Support NeoGAF

[airmangataosenai]

I'm not sure why you are so concerned about the 1989 clash. I mean do you care about how your founding fathers got their land from native Americans? Do you think your government is the same as the one before your civil war? Heck I mean according to this video 1/5 of your people can't point out your country on a world map (I'm not sure if it's true though) but you are still doing fine isn't it?

You're... you're seriously treating an event that occurred in 1989 as if it's a part of the distant past? Most of the people that didn't die that day are probably still alive... and not even particularly old.

For God's sake China's only had two different leaders since this incident... what the hell is wrong with you? You really think we're so far removed from the China of that period that it's irrelevant to discussion of current events? I'm not even going to touch on the Ms. South Carolina thing and assume it was just a joke.

 

[Valhalla]

So a country that controls its media and what is said about it, is seen more positively to people than one where shit is free to be said and reported on(for the most part)? SHOOOOOOOCKKKIINNGNGGGGGG

This thread was over on the first page, you guys love to argue though.

 

[demolitio]

People really don't understand the dynamic at work with Taiwan, the Chinese don't hate them, they want unification. They won't nuke it, that would be pointless beyond all belief, they want their hi-tec sector, skilled workforce, pop culture and strategic location.

Sorry. Let me rephrase that. I meant that Taiwan wouldn't be there in the sense that it'd become part of China. I never said they'd destroy the damn thing so I do understand the dynamic.

We've always sworn to defend Taiwan if anything happened, so it'd take a lot of work on China's part to make it happen so if they do think they're better than us, then Taiwan would be in trouble. Hell, China's worked really hard lately to improve their relations with Taiwan instead of threatening them which is a nice change of pace.

And yes, I was being generous when I said China would become the superpower maybe in the next few decades. They have A LOT of work to do both in domestic issues and their military power. They're just now starting to take the idea of a navy seriously and they're having MAJOR problems in that area and maintaining their ships. They still have a lot of cheap clones of western gear that just don't match up to the real deal. Kind of like the F-22 and how Russia and China both tried to make something very similar but missed out on a lot of key things that made it so great.

I think it's way too early to say they're taking over anything but they have the best chance out of all the other nations to do so. But their economy will change a lot before that can happen as they become more of a developed country. Hell, a lot of China's GDP is inflated by the governments tactics. I think their secretiveness leads people to think they're a lot better than they are.

 

[WARCOCK]

if history is anything to go by, that would be the least appealing thing for those 'lead'.

Yes but that "history" would have a hard time explaining the union itself. I know it's hard to believe but WW2 caused somewhat of a shift in Europe. *rolleyez*

 

[subversus]

My impression from a few guys here and some of your medias is that if China rises then for some reason you will lose what you have right now. Internet will be censored, churches will be closed, kitties will be killed, Microsoft will go 3rd party and such. No idea where these people get such ideas.

lol

China being superpower means nothing to America except crushed ego and some economical consequences. I mean England and Spain were superpowers once too and they don't look like horrible places to live nowadays.

 

[fawaz]

As a Saudi, I have to favor the nicest PIMP. So go USA.

Spoiler

yes we are the US's bitches

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't have a problem with a new, different superpower rising. I do, however, have a problem with a new superpower with severe government censorship policies.

Only real reason I'm not a fan of China rising. Well, that, and I think that the world stage just isn't going to work out for them as well as it did for the US.

 

[Gaborn]

I love Chinese netizens, but I wouldn't call the people that made that video dissidents. Not everybody that makes gifs and videos on netease/mopu/weibo making fun of the government is a dissident. A friend at Princeton did a study on the effect of this video as part of her thesis, and the conclusion was that its just a tongue-in-cheek viral meme poking fun at the government.

If you're really interested in dissident stuff, HRIC (hrichina.org (though they have a heavier focus on expat dissidents), follow some twitter/weibo feeds, or if just interested in the development of the press in China, you can look at CMP http://cmp.hku.hk/. If you're interested in what people are discussing in China, news or otherwise you can look at ESWN http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm or even Chinasmack http://chinasmack.com or Ministry of Tofu http://www.ministryoftofu.com/.

I think you have a limited view of things if you think it is at all comparable to North Korea.

