Peng Shuai has now said she didnt really accuse any of sexual assault and was misunderstood. The fact she disappeared for weeks after wards is just totally coincidental and this post was not that done under duress or made by a sock puppet.
2 Likes
Sounds like sheâs been away for âre education â.
2 Likes
You have to wonder what she was threatened with.
The whole thing is so heavy handed and obvious, but the vast majority of the domestic audience will accept it as true. It will be interesting to see what the international reaction will be.
1 Like
2 Likes
Not much, it is just an individual, famous tennis player or not. They spirited away the chief of Interpol a while back and later sentenced him to 13 years in prison for bribery when he resurfaced in China (he may have spied for someone I guess, or maybe the bribery charges were real, who knows, not me).
âChina is experiencing a slow-motion economic crisis that could undermine stability in the current regimeâ
This is so, so, so, so typical and the WSJ are always, always wrong because they donât understand or care about social cohesion and political unity
The rest of the piece concerning economic vulnerability may well be true, but I have read so many of these pieces by the WSJ staying the approximate same abut China, Iran and Russia (i.e. regime become unstable, ready to be toppled by a passively US supported colour revolution) and it is never ever true and I have zero faith in their ability to forecast anything outside North America.
1 Like
The WSJ seems to be more an opinion rag pushing a particular agenda than a proper journalistic outfit nowadaysâŚ
1 Like
The piece was an editorial, and WSJ, unlike many other outlets, clearly marks its editorials. In my opinion, it has the highest journalistic values among U.S. journals, but of course, on its editorial page is very conservative. For me that piece and other similar ones asks an interesting question that is important to us all because of Chinaâs size. What is going to happen as the central committee imposes more control on the private sector? We all in the West allowed China to masquerade as a capitalist economy and ignored the elephant in the room at our own peril.
1 Like
The Bulwark is conservative. The WSJ editorial pages are Murdochian.
3 Likes
WSJ is no longer to be considered an actual conservative paper. It is right wing populist masquerading as serious and conservative. Itâs unprincipled, anