[wat0n]

They will receive some form of taxpayer money, yes. Find me one independent school that "don't get government money".

Whether its a grant for providing at cost school lunches or others, a subsidy for vouchers they choose to accept, reduced price electricity available to educational institutions, tax relief for bus services. I sincerely doubt there is a single school in the US that doesn't receive some form of government money and thus would be eligible for backdoor oversight.

I would guess super rich private schools may in fact manage to go by without government funding. The rest, which are obviously the majority (particularly charter schools), don't.

But only if they teach leftwing concepts - we're perfectly OK with taxpayer money going to ideological schools on the right, such as the millions the Florida GOP is sending toward Christian schools in the state.

At least Florida recently (late March) passed a law basically eliminating any restrictions on vouchers. By extension, this doesn't stop someone from setting up a woke school and getting voucher funding.

Maybe if such schools became significant, the GOP would change its mind on vouchers. But I find it unlikely as it would be unable to do as you say as it would be unconstitutional - if no woke schools are getting voucher funding it's because there are currently no woke schools basically, and this can perfectly change some years from now.

Again, the debate isn't really "China is bad because their government intervenes in education." It is "China is bad because the worldview their government promotes is one I disagree with." I'm tired of having the fake debate with you people. It is OK for any government to intervene in education, to limit what political concepts students are exposed too, and to limit what content can be marketed to children. The GOP is ok with it. The Dems are ok with it. You're Ok with it.

I am not OK with governments choosing to take that right and promote Christianity, nationalism, or supremacy. When the GOP does this, they are being bad. I am OK with the government using that right to promote inclusivity, secularism, and equity. When the commies do this, they are doing good. If you want to have a debate about that, sure, but this fake one about "free speech" is not interesting.

I would hardly say China is inclusive, secular or equitable.

Anyway, going back to the OP, like it or not you can't seriously compare the ban of the sale of certain children's book with the defining of school curriculum - even if a book is outside the curriculum or even banned from it, parents can just buy it for their children as it's not banned for sale to the general public. China doesn't even allow this in HK.

I also think that if you want to draw analogies with the West, 21st century US is a bad one. I'm pretty sure such censorship was far more common in the US before the 1960s and it is perfectly constitutional in several Western European countries (just try selling a children's book denying the Holocaust in Europe and report back). I'd draw comparisons with that if you want to make the case the West doesn't have anything to teach China in this regard, and just accept that type of ban is currently deemed unconstitutional (by plenty of SCOTUS precedent dating from the 1960s onwards) in the present-day US.

[Fasces]

I would guess super rich private schools may in fact manage to go by without government funding. The rest, which are obviously the majority (particularly charter schools), don't.

Yes, because the super-rich in the US have a known tendency to avoid using public money.

You can't seriously compare the ban of the sale of certain children's book with the defining of school curriculum

I'm not defending the Chinese decision - I said as much in my first post. It's dumb. It's also dumb that Brian Covey got fired for filming a TikTok in an empty classroom (no captive audience) showing off empty shelves because of Florida's staunch laws on what can or can' t be marketed. DeSantis is trying to run Disney out of the state for daring to show a lesbian couple kissing in the background of a cartoon and a Tweet about the Don't Say Gay bill. I'm not saying China or the US are the same (yet), but:



It is OK for any government to intervene in education, to limit what political concepts students are exposed too and the speech of educators, and to limit what content can be marketed to children. The GOP is ok with it. The Dems are ok with it. You're ok with it. The CPC is ok with it. The disagreement isn't about that, ultimately.

[AFAIK]

After two years Fasces continues to own the thread.

It's hard to swallow the idea that this is an ideological clash of civilizations between good and evil that demands a new Cold War when there's little real difference between the oligarchic regime with a veneer of democracy and the oligarchic regime without it.

