate the risk.

 

I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve plaudits. I'm saying giving it for effort cheapens the whole thing, and in this case turns into an Amnesty INternational prize.

[Humodour]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

 

Trying a lot is not the same as succeeding a lot.

 

That's a ridiculous post. In the case of Obama there is clearly a point to be made that he didn't deserve it - assign the award for long-standing work towards peace, not potential for work towards peace.

 

But this guy Liu, counts as much as anybody to receive this prize, Wals. He has not achieved democracy in China, but he has provided hope and determination to others to achieve it by unswervingly and peacefully defending human rights in the face of the extreme oppression of a totalitarian regime. FOR TWENTY YEARS. All of them in China, each day knowing what they might do to him at any moment.

[Gorgon]

I don't get the Obama thing. Is it because he's black and the president ?. I mean excuse the innuendo, I would hate to agree with some of his racist detractors, but what the hell did he do, or even plan to do, to deserve it ?. Starstruck committee members more likely.

 

Now this guy really did put his own safety at risk for civil rights.

[Gorgon]

Well, while I can see the coherence in your view, I think it's not what the peace prize is about. If you give it before the fact then

 

a) How the hell do you decide who gets it?

b) You are going to wind up giving it to politically charged people as it was here. This effectively inflames the situation.

 

I think a is important. B is even more important, and although you could avoid it with judgement, but in light of the Obama prize I think the Nobel committee are hardly qualified to make sober and careful awards that mitigate the risk.

 

I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve plaudits. I'm saying giving it for effort cheapens the whole thing, and in this case turns into an Amnesty INternational prize.

It's worth the risk, even for the integrity of the award. I don't think this inflames anything above standard levels whenever a western state leader points out the obvious about China's human rights record.

[Hurlshort]

I don't get the Obama thing. Is it because he's black and the president ?. I mean excuse the innuendo, I would hate to agree with some of his racist detractors, but what the hell did he do, or even plan to do, to deserve it ?. Starstruck committee members more likely.

 

Now this guy really did put his own safety at risk for civil rights.

 

It was because of his foreign policy, which at first glance was a nice step away from Bush. Whether there has been any real follow through is another matter, I can't say I've been impressed with the implementation.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Hurlshot

[Orogun01]

As much as I detest the abuses of the Chinese government I did feel that this was yet another example of the Nobel committee awarding prizes based on talk not results. If this continues it can only be a matter of time before LoF receives a Nobel for his socialist economic miracle.

Well, a peace prize based on results versus one chosen with the (vain) hope of changing things. The committee has a long tradition of being activist. To me it would be a completely pointless trophy if it was only after the fact, but to each hos own I guess.

 

Trying a lot is not the same as succeeding a lot.

 

That's a ridiculous post. In the case of Obama there is clearly a point to be made that he didn't deserve it - assign the award for long-standing work towards peace, not potential for work towards peace.

 

But this guy Liu, counts as much as anybody to receive this prize, Wals. He has not achieved democracy in China, but he has provided hope and determination to others to achieve it by unswervingly and peacefully defending human rights in the face of the extreme oppression of a totalitarian regime. FOR TWENTY YEARS. All of them in China, each day knowing what they might do to him at any moment.

You know, it used to be that these prizes were given for a lifetime of fighting injustice. To give them out so casually only brings down the prestige of the award, I'm not against giving Liu an award for just trying to bring democracy to China but in this case there seems to be an underlying political motive. Same as when the award was given to Obama.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't get the Obama thing. Is it because he's black and the president ?. I mean excuse the innuendo, I would hate to agree with some of his racist detractors, but what the hell did he do, or even plan to do, to deserve it ?.

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Barak Obama, the recipients of "We really, really hate George W. Bush and glad you're not him change and hope prize."