The video and its subsequent response sparked a significant reaction on social media, with numerous users rallying behind Sangwan's statement. However, some others disagreed, asserting that personal opinions should not be shared within classrooms.
Well that is where societies get to. Being educated or uneducated becomes equivalent to a political stance. There are plenty of examples of educators getting murdered by governments, sometimes en masse.
What’s more concerning is when a society is populated by people who have take the most facile understanding of a position, and then go about confidently as if they understand it. Like, say, if a news article has a rage porn headline and then people don’t read it to understand what actually was going on but make comments on websites as if there was no nuance to the subject whatsoever. … Very concerning.
sigh the massacres were in side streets, not the square. The students themselves left under the threat of being removed violently once it became clear that the hardline faction in the CCP had won out over the reformists.
Saying things like “Students were massacred on the square” only gives the CCP ammunition for their “see what kind of vile propaganda the west spreads, they’re making shit up” narrative.
It’s a thing that every Chinese knows, that the students weren’t massacred. They were the main force behind the whole thing, it’s not a minor detail. The collective memory, the meaning of the whole thing would be vastly different had they been massacred. It’s more or less a symbol and reminder that you’ll be “invited for a tea” before anything actually bad happens, that shit is oppressive yes but it’s not cultural revolution times where it was nigh impossible to know how you’re even supposed to act, where the limits are. They’re still fuzzy but they’ll be explained to you over a stern cup of tea nowadays.
It may be a small detail from your POV, it isn’t from the Chinese one.
It’s an euphemism, think similar connotations as “offer you can’t refuse”. OTOH might involve actual drinking of drinking-temperature tea, it’s China after all.
The way I read is “The CCP didn’t massacre a bunch of uneducated citizens in Tienanmen square”. Because, you know, the context was “educated people get slaughtered”.
Well that is where societies get to. Being educated or uneducated becomes equivalent to a political stance. There are plenty of examples of educators getting murdered by governments, sometimes en masse.
Pol Pot took it a step further and murdered anyone who wore glasses, because wearing glasses was seen as being educated.
Authoritarians of every type hate the educated, because the educated often hate authoritarianism.
What’s more concerning is when a society is populated by people who have take the most facile understanding of a position, and then go about confidently as if they understand it. Like, say, if a news article has a rage porn headline and then people don’t read it to understand what actually was going on but make comments on websites as if there was no nuance to the subject whatsoever. … Very concerning.
The CCP didn’t massacre a bunch of uneducated citizens in Tiananmen Square.
sigh the massacres were in side streets, not the square. The students themselves left under the threat of being removed violently once it became clear that the hardline faction in the CCP had won out over the reformists.
Saying things like “Students were massacred on the square” only gives the CCP ammunition for their “see what kind of vile propaganda the west spreads, they’re making shit up” narrative.
Why is it an important distinction? Massacre is massacre whether it’s on a square or on side streets.
Because of what I already said. Also even if the CCP wasn’t using that kind of talk for internal propaganda it’s still nice to be accurate, you know?
It just seems like a small detail that wouldn’t actually benefit their propaganda at all.
It’s a thing that every Chinese knows, that the students weren’t massacred. They were the main force behind the whole thing, it’s not a minor detail. The collective memory, the meaning of the whole thing would be vastly different had they been massacred. It’s more or less a symbol and reminder that you’ll be “invited for a tea” before anything actually bad happens, that shit is oppressive yes but it’s not cultural revolution times where it was nigh impossible to know how you’re even supposed to act, where the limits are. They’re still fuzzy but they’ll be explained to you over a stern cup of tea nowadays.
It may be a small detail from your POV, it isn’t from the Chinese one.
“invited for tea”?
It’s an euphemism, think similar connotations as “offer you can’t refuse”. OTOH might involve actual drinking of drinking-temperature tea, it’s China after all.
Good thing that I wrote “The CCP didn’t massacre a bunch of uneducated citizens in Tiananmen Square.”
The way I read is “The CCP didn’t massacre a bunch of uneducated citizens in Tienanmen square”. Because, you know, the context was “educated people get slaughtered”.