I've noticed no one bothers to criticise Vietnam for being a one party authoritarian state and they have no problem with it being included in TPP or invited to meetings of the Quad.
https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/making- ... a-reality/

[wat0n]

Yes, because the super-rich in the US have a known tendency to avoid using public money.

They don't, but then again I don't think they need it that much if that means compromising on their independence.

I'm not defending the Chinese decision - I said as much in my first post. It's dumb. It's also dumb that Brian Covey got fired for filming a TikTok in an empty classroom (no captive audience) showing off empty shelves because of Florida's staunch laws on what can or can' t be marketed. DeSantis is trying to run Disney out of the state for daring to show a lesbian couple kissing in the background of a cartoon and a Tweet about the Don't Say Gay bill. I'm not saying China or the US are the same (yet), but:



It is OK for any government to intervene in education, to limit what political concepts students are exposed too and the speech of educators, and to limit what content can be marketed to children. The GOP is ok with it. The Dems are ok with it. You're ok with it. The CPC is ok with it. The disagreement isn't about that, ultimately.

No, the disagreement is about selling children's books in bookstores. The article at least makes it clear parents can't buy the book for private home use if they wish.

Hence why I drew a clear distinction between whatever public schools do and whatever books are sold. The Chinese ban is far, far broader than anything you can see in the US today as it goes beyond schools. But you are actually right, somewhat: It's not that far from what you can see in the West. I'm sure plenty of European countries would ban the sale of children's books calling for the overthrow of the government, the US would have done so too until the 1960s - but not nowadays as it doesn't represent a threat of imminent lawless action.

I'd replace "USA" in that graph with some other country, like France or Germany instead.

I also think the teacher who was fired for sharing his opinion shouldn't have been under the law. As you said, he didn't state his opinion during instruction, did not impact his work in any clear way and thus I don't think he did anything wrong. But then again, employers can fire you here for your political opinions if they wish, it's not a protected class (but should be in most cases if you ask me).

[Rancid]

Listen, you didn't provide jack squat. You sent graphs of passangers, expats and so on without providing a real argument. So your arguments were not really arguments or good faith. It is pretty clear for anybody reading this topic.

You want examples of Xi repressivness? You have not been paying attention to HK, camps for Ughyurs and Mongols, crackdown on private business owners, crackdown on IT companies and so on? I mean that is blatantly obvious and has been for some time now. Not to mention the usual suspects of academia and artists one party line or it is gulag time for you.

Now if you have an argument that you want to provide how all that is not represive or how there is another reason for the 8x increase in asylum seekers from 15k to 110K+ then i am all ears.

Don't forget the apology videos.

[Unthinking Majority]

Thanks for posting this super-scientific chart.

It is OK for any government to intervene in education, to limit what political concepts students are exposed too and the speech of educators, and to limit what content can be marketed to children. The GOP is ok with it. The Dems are ok with it. You're ok with it. The CPC is ok with it. The disagreement isn't about that, ultimately.

Do you think there should be no limits in what content can be marketed/taught to children in schools and what children are exposed to? Do you think all content is age-appropriate for all ages of children in public school where parents do not have consent to expose their children to? Can they put Hustler magazines in the library because of free speech? Can teachers preach racist, pro-Trump, and anti-LGBT and anti-climate change propaganda? I've asked you this several times with no response. Can they preach Nazi and white supremacist political views because of "free speech"?

Of course the government can intervene in education since with public schools they are the ones administering it. Public school teachers are employees of the government. The government should be limited and regulated in what they can and can't teach children without the consent of parents. Teachers do not have free speech in the conduct of their duties, they are to follow the approved curriculum. Public schools are run by publicly elected trustees and regulated by elected government officials because agents of the government (school boards, principals, teachers) should not be teaching (brainwashing) other people's children with the personal political leanings, ideologies, activism etc of individual teachers or administrators. Again, a teacher's job is to STFU and teach the approved curriculum. This is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the CCP is doing in China, which is brainwashing children by banning books by private authors in the private sphere that is critical of the government.

What are the limits to free speech in the USA for private citizens writing books marketed to children in the private sphere? Schools are perfectly able to ban whatever content they feel is inappropriate for minors. The government can't do that for private content in the private sphere. Even films with NC-17 ratings where children can't attend in a theater are not regulated by law/government, it is a voluntary system by the Motion Picture Association.

[JohnRawls]

Yes, because the super-rich in the US have a known tendency to avoid using public money.



I'm not defending the Chinese decision - I said as much in my first post. It's dumb. It's also dumb that Brian Covey got fired for filming a TikTok in an empty classroom (no captive audience) showing off empty shelves because of Florida's staunch laws on what can or can' t be marketed. DeSantis is trying to run Disney out of the state for daring to show a lesbian couple kissing in the background of a cartoon and a Tweet about the Don't Say Gay bill. I'm not saying China or the US are the same (yet), but:



It is OK for any government to intervene in education, to limit what political concepts students are exposed too and the speech of educators, and to limit what content can be marketed to children. The GOP is ok with it. The Dems are ok with it. You're ok with it. The CPC is ok with it. The disagreement isn't about that, ultimately.

That is a lie, one of the biggest lies of this century parroted by authoritarian regimes that thrive on this exaggeration. Most people fall for it easily since they have no ability to compare in the West. The reality of things is that in China (and Russia and many other countries) all relevant media is controlled by the state and censored. Even if private media manages to reach any notable levels of coverage then it is instantly blocked or bought out by the state or its cronies. And even those medias with very limited coverage is basically censored with the state broadcasters just shutting their broadcasts down or censoring them.

Now compare it to the West where we have almost all non-state media who are not controlled and can spout anything they want. They might be biased or might belong to a certain narrative of coverage but bias is not the issue here that we are discussing. We are discussing here freedom of speech.

It is so easy to trick Westerners to not understanding this crucial difference. Chinese media is not biased, it is controlled and censored. Bias is a whole different thing all together. Bias is not even enforced with fear or state manipulation and so on.

[Fasces]

The only lie, or fundamental failure of perspective, is the idea that media controlled by a state oligarchy and media controlled by a non-state oligarchy is meaningfully different in terms of 'freedom" for an average person.

Whether the guy holding my leash is some bureaucrat or Murdoch, some party official or Bezos, makes no meaningful difference. If you want to talk about democratic control of workplaces and decentralized platforms, I'm all ears.

[JohnRawls]

The only lie, or fundamental failure of perspective, is the idea that media controlled by a state oligarchy and media controlled by a non-state oligarchy is meaningfully different in terms of 'freedom" for an average person.

Whether the guy holding my leash is some bureaucrat or Murdoch, some party official or Bezos, makes no meaningful difference. If you want to talk about democratic control of workplaces and decentralized platforms, I'm all ears.

There is a massive difference if one can be refused and do it out of free will or greed and the other is through dictate, fear and can't be refused at its core. Not to mention even the whole aspect of free speech as like different flavours of media in the West while literally all media in China have to tow the party line so there is no plurality of opinion.

[Fasces]

Fear of being shot by a government and fear of starving in the street are the same fear and manifest the same compliance and hierarchy.

I do not care how "free" the Murdochs, Musks, and Bezos of the world are. The fact they are more "free" in Washington than in Beijing doesn't give Washington any bonus points. The relative freedom of oligarchs isn't really my priority or concern.

Neither are "hypothetical" freedoms. There is little difference to anyone earning under $200k per year in living in the USA or China, in terms of 'freedoms' they enjoy, day to day.

[Unthinking Majority]

I know you like to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, but I have no such good faith with the GOP. The Florida legislature banned any school from teaching CRT or 'woke' but continues to give tax funded vouchers to denominational schools. Abbot is pushing for having the Ten Commandments in every Texan classroom. The GOP feels very strongly that the American left has 'captured' the American classroom, and has shifted from an essentialist position on education to a perennialist one - a very Christian nationalist version (which is what I have a problem with).

Well the Texas example is a different story. That should not be allowed in public schools. A century ago you could get away with it since virtually everyone was Christian anyways.

It is a culture war, I obviously don't agree with overt ideological or political or religious bias in public schools. The GOP however are not entirely wrong with schools being captured by left- leaning educators where some push an activist agenda. I don't agree with some of their approaches though, like that Texas governor example.

[Unthinking Majority]

The only lie, or fundamental failure of perspective, is the idea that media controlled by a state oligarchy and media controlled by a non-state oligarchy is meaningfully different in terms of 'freedom" for an average person.

Whether the guy holding my leash is some bureaucrat or Murdoch, some party official or Bezos, makes no meaningful difference. If you want to talk about democratic control of workplaces and decentralized platforms, I'm all ears.

The difference is that nobody in the media will be arrested for having a different opinion. Everyone is free to criticize Biden or Musk or Murdoch or anyone or anything.

FOX News and the NY Post are allowed to exist and MSNBC and the NYT are also allowed to exist, and they will only go out of business if the public doesn't want to listen not because a tyrant forces them to close because they are a threat to their power & control. Who would prefer an oligarch that can arrest and censor competitors?

[Fasces]

Who would prefer an oligarch that can arrest and censor competitors?

I think we're finally asking an interesting question: is it better to be governed by people I can't vote for (unless I'm rich enough to buy a lot of votes in their boardrooms) and over whom there is limited democratic oversight (especially if they're rich enough to control what oversight does exist)... or is it better for the state to be powerful enough to squash these neo-feudal lords, even if the state is given power of arrest and censure that these feudal lords otherwise may lack?

I do use nonfeudal on purpose - a serf in the old feudal system was tied to his land to produce for his lord through a complex code of laws, duties, and honor; the modern serf in the neo-feudal system is tied to his job to produce for his lord through a complex system weak wages, job-tied healthcare, high rents, and over-criminalization.

I know that I prefer centralization - a strong state that can keep the oligarchs in line and subservient to the public interest and rule of law. I would prefer such a state have some mechanism for democracy, and I find China's significantly lacking. The US, though, with its weak rule of law over its self-centered oligarchs, is not 'better' or 'more free'. It's the same tyranny, with a different veneer.

Fear of being shot by a government and fear of starving in the street are the same fear and manifest the same compliance and hierarchy. There is little difference to anyone earning under $200k per year in living in the USA or China, in terms of 'freedoms' they enjoy, day to day. I'm certainly not interested in having a new Cold War over it.

Which gets back to my initial point, all the way back in 2021, on page 1 of this thread.

[JohnRawls]

Fear of being shot by a government and fear of starving in the street are the same fear and manifest the same compliance and hierarchy.

I do not care how "free" the Murdochs, Musks, and Bezos of the world are. The fact they are more "free" in Washington than in Beijing doesn't give Washington any bonus points. The relative freedom of oligarchs isn't really my priority or concern.

Neither are "hypothetical" freedoms. There is little difference to anyone earning under $200k per year in living in the USA or China, in terms of 'freedoms' they enjoy, day to day.

There is though, you don't go to jail in US for protesting your local or federal government. Nor do you have in sway on the policy in China besides very few nieche cases when the situation explodes. Again, incomparable.

[wat0n]

There is also more freedom in the US as far as getting information is concerned - be it by reading, consuming media or surfing the internet - than in China. And these are definitely things many of us do every day.

[Fasces]

There is though, you don't go to jail in US for protesting your local or federal government.

China has hundreds of thousands of protests annually. You won't go to jail for it in a China either. My wife participated in a protest against the development of a beach without further incident.

Organizing an unsanctioned protest is a different thing, sure, but we're really stretching our definition of day to day freedoms for average folks, here. But sure, China is not as pluralistic as the West.

Nor do you have in sway on the policy in China besides very few nieche cases

Oh please, let's not pretend the American government reflects the will of individual voters (or voters in aggregate) - especially the bottom 95%.

There is also more freedom in the US as far as getting information is concerned - be it by reading, consuming media or surfing the internet - than in China.

Most information is still available through different sources - I wouldn't call your inability to use Baidu effectively to be a point against your ability to access that information.

For a very narrow slice of information relating specifically to historical or politically sensitive topics, sure. The biggest meaningful difference in terms of freedom for an average person living in the US vs China is that in the US I could host a Twitch stream reading a book on American war crimes without risking a visit by the PSB next day (at least as long as you're not an American public school teacher!)

When's the last time you or anyone you know exercised that right, though? How big was the audience? We're approaching niche differences here - not enough to say China and the US are "incomparable", and certainly not enough for me to jump aboard the new Cold War train or that China is some unique, indescribably evil regime that threatens the West.

[AFAIK]

This discussion reminds of that old cold war joke;

In the USA you can criticise the president but cannot criticise your boss. In the USSR you can criticise your boss but cannot criticise the president

[Fasces]

In the USA you can criticise the president but cannot criticise your boss. In the USSR you can criticise your boss but cannot criticise the president

Spot on!

In China, you have a surprising amount (for this forum) of political freedom to complain about your local government too; just don't criticize Beijing!

Broadly, I do think Chinese and American lives are comparable, for the general public.

In terms of access to information: imagining a huge library consisting of the sum total of all human knowledge magically available in all languages, limited only by national policy... the Chinese library would have 98% of its tomes available to the general public, and the US library would have 99%. You'd have to dig through a lot of manuals on upkeep of tomato plants, proper truss techniques, or chess end games to get to books on the three Ts and other sensitive topics. It's niche.

Speaking much more generally, the big freedoms are equally there for Chinese and Americans - the right to study what you want; work in what job you want; to marry who you please and have children*; to live where you want**; to go out and do what you want on a Friday night; to create art or music; to chat shit with your friends or family without fear of reprisal; dress how you like; very transparent bureacracy without onerous fees or bribes, and so on.

In some cases, Americans have more freedom: access to that last 1% of information, on demand; ability to speak publicly without fear of reprisal; to join/start organizations, especially religious or political ones, on a whim; in China your ability to travel can be restricted for ongoing civil cases, not just criminal ones

In some cases, too, Chinese have more freedom than Americans: lower costs for rent and utilities; cheaper to travel between cities; better protections for holidays; very good labor-dispute courts etc.

*Under 3 children, but given Chinese birth rates it looks like most aren't using this to its potential as is.
**The hukou system is also changing but, in some localities, can still limit whether you can buy property (no limit on rent) or access services. Very rare compared to the 80s,though.


The two countries have their differences, of course. But you guys have built it up in your heads with vague half-truths, rumors and suppositions into this monster it isn't.

[Rich]

The hypocrisy of the Liberals again beggars belief. On the one hand they whine about human rights in Hong Kong, on the other they plot to make Vladivostok a Chinese city and openly declare their wish to see Xi's rule extended to the Urals.

[AFAIK]

The funny thing is that there are structural shortcomings within China's method of government that are worthy of criticism but no one here is willing to learn about the country and be exposed to them. I read about a mayor who covered up a chemical leak that had reached a river and was making its way towards a city of 5 million and endangering their drinking water. His reason? As soon as he reports it his career is over so it's better for him to try and fix the problem by himself even if that endangers public safety for millions of people downstream. We saw this in Wuhan where the doctor who first identified covid-19 was harassed by police because bad news is not tolerated in China's system.

On the other hand there's plenty of evidence showing that following the news is actively harmful to the reader and that sensational coverage of crimes is likely to encourage copycats. Not that anyone in this thread is interested in finding a middle ground between these countries that aren't all that far apart to begin with.