okc

So what?

The point in having currency is a speculation of value between entities?

My experience (UK) is that landlords screw people over where they can - they want to make money but actually have a social responsibility for housing conditions. Most people I know live in horrible conditions for a little less rent or increasingly so more precarious and even less stable house shares. Maybe that's an English problem though.

The interesting question being posed in these threads is a lifestyle choice: ownership or flexibility, lay your roots down or remain agile.

If you have enough money to pick and choose that's great. Otherwise home ownership may be the only route out of a precarious and unstable existence.

I'm disregarding your views not censoring them.

Well put. I would further remark that this general debate is more a perspective of reformation versus revolution - which doesn't need to be tied to a capitalist/communist contrast.

but those who don't enjoy it, can't say so. thats not a correct way to solve a problem. its a useless sacrifice.

>if advertisers establish metrics that are more closely aligned with their objectives then we'd all be better off

Disagree. Thats a personal value judgment and an ethical perspective viewing efficient corporations as utilitarian bodies fulfilling the greater good.

The criteria for censorship at the 20 points level - could be debated as - quite healthy criteria.

Criteria such as the government controlling online harassment is classed, rightly, as censorship. Political anarchy would be the reflection of 0 point score.

Is 0, 10, 20, even 30 or 40 points the optimum score: thats debatable. At the 80+ level, its really not debatable.

Excellent. I'd love to see a not that handles recruitment too.

>> But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise

>That's a great example of international propaganda failing to work in China's favor

I'm still waiting for your definition of propaganda.

You've led me to believe that your interpretation is that every-time the journal article finds propaganda to have some influence then the journal article itself is taking part in propaganda and every time it doesn't find propaganda at work it is not.

Is that what you mean?

"Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns. Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Take this account of propaganda in action:

'His village had become a ghost town, with fields dug bare of shoots and trees stripped of bark. For all his remorse and grief, he regarded the death as an individual family's tragedy: "I was 18 at the time and I only knew what the Communist party told me. Everyone was fooled," he says. "I was very red. I was on a propaganda team and I believed my father's death was a personal misfortune. I never thought it was the government's problem."'

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/01/china-great-fam...

Perhaps you should check again for research on effectiveness of Chinese propoganda:

try a google scholar search, this one came up quite quickly:

China's Propaganda System: Institutions, Processes and Efficacy David Shambaugh The China Journal No. 57 (Jan., 2007), pp. 25-58

Or perhaps one about international propoganda:

"One option in particular is the use of information to adjust the public opinion of the Taiwanese people regarding unification. In order to achieve this goal, China has turned to its propaganda apparatus to exert its influence over the Taiwanese media. China believes that by secretly seeping its message directly into Taiwan through its own local media, changes can take place from within giving more strength and credibility to the notion of unification. But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the patterns of the relationship between the pro-Beijing message of unification within the Taiwanese media and the trends of Taiwanese national identity in order to determine the efficacy of the propaganda’s influence as well as illustrate the possible implications of the findings'

From: Pro-Beijing Propaganda in Taiwanese Media Implications for the Future of Taiwan -China- U.S. Relations

http://academics.utep.edu/Portals/4302/Capstone%20Project%20...

To spell it out again: you aren't using the term propaganda as a word in anyway linked to its meaning. You have devised your own meaning with no grounding in its historic or contemporary use. I challenge you to find one other person who has ever use the word to describe what your are - failing that, perhaps put forward your own definition.

If identifying propoganda and the hidden agenda of someone is a form of propoganda. Then surely propoganda would be done openly and be formally introduced as propoganda - because that would help its claim. Propoganda is effective because people believe the lie and because the real agenda is kept hidden and secret - not because people expose it.

Advertising is not propoganda, but I will save that discussion for now.

I appreciate your balanced tone despite the obvious frustration that I am venting and don't mind letting you know I am feeling.

Can I ask you what your first language is?. I know thats personal, so don't answer if you don't want. I just feel like the cause of this misunderstanding might be that you have different core definitions for words than I do. Your definition of diplomacy as a form of management - for example.

Now you are just making stuff up. I give up.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you can't see the difference between identifying propaganda and being part of it.

Your arguments are putting words in my mouth by using straw men like Trevor in a straw man argument: "propoganda is an effective means of diplomacy".

All I can see is some-one wriggling out of an argument where they begun by calling me out for making propoganda posts.

You can twist that statement and apply your own criteria to it, but it just isn't true: pointing out propaganda has nothing to do with being part of it. Infact its the very process that stops it. You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen - but that wont make it go away.

I hope you have mis-read the entire thread but its looking more clear that you can't admit your wrong. Try starting with my first post.

I have stuck with this thread, because I thought - just perhaps - you genuinely didn't understand. I've simplified my position, now you can believe it or not. Its really not that interesting and has little to say about censorship anymore.

You've confused 'identifying propaganda in action' with 'actively engaging in delivering propaganda'.

Over and over again in these threads you have defended Taiwan as a sovereign state. You keep thinking I am attacking Taiwan's status as an independent country. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am however pointing out how Taiwan isn't always recognised as a country.

Thats not my opinion, it is the opinion of many countries.. including the UN. Don't confuse it with my own opinion. These are the facts. It would be deluded to deny these facts. You could at very least provide evidence that says otherwise - you haven't.

Instead you have been deluded to the point of accusing me of touting propaganda for mentioning these things.

I grew up in a similar way. My departure point was somewhere between okc and kid a. I can't stand most their music now. A still like the first 5 EPs but even Pablo honey is a hard listen at times. Funny, really.

Come on. You said I was touting government propaganda.

If by that you mean exposing it and its influence. Then yeah.. I hereby tout all government propaganda and always will do.

I wish international relations were built on trust. But that's a bollocks and idealised view.

My example of the UN membership is quite fitting. Small countries with no interest in Taiwan have been directly bribed by china to vote against letting Taiwan join. Call that trust?

Point out why and how this isn't true. Make a succinct argument, support your assertions.

Explain.

Explain one country that I am in any way supporting the propaganda of.

If its because I am drawing attention to Taiwan not being fully recognised, as per our earlier thread. Then that is an assumption based in the fact of it being a non-un member. But I'm drawing attention to the type of corruption that let's countries (such as China and the UK) bully Taiwan.

Sound like a propaganda line?

Explain which country and how?

Please.

Can't believe you are lecturing on succinct arguments and at the same time calling my post propaganda without any reason.

Read your own post and apply it to yourself.

What a totally irrelevant post.

I was posting about the Chinese government response. The way they handled the problem. At no point is anyone denying the attack.

>All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.

Really? I find that naive - if terrorism has taught us anything, it is that all the world should be deeply critical oh how any country responds to terrorism.

Government workers produce fake social media outside of China too. Public opinion outside of China is very important for business and strategy.

Present China as an improving progressive regime, smooth over its human rights problems, and china can gain more influence internationally. If you are dealing with China, keeping one eye closed can be very profitable.

The UK gave Hong Kong back to China, regardless of what people living in Hong Kong wanted. They are now heavily mutually invested underwriting loans for nuclear powerplants: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-34306997

In case of invasion, this kind of thing makes a big difference. Invasion aside it continues to shape Taiwans influence - why do you think Taiwan is not a UN member state and China is?

Its all relative.

Its not a contradiction to say at the moment China doesn't have much reason to invade - but also point they have had reason before and may again. Let me put it better: they have a latent reason. As someone pointed out in this thread If Taiwan asserts its independence, Chinese have not officially ruled out an invasion. I also know this isn't the reality of current climate.

I agree Taiwan has power, and power has a lot of variables. Being a non-member state of the UN, because of China bribing other states, shows that this power has been shaped by China to some extent. Not having official embassies in many countries - shows the same thing.

People do know Taiwan is a country not part of China. But they don't always officially recognise that.

Combine this quasi-international presence with an invasion and your idea of Taiwan's power variables might shift to being based on the size of its military and its official international recognition. thats where ukraine and hong kong are relevant - to an extent.

The Taiwanese military is bigger than ever, so I think theres at least a little relevance in all this. Not relevance that theres gonna be an invasion, but relevance of the latent power plays that effect diplomatic relations.

