Jump to content
Baledwyr

China's war on words: Anything used to insult Xi Jinping, banned

Recommended Posts

China's new President-for-life doesn't like criticism.

 

Since claiming the eternal throne of an Emperor earlier this week, he's clamped down — hard — on any hint of dissent.

 

Censorship has always been a way of life under China's one party state, reports News.com.au.

 

But things have just ramped up to a whole new level.

 

 

Authoritarian rule is being established.

 

Earlier this week the Communist Party Council announced (a day before it actually met) that the limit of two five-year presidential terms will be abolished and Xi Jinping's guiding philosophy would be written into the constitution.

 

Immediately, Beijing's censors set to work.

 

They've attacked the very words people would need to use to express discontent.

 

"Emperor"'

 

"Two term limit".

 

"Control".

 

These top a long list of terms now blocked by China's state controlled social media platform, Weibo, as well as the search engine Baidu.

 

And while you cannot burn electronic books, Beijing's done the next best thing.

 

Animal Farm.

 

1984.

 

Brave New World.

 

View image on Twitter

DXA_ypeX0AAgNap?format=jpg&name=small

h28C_fJx_normal.jpgShawn Zhang 章闻韶@shawnwzhang

 

impressive! you can't say "disagree" on Weibo. "disagree" is a violation of laws.

 

5:39 PM - Feb 27, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

Simply mentioning the names of novels and authors which paint dystopian pictures of worlds under authoritarian leadership is no longer permitted.

 

But the blocking of just one basic word demonstrates the full extent of Xi's desire to rewrite the dictionary.

 

"Disagree".

 

This is what it prompts:

 

"Sorry, this content violates the laws and regulations of Weibo's terms of service."

 

NO POOH-POOH, PLEASE

Many within China reacted with shock at the leadership announcement earlier this week.

 

They knew their words were being watched.

 

Still they tried to express their fear of life subject to the whims of just one man.

 

"Argh, we're going to become North Korea," one Weibo user wrote. He was referencing Kim Jong-un and the Kim dynasty which has ruled since the 1940s.

 

But Xi Jinping is doing all he can to put any negative reaction to his power grab in a bottle before it can spread.

 

Within hours, all such posts on social media or internet services were deleted.

 

And Xi's thought police embarked on a crusade against compromising memes.

 

Popular children's character Winnie the Pooh was one of the first victims.

 

"It would be funny if it weren't so serious," says Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) analyst Fergus Ryan. "Behind the gallows humour is growing despair."

 

Chinese social media has long seen a similarity between the portly features of the honey-loving bear and Xi Jinping.

 

So cartoons featuring the character have been exploited to indirectly mock their leader.

 

Shortly after the announcement earlier this week, Weibo users started circulating an innocent post from Disney's official account.

 

It showed Winnie Pooh hugging a large pot of honey.

 

Beneath was the caption "find the thing you love and stick with it."

 

 

QVD36QEXSFBHZJJT6KYFBGEQYA.jpg

People walk past a propaganda billboard showing Chinese President Xi Jinping. Photo / AP

 

Ryan writes. "So let's be clear: China's censorship apparatus is no longer just a boutique concern of China-watchers; it affects all of us."

 

He points to recent Australian examples.

 

During December's Bennelong by-election, he says campaigners used the Chinese messaging app WeChat to court Chinese voters.

 

This was subject to censorship from Beijing.

 

"What if some of those constituents wanted to ask a sensitive question about China's foreign policy in the South China Sea? What if they wanted to discuss one of the 'forbidden three Ts' — Tiananmen, Taiwan or Tibet? Would those messages have reached the candidates? How would we know?"

 

He highlights how global governments, corporations — and even international sportspeople — have fallen foul of artfully directed Chinese nationalism.

 

Australian Olympic swimmer Mack Horton was overwhelmingly attacked by a swarm of social media "trolls" for daring to accuse rival Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of being a drug cheat.

 

Book publishers, internet services — even scientific journals — have been accused of censoring works out of fear of offending powerful Chinese government groups.

 

"One by one, big Western companies like Apple, Daimler, Marriot International and Yum Brands are being cowed by hordes of nationalistic trolls for the crime of crossing patriotic red lines," Ryan states.