I think that you have a limited view of things if you think Cao Ni Ma was not a function of dissidents. By it's very nature dissent is decentralized. I don't honestly care if it wasn't "official" dissent, but even the NYT has noted the effect of that short little song. You seem to want to pigeon hole the movement opposing the Chinese government as if it has to all come from official sources - and that's not really how it works these days. Look at Egypt. If there was one centralized protest group it wouldn't have been as effective. A decentralized opposition to tyranny has done WONDERS in the Arab world and should be a model for those under oppressive, brutal, dictatorial regimes around the globe and that includes China.

 

[Hex]

It is ok, really.
There is a backdoor to china, I saw it somewhere.
Or at least it sounded like china...

 

[Utako]

How hard is it to immigrate to China?

You'd have a pretty easy time getting married there. They're pretty poor there, ironically, so if you're from the US you'd be seen as quite a good catch.

 

[numble]

I think that you have a limited view of things if you think Cao Ni Ma was not a function of dissidents. By it's very nature dissent is decentralized. I don't honestly care if it wasn't "official" dissent, but even the NYT has noted the effect of that short little song. You seem to want to pigeon hole the movement opposing the Chinese government as if it has to all come from official sources - and that's not really how it works these days. Look at Egypt. If there was one centralized protest group it wouldn't have been as effective. A decentralized opposition to tyranny has done WONDERS in the Arab world and should be a model for those under oppressive, brutal, dictatorial regimes around the globe and that includes China.

It's like saying people who do photoshops making fun of government officials on weibo is a dissident. I know someone who studied Cao Ni Ma as part of her thesis at Princeton, and the net effect was that it was a viral funny meme, but nothing to promote much more. The sequels of the meme created more mythical animals that sounded like dirty words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_10_Mythical_Creatures It was a protest of the censorship of dirty words.

Would you call the "My father is Li Gang" meme and the discussion around it the work of dissidents? It was a complaint about corruption and princeling nepotism, but I still don't think it falls into dissident behavior.

I don't think "dissident" requires official sources, but I think it requires challenging entire government institutions and calling for complete substantial change.

If you oppose the Patriot Act, are you a US dissident?
If you believe that the US should institute state socialism or abolish the system of states, checks and balances, are you a dissident?
If you oppose censorship of dirty and sensitive words, are you a Chinese dissident?
If you want to call for full elections and true opposition parties, and abolish the Politboro Standing Committee, are you a dissident?

 

[speedpop]

The problem with a lot of the anti-censorship stance with China is that people are looking at examples in the West and going, "okay this is how it should be, China are fucking up their population by doing this!" No one seems to be taking into account the Eastern mentality, the Chinese mentality to fine point it. The only Western commentator I've seen who seems to understand and get it right is economist Martin Jacques in his TED talk and even then he was simply dealing with the economy of China, not its issues with government control though they are highly related.

Of course it doesn't change the fact that freedom of media is quite low in China and its controlling powers over its citizens is quite high. However the more I look into the long-term proposals and doctrines that the Chinese government keeps pushing through, it seems to make more and more sense. The Xiaokang is something that is always uttered, ever since Deng Xiaoping was in power throughout the 80s and brought it into mass discussion. It seems slightly logical that to become a developed nation you have to forcefully do these things to make the process more lightning quick. There are uprises and vocal support for opposition, but I don't see 1.3 billion people raising as one just yet - they are generally satisfied at the current railroad that the China train is taking.

What will need to happen eventually is political reform and that seems to be on the agenda as well. Though with hushed tones within the government nothing is being mentioned and a small subsection of the population are getting restless - it may force the hierarchy to come out and state more long-term plans because, as shown via thousands of years of history, controlling your people through force eventually fails. I wouldn't be surprised if in 30-50 years time, China institutes a system in place that resembles Singapore; democractic voting processes, majority of the media is controlled by the government, and a heck of a lot of defamation lawsuits to individuals who challenge those in power. It's still a democracy but with a shitload of strings attached and an image of "clean" corruption.

Hans Rosling predicted that China would become a developed nation in 2048 with all of his GDP statistical data, the Chinese government itself is more conservative and aiming for 2080 (with a tilt at being the leading industrialized power by 2100). I'm not pro China, nor am I anti China. I'm simply sitting upon the fence and enjoying the prospects of seeing a re-emergence of China in my lifetime; a true independent power in Asia without a collar around its throat held by a Western power ala Japan. It's funny seeing political scientists, economists, and simple purveyors freak out about a future and culture they are trying to understand.

 

[JJDinomite]

I'd be fine with this if China wasn't so... scary. With labor and whatnot.