We probably agree on a lot. Our radical different positions are only really evident in the subtleties of semantics.

I think thats dangerous for China. People get tortured, killed and have no voice. Things may improve for the masses but if it isn't for the minority then its not really improvement.

Your last sentence:

"So I guess we'll just have to see where the Chinese people take themselves"

is the kind of subtle difference in semantics that divides us. You think China is ruled and directed by its people. Censorship, propaganda, history and injustice suggest otherwise.

The dangerous part is looking at the winners in Chinese society and saying - look! its improving! - whilst the losers are getting a tougher time as ever. You say you grew up extremely poor, so I feel like that might resonate with you.

I rephrase your last sentence as: so I guess we'll just have to see where the Chinese peoples totalitarian government take them. A small matter of semantics, yet a matter of life and death.

I agree with you! Taiwan is peaceful and Taiwanese people are Taiwanese. And yes Taiwan is different to the areas I mentioned. I also agree that China doesn't really have a reason to invade Taiwan.

Taiwan isn't recognised internationally as a country (not fully). If China did have a reason to invade (not a crazy idea given the history) then the international response may be very lacking.

Either way, China has and does continue to try and make Taiwan powerless as in independent country. Its been fairly successful in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_re...

Yes, its all about perspective. Perspective based in reality. Context.

Take your childbirth example: mortality rate may have improved. This statement is great without context – of course thats improvement right?

Now take the context of forced sterilisation and forced abortion by local corrupt government meeting birth quotas. Thats perspective.

What do you base your perspective on?

(In response to your question on N.Korea, I don't know anything about North Korea so of course not!)

>Let's say I consider this prison to be an improvement to me dying of hunger, then would you be able to accept my perspective? Or would you consider me brainwashed?

I would consider you in prison. I would also point out that the prison (government) created the great famine (that made you hungry). Do you really believe that is improvement?

It is, I agree. But when push comes to shove it demonstrates internationally countries wouldn't support defending Taiwan if China did invade.

They couldn't even support Taiwan as a country politically because China bribed and bullied other countries to disagree with recognising Taiwan.

Hong Kongs a different case but shows how international support can be subdued by China.

Taiwan is a reality. Its growing military force supports this too. I don't think and I hope China would never invade.

I totally agree Taiwan is a country. But internationally this isn't often recognised and might give an invasion more clout. Ukraine/russia springs to mind as a similar scenario. Not the Ukraine weren't a country but that they didn't have enough international presence for anyone to properly back them up, when invaded.

Why not?

So you really want me to explain why people should have free speech, at this level of debate, it is unbelievable you could ask - why not?

Let me give you the big why not: because your opinion right now is free speech on a forum of free speech.

Please don't back pedal and say your just talking about dangerous hate inducing free speech. Because we both know that isn't the case. The context is a government which has always tortured dissenters. A government which drove tanks over peaceful protesters.

A government based on the notion of rebellion not reform, which is doing everything humanly possible to stop rebellion ever happening again. That's the communist paradox. That's the ultimate source of propaganda.

I still don't think so, but can I ask you a question. Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone). This morning I woke up to find my original post no further replied to, but down voted from 8 to 2. I also seem to be having a conversation with someone who registers a new name each time they post (I presume).

And the whole thread is about controlling social media - particularly through controlling perception of public opinion.

Honest question, what do you think? Irony, conspiracy, time zone differences.

No its not the only reason I have! as I made clear - it wasn't the reason at all. You reply is meaningless without context.

It was one example of many providing a point that statistics are misleading.

Especially in describing quality of life under a controlling reigeme. Yes some things improve in some way. No - that's not improvement.

Its like saying if you sent me to prison my life expectancy, security, and perhaps even literacy might improve. Would I count being in prison an improvement? No.

Not unless of course you think I'm guilty, incapable, and need controlling.

Edit: typo.

Security and crime: Doublespeak.

Wages and medicine: actually more inequality than ever.

Life expectancy: scraping the barrel.

These aren't concrete things. If they were we could, like you say, measure them properly. But even in the best conditions your anlysis would be linking your values to your methods.

My point: measuring stuff like this in a 60 year old regime based on self perpetuation and social control is not improvement its indoctrination.