 

"To what extent are our own companies, politicians, journalists and academics already self-censoring for fear of offending Xi's China?"

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12005744

 

Personal Comment From Bors:

 

We really are entering the age of the dictator again...China's power brokers have always been the party main liners grouped together but not a dictatorship, they saw to that after Mao...But the removal of 5 year presidential terms is alarming. Russia, Turkey and now China...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just China. India's democracy is splintering, too. Not necessarily declining, but it's becoming too...aged, and it needs to become reinvigorated.

 

At the moment it's too much of "simply a theory" that democracy is good for the nation, for it to be actually healthy.

 

Too much corruption too, it's a bloated hydra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you seriously saying china was not a dictatorship ? all this time

 

It's going from a mild authoritarian state to a full blown totalitarian society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what's worse ,the nutjob that's president or the corrupt elites trying to control him.

I'd say a nut job president is much more refreshing. Reminds you of the Roman Empire. Having cronies all the time is quite dull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say a nut job president is much more refreshing. Reminds you of the Roman Empire. Having cronies all the time is quite dull.

We need MORE Neros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
e95.jpg

 

I can see thousands of Chinese soldiers bayonetting the ocean as a man in a chairman Mao suit watches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the good news is, say push comes to shove and we get invaded, we got an armed civilian population ready to death squad those god damned Chinese cunts. rofl

[ATTACH=full]7593[/ATTACH]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah 'cuz untrained rabble with shotguns is what really deters invasion here :rolleyes:

 

do you feel lucky, punk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you feel lucky, punk?

 

They wouldn't need luck. They'd hunt from UAVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less talked about fact, China invaded Vietnam after the Americans pulled out. The Vietnamese kicked the Chinese out as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Less talked about fact, China invaded Vietnam after the Americans pulled out. The Vietnamese kicked the Chinese out as well.

 

True, and the chinese still claimed victory, hilarious.

 

Im pretty sure those guys have lost every significant war they had in their last 400 years, despite every advantage you can imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah 'cuz untrained rabble with shotguns is what really deters invasion here :rolleyes:

It has worked quite well throughout history. It never defeats the enemy but it can stop or slow them. America 1775, Belgium 1914, Viet Nam 1956.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has worked quite well throughout history. It never defeats the enemy but it can stop or slow them. America 1775, Belgium 1914, Viet Nam 1956.

 

Irrelevant examples. 1775 wasn't about shotguns it was about a standing rebel army that consistently embarassed the British regulars, combined with the cost of supporting such a major overseas venture with no real end in sight. Belgium in 1914 was a nation-state with a powerful system of forts and a solid standing army. Nonetheless it was little more then a speedbump for the Germans. Vietnam was a Soviet client state. The reason the US could never bomb them into the stone age is because they had an invulnerable supply line of hi-tech weapons, along with thousands of Soviet advisers who actually operated the hi-tech equipment as well as participated in the planning and execution of many of the operations. None those conflicts were about private gun ownership deterring an invader. And while we're at it, why don't you figure out the meaning of deterrence. It's not "defeating an enemy". It's stopping someone from attacking in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, and the chinese still claimed victory, hilarious.

 

Im pretty sure those guys have lost every significant war they had in their last 400 years, despite every advantage you can imagine.

 

Not hilarious. The Vietnamese were well trained, well equipped, battle hardened, and in a strong defensive posture. The Chinese overextended, had critical failures of battlespace management, and ultimately were behind the curve technologically and doctrinally. The Chinese were at a disadvantage, and their only conceivable advantage, size, was irrelevant because they could not bring it to bear under the circumstances. The Chinese have been militarily disadvantaged for a very long time. This is why they've lost over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevant examples. 1775 wasn't about shotguns it was about a standing rebel army that consistently embarassed the British regulars, combined with the cost of supporting such a major overseas venture with no real end in sight. Belgium in 1914 was a nation-state with a powerful system of forts and a solid standing army. Nonetheless it was little more then a speedbump for the Germans. Vietnam was a Soviet client state. The reason the US could never bomb them into the stone age is because they had an invulnerable supply line of hi-tech weapons, along with thousands of Soviet advisers who actually operated the hi-tech equipment as well as participated in the planning and execution of many of the operations. None those conflicts were about private gun ownership deterring an invader. And while we're at it, why don't you figure out the meaning of deterrence. It's not "defeating an enemy". It's stopping someone from attacking in the first place.