 

[Lamel]

Lmao, Pakistan and Turkey. Not a single fuck was given by them.

 

[speedpop]

I'd be fine with this if China wasn't so... scary. With labor and whatnot.

Understandable, though people felt the same way when Hong Kong was passed back over to China in 1997, and they will feel the exact same way when Taiwan is eventually annexed peacefully and given special administrative region status.

 

[Gaborn]

It's like saying people who do photoshops making fun of government officials on weibo is a dissident. I know someone who studied Cao Ni Ma as part of her thesis at Princeton, and the net effect was that it was a viral funny meme, but nothing to promote much more. The sequels of the meme created more mythical animals that sounded like dirty words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_10_Mythical_Creatures It was a protest of the censorship of dirty words.

Would you call the "My father is Li Gang" meme and the discussion around it the work of dissidents? It was a complaint about corruption and princeling nepotism, but I still don't think it falls into dissident behavior.

I don't think "dissident" requires official sources, but I think it requires challenging entire government institutions and calling for complete substantial change.

I think this is far too broad and all encompassing a stance. Were the Plastic People of the Universe dissidents in the Czech Republic? All they wanted to do was play music, they were challenging ideas and taboos and censorship (and weren't a particularly great band I think on a musical level) but still by far they were the major factor in the Czech's Velvet Revolution (and, as a Velvet Underground cover band the reason it was CALLED a Velvet Revolution). And yet I don't believe they BECAME dissidents when people TOOK their expression and demanded the right from the whole government for reforms, nor do I think "real" dissidents took their ideas and BECAME dissidents as a result.

I think a dissident is someone that challenges an accepted institutional power structure. If anything I think the most effective tools are often something we would consider frivolous today because we HAVE freedoms. Reason magazine (yes, I know, libertarian magazine, get over it and listen) did an interesting story before the "Arab Spring" about Egypt and Metal bands. It would be irresponsible to say that THEY brought down Mubarak and his government but I think was an indicator, a canary in the coal mine if you will of what was to come. It was another point for people to coalesce around and believe the government was being overly restrictive.

If you oppose the Patriot Act, are you a US dissident?
If you believe that the US should institute state socialism or abolish the system of states, checks and balances, are you a dissident?
If you oppose censorship of dirty and sensitive words, are you a Chinese dissident?
If you want to call for full elections and true opposition parties, and abolish the Politboro Standing Committee, are you a dissident?

I don't think it takes mere opposition (saying "I do not believe the PATRIOT Act is good policy" for example) to make someone a dissident. I think working to subvert an institution KNOWING it is in power and your action flies in the face of the institution you're opposing making you vulnerable to arrest or other sanction. So for example I think the "Don't touch my junk" guy was a dissident against the TSA. I think the Cao Ni Ma creators were dissidents because it was a direct effort to subvert the political will of China and would probably leave the creator vulnerable to arrest. I think Rosa Parks was a dissident because she did not follow the law. Aung San Suu Kyi, dissident. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - dissident. Medgar Evers - dissident. Dissidents actively challenge the system, sometimes by their very presence and a tiny action, but it's an act that spits in the face of the institutional regime they oppose.

 

[numble]

I think this is far too broad and all encompassing a stance. Were the Plastic People of the Universe dissidents in the Czech Republic? All they wanted to do was play music, they were challenging ideas and taboos and censorship (and weren't a particularly great band I think on a musical level) but still by far they were the major factor in the Czech's Velvet Revolution (and, as a Velvet Underground cover band the reason it was CALLED a Velvet Revolution). And yet I don't believe they BECAME dissidents when people TOOK their expression and demanded the right from the whole government for reforms, nor do I think "real" dissidents took their ideas and BECAME dissidents as a result.

I think a dissident is someone that challenges an accepted institutional power structure. If anything I think the most effective tools are often something we would consider frivolous today because we HAVE freedoms. Reason magazine (yes, I know, libertarian magazine, get over it and listen) did an interesting story before the "Arab Spring" about Egypt and Metal bands. It would be irresponsible to say that THEY brought down Mubarak and his government but I think was an indicator, a canary in the coal mine if you will of what was to come. It was another point for people to coalesce around and believe the government was being overly restrictive.