For example: are wages higher by mean, mode or median.

Or more simply does less crime measure the improvement of a country. I can think of several pertinent examples of regimes and dictators who were quite sucsesfull with crime.

Higher life expectancy.. Well that's quite an easy one to improve when you stop starving everyone.

I'm not saying all my points are 100% kosher. I'm saying improvement is a very subjective term reaking of contradiction when not simplified or taken out of context.

I think we have both expressed our views. I understand what you mean more with your summary of freedom.

We could go over the subtle points for a long time. I believe they mean far more than you might.

My overall point is more along the lines of this full scale propaganda really makes it hard to read peoples opinions of the government on quite a few levels. Perhaps that's not a fair direct retort to your development narrative. But they are connected.

I don't want to be to picky, but the great famine was caused by the government after 1949. May seem trivial now but.. I still see its effects.

The other problem with state control and censorship is you don't really know the level of what's going on. China has work camps without trial in regions far from where the person might live, offences are usually based around expressing dissent over policy. China also has a lot of snitches.. I was told that any one wearing the red armbands was one. And that's a lot of people. I know a lot of the government send young family members to study in places like new Zealand in case they start to lose favour.. So they have a way out.

Besisdes all these points China is a big place. Generalisations over public opinion and the importance of it are fairly misleading. Take Tibet for example, I doubt Tibetans have an improved opinion of the government.

I dont like disregarding your views but in all this dialogue I can't help thinking that your views in the context we are discussing - censorship - are legitimising and downplaying the problem of Hunan rights in China. The Chinese people have no voice and the kind of support you are giving the government by saying they are developing and represent the peoples views, seem to be the final nail in exstinguishing dissenters voices in China.

I doubt that is your intention but that's how it comes across and that's why I've been asking you to clarify.

I can't agree China has improved but that's a debate for how you define improve. For me improved in the context of China, doesn't mean shit if people can't express dissent. Its more like reinforcement.

Edited for typos.

The view that life is better is meaningless if you mean its better than mass death and torture.

Portraying life as better now, is propaganda. Its a view that affirms the current government policies (even if you don't personally believe it).

Propaganda is very unique in China and communism. Mainly because it is unified, enforced, systematic and backed up with violence. The communist party have been in rule so long that they are experts in it and social engineering.

Taking any view on what the public think of its goverment, ain't easy or factual. It fraught in one of the most organised regimes of properganda in existence today.

You can't compare that to America, where you can openly disagree with the government. Without fear of imprisonment in a work camp without trial.

Basically when you say things like life is better because peoples positive views support it - I hear nothing but the torture and oppression which supports that state. And that ain't improvement. Its propaganda and control.

Well, which came first, the government or peoples views on it.

When people can't openly express dissatisfaction and are censored and are subject to organised propaganda, then it's very hard to say.

Under the communist government peoples lives haven't improved: look at the great famine. So yes I disagree peoples lives have not improved because of communism in China.

You ask me to pick which era of government I would like to be under. But its all the same government using propaganda the same way.

So what if it is now improving the vast amount of peoples lives. What about the minority being tortued by it?

My conversations with Chinese people don't show a favour with the current government. But that's not much of an indicator, under the great famine, their was probably even more vast support for the Government. That's the nature of propaganda.

You say China has improved under communism. Think what it could have achieved without it. Or look back even further at what it achieved as an empire.

The average Chinese persons life has improved from an absolutely horrific existence under communism to a slightly better one - might be more like what your saying.

As I said before, it's the same party as always. Until propaganda is removed and freedom of speech installed, public opinion is far from fact and the average Chinese persons quality of life is as much fiction as it is belief.

No, I'm not implying that.

I'm implying that I don't understand how his arguments flow - they seem self defeating. For the reasons outlined above. I don't mean it personally, and I don't really care if he is respected or not. I just wanna get to the bottom of why, how and what he is getting at. And from his writing style it seem I am led to doubt he doesn't really believe what he is implying. Of course, I might and probqly an wrong so would appreciate clarification.

The argument of: its not just propaganda, its also a reflection of development - doesn't wash with me.