You must log in or register to comment.
emperor genuinely killed someone who was loyal like he fucking trusted you to keep by your word you really fucking lost an ally or more God damn such a fumble
Accepting criticism and not punishing for it are two very different things.
Ye Boju spent the rest of his life appreciating several key facts:
- he was not an official
- he criticized the Emperor instead of his leadership
- acceptance of his criticism was not protection from retaliation
The best thing is that Ye Boju criticized the emperors harsh punishment of officials:
“The emperor himself solicited criticism of his harsh treatment of the officials in the prestamped documents case. Responding to unusual and inauspicious activity by the stars and planets, in a conventional gesture, he announced on 22 October 1376 that he would accept straightforward criticism of his rule from officials. Yeh Po-chii’s response was the most detailed and the most devastating. Yeh was then serving in P’ing-yao, southwest of T’ai-yiian in Shansi. When the emperor read Yeh’s criticisms, he became furious and ordered him brought in chains to Nanking. Yeh died of starvation in prison not long afterward. His criticisms dealt with three major problems in Ming rule: the enfeoffment of the princes of the blood and their command of military forces; the emperor’s reliance on extremely harsh punishments; and the excessive haste with which the emperor moved to establish the institutions of his rule.”
The book uses an older romanization of Chinese than the Wikipedia article.
Twitchett, Denis (1998), The Cambridge History of China Volume 7 The Ming Dynasty, 1368—1644, Part I, Cambridge University Press, Page 135f.
To be pedantic, it is not specified whether Ye Boju was an official and it says he criticized the emperor himself and not “his rule”.
Freedom of speech was given, freedom after speech was not.
This what y’all sound like when you say freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences btw.
No, it’s the exact opposite. “Freedom of speech” is the state not retaliating for things you say. “Is not freedom from consequences” means other people can still cut ties with you for what you say. People who say that aren’t saying that the state is allowed to retaliate, that’s the opposite from freedom of speech, and the event in OP’s post is not freedom of speech. It just sounds like you don’t understand what either freedom of speech or freedom of consequence mean.
So no one should face consequences for what they say?
Nah. There’s just a difference between someone refusing to repeat your words and the state killing you for saying them.
A distinction that stupid fucking phrase brainlessly repeated by morons doesn’t illuminate.
That’s correct
That’s a very stupid thing to believe and I will fight ceaselesly for your right to shut up.
K
So… if I insult you relentlessly you should then still treat me as if I haven’t?
You are entirely unclear on what stance you have, what did you mean by this whacked out crazy statement you made