I don't think it takes mere opposition (saying "I do not believe the PATRIOT Act is good policy" for example) to make someone a dissident. I think working to subvert an institution KNOWING it is in power and your action flies in the face of the institution you're opposing making you vulnerable to arrest or other sanction. So for example I think the "Don't touch my junk" guy was a dissident against the TSA. I think the Cao Ni Ma creators were dissidents because it was a direct effort to subvert the political will of China and would probably leave the creator vulnerable to arrest. I think Rosa Parks was a dissident because she did not follow the law. Aung San Suu Kyi, dissident. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - dissident. Medgar Evers - dissident. Dissidents actively challenge the system, sometimes by their very presence and a tiny action, but it's an act that spits in the face of the institutional regime they oppose.

There was nothing arrestable about their actions. Nobody was arrested. All they faced were blog deletions. And even that hasn't happened--it's still up on Baidu, where it started. They were not trying to subvert political will--they created 10 mythical creatures that were homonyms for dirty words. Its a huge gap between that and Aung San Suu Kyi. You are allowed to complain about censorship and even use tools to get around it, and there's been no sign that the government opposes such activity.

Not every challenge to existing law or policy means you are a dissident. If you go to China, I can take you between different groups of people working to challenge laws, groups that label themselves as dissident and those that don't, you will see that there's a contrast in methods, goals, and beliefs. Making up homonyms for dirty words does not fit you in the former category.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I lol'd at the Turkey results in the OP. They must have had a bad day or something, because they just seemed generally disliking everything

 

[demolitio]

It's funny to see Pakistan turn to China after recent incidents with the U.S. Now China gets to be a part of a naval base and said an attack on Pakistan (in regards to the OBL mission) is an attack on China. China is smart in that sense since Pakistan has nowhere else to turn to even though we'll still give them money.

If China did pass the U.S. somehow, then all of these charts would change as other nations see how China is thanks to the spotlight being on China and then we'd go through the same thing as what's happening with the U.S. now. The superpower will always piss off a lot of people because they can't please everyone and every actions is critiqued. Once people saw some of China's laws, their opinions of them will change even more.

I still don't think this is happening for a long time though for many reasons.

 

[crimzonflame]

IN THE future I think there will be multiple superpowers not just one.

 

[planar1280]

china needs to US and US needs China to become better. US will rid of its political polarization and China might find democracy

 

[Fusion Pizza]

Turkey what lol

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

IN THE future I think there will be multiple superpowers not just one.

I will be one of them. Feel my power.

 

[Pollux]

We need to cut military spending by 60% man, invest in the country/infrastructure/education/renewable energy of all types/projects.

NO, they don't. They need to stop spending billions of dollars on the same programs with different names. Tehre is so much government waste that is not the military its ridiculous.

 

[Beautifully Shaped Monsters]

I'm curious to see how the current dispute over the Spratly islands will play out, I think that will be telling on how China plan to conduct themselves on the world scene in the future.

I've spend quite alot of time in China, though mostly in Beijing, and from what I can tell, China face some very serious issues, but are still in a much better position than most of the world.

The main problem they have is the one child policy, which they have to take steps to either abolish, or heavily modify. In fact I don't think it will be a big issue to abolish it outright, people tend to have fewer children as they become more prosperous, and it's likely that the average birthrate would not rise significantly, but the perception and knowledge that if you have a girl as your first child, and desperately want a boy, you do not have to abort the girl, will go a long way to remedy the gender gap, and hopefully long term remove the bias against girls in general.

Another problem China faces is rising inflation and increased cost of living. These can become potentially lethal if not handled right, although so far, the Chinese government have not been entirely incompetent in dealing with them.

The West will be less and less willing to give China a free pass and issues such as the floating of the RMB, trade protection, etc. But that's really only fair, since China really shouldn't be seen as a developing country any more, certainly not economically.

 

[industrian]

Where did you read that? That seems highly unlikely. Japan has about ~80 million more people than South Korea.

That and the population crisis is just as bad in South Korea.

I feel the same way. I personally would like to see a synergistic, harmonious EU or even a federal EU lead the world instead of either China or the US.

10 years ago everyone thought this was inevitable. But Europe is dead now. It's going to take 10+ years for the European Union and her member states to sort their shit out and get back on track.

 

[demolitio]

That and the population crisis is just as bad in South Korea.



10 years ago everyone thought this was inevitable. But Europe is dead now. It's going to take 10+ years for the European Union and her member states to sort their shit out and get back on track.