Dude what..? They made that war unwinnable for Germany, they got to far behind on schedule.

Belgium had a tiny army, they were neutral and extremely unprepared, inexperience general staff, poor equipment, like 100 machine guns, no artillery.

 

Vietnam? The single reason they won was because of that fierce resistance by the Vietnamese people. Soviets couldn't interfere directly, not fair to give them credit for shit there.

 

Revolutionary War showed the world that militias wasn't completely worthless, actual professional army of the USA was tiny compared to the British forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not hilarious. The Vietnamese were well trained, well equipped, battle hardened, and in a strong defensive posture. The Chinese overextended, had critical failures of battlespace management, and ultimately were behind the curve technologically and doctrinally. The Chinese were at a disadvantage, and their only conceivable advantage, size, was irrelevant because they could not bring it to bear under the circumstances. The Chinese have been militarily disadvantaged for a very long time. This is why they've lost over and over again.

 

 

The hilarious part was about the chinese claiming victory while not achieving any stated objective, suffering disproportional losses and getting driven out.

 

You have to go back to 1600 and see them slaughtering russians in manchuria to find a war where they beaten a foreign power, and you can hardly call a war slaughtering unarmed peasants.

 

 

Every war with china goes the same: china rushes the enemy with countless screaming soldiers. A lot of their soldiers get slaughtered while infliciting laughable losses to the enemy, china retreats in defeat, then announce they won.

 

The boxers are another great example of china mastery of the art of war: almost no firearm and no preparation at all, they honestly tought kung-fu magic would have granted em victory against white men with machine guns, but they ended just killing a lot of their own countryman "tainted" by western influence. When it finally came to battle they got their shit kciked in by a handful of europeans and japanese.

 

After that, china got ass-raped by a country with less than a tenth of its population, TWICE. They were only saved by america pacific campaign.

Then the commies took the opportunity to get some land in manchuria which would have led to the rise of the communist party in china.

 

Then korea happens, where china sent more troops than all the international support corps to SK combined, where they took overwhelming losses and pulled out of the war. At the battle of chosin reservoir, china had surrounded an emrican unit and outnumbered it 40 to 1. American broke out and destroyed 40% of all the chinese military strenght in korea. humiliating china in the progress. As we know, the war ended with a ceasefire to this day, 'murica wins and china get shit on, again.

 

Now we get to a pointed out 'Nam. America keep killing charlie everywhere, but cant end the war becouse cowards at home didnt want to invade cambodia or north vietnam. Eventually, america pulled out becouse of the homefront, not becouse of any military losses, NV didnt have a chance to invade the south as long as the us had great forces there.

 

Then ofc china decide to invade vietnam, and the entire war lasted less than a month. China, massively outnumbers vietnam, a country exhausted after decades of constant war. China invaded with 6 to 1 numerical superiority and suffered more casualities than vietnamese people, lost more than 400 tanks (against 185 viet tanks). China retreats leaving vietnam in control of cambodia, the spratly islands and everything else that they reclaimed. China claim they won to this day and that they are the owners of the isles.

 

China got destroyed by the mongols, then the japanese, then the french, then the british, then the germans, then the japanese again, maybe even by the russian, then the americans and south korea, then the vietnamese. Heck, even India managed to trade blows with them.

 

Their tactics are shit and consist of human wave assaults, which sucks agasint fortifications, machine guns, artillery, armor, air support and basically anything that isnt bunch of savages like the hundred thosuands of screaming chinese rushing at you.

 

Even with access to modern equipment, they still dont get it, they recieved modern underwear just in 2016, before they had those crude cotton underwear help up with a rope. China is a major exporter of body armor but their army has never been issued so much as a flak vest, even their food rartions are awful to the point that many soldiers wont eat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...