I never thought the EU would take over simply because it's still a bunch of individual countries when it comes to certain views. Look at how disorganized the conflict in Libya was handled and how some dropped out after pledging support simply because of these different views. You can't expect to become THE superpower when you still have nations weighing you down while the rest can't agree on things. You're right, it's going to take a loooooongggg time for the EU to get back on track and even then, I still don't think it will lead to what everyone thinks it will.

Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how a joint British-French carrier even came to be planned so it's no surprise that France pulled out. If those TWO nations can't come together for this (I thought it was unattainable) after a lot of plans and money went into it, then I don't see how even MORE nations can come together as a whole and become a superpower. There's just no way they can all agree on a lot of major things because each country has their own views and cultures that don't always mesh well with others.

So those two couldn't come together for the carrier and Libya was a military mess leaving the U.S. to still do a lot more than it planned so I don't think it's too crazy to think that the EU will ever live up to its potential. To be a superpower, influence is key which is something that China doesn't have and that the EU needs to improve on. No other country can match the influence of the U.S. for a while simply due to the massive navy, the USAF bases all over the world that make it simple to provide relief anywhere while also being a deterrent thanks to the fact that those rogue countries know we could be on their doorstep in a blink of an eye, and then there's the global economy which still revolves around the U.S.

China's market has a lot of problems that need corrected before they can even achieve that goal and then their military is still decades behind with many problems. Their real strength is their numbers for now...And no, a market that revolves around other countries doesn't automatically make them a superpower just because they've been improving. Until they fix their economic problems, separate from the U.S. economy which won't happen anytime soon for very obvious reasons, and expand their military, nothing will happen...The U.S. and China are tied together for a while since China can't find any country stupid enough to take their dollars off their hands.

Edit: It's funny you mention policing the whole world since the world might not say it, but when they actually fucking need it, they come right back and want help. Libya was a huge mess in the beginning for a reason and the U.S. is still doing more than originally planned. People wanted help for Libya, and even the Libyans themselves who hate the U.S. wanted help from the U.S. so I'd say they don't want a police force...unless they need it for themselves...

 

[AlimNassor]

This outlook is the exact reason why China will surpass us if they have not already.

Military spending has increased dramatically while investments in education and innovation has decreased at roughly the same rate.

China is heavily investing in education, innovation, and industry. We're spending a trillion a year to police a world that doesn't want us to.

China doesn't need a massive army to be a superpower when they will soon be the world's largest economic superpower.

21st century power has nothing to do with guns. Hell, it's been a decade and we can't even beat a couple thousand rebels in Afghanistan.

pro tip: Guerrilla warfare is very effective. Even more so when you're enemy can't carpet bomb cities or target civilian areas. We're in a foreign land and know nothing about the people. Terrorists can use it to their advantage and the terrain.

 

[speedpop]

pro tip: Guerrilla warfare is very effective. Even more so when you're enemy can't carpet bomb cities or target civilian areas. We're in a foreign land and know nothing about the people. Terrorists can use it to their advantage and the terrain.

This has nothing to do with the amount of money USA spends on the military. A substantial amount is spent on maintaining bases and such; the American DoD website has a .pdf showing it.

That doesn't change the fact that the USA used a very different method of "colonialism" compared to the norm in the 16th-18th centuries whereby taking over that land was the schedule. The USA relies heavily upon foreign bases and selling their wares to help the process of diplomacy; it's just that generational change is forcing those who grew up in the past 200 years of constant warfare and bullshit to adjust their line of thinking. It's partly why China succumed to colonialism (even though it was never a dedicated region of foreign power) and is changing itself and reinventing certain dynamics of government.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Just got back from a club and I'm sleepy. I read "China seen" as "Charlie Sheen"

 

[YoungHav]

Nations rise and nations fall....

but the global elites never change!

 

[Sealda]

Scariest thing with China must be that its a 1.6 billion country where like 90 % of the student studies Science till 2 in the morning every damn night. Also, its the output that counts, it does not matter if Chinese people in general are lower education and poorer than Americans and Europeans when China have a 1.6 billion population. They will probably still have 5x more math experts than USA and be 3x richer than USA, so they can buy everything they want in the world. hehe.

 

[789shadow]

Sure they will. Oh wait, literally all their growth is artificial.

 

[sly2thefox]

Sure they will. Oh wait, literally all their growth is artificial.

.
Plus :

China buries bullet train wreckage before investigation and bodies removed
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=438489

as long as this shit continues they will never even come close to the power and respect the US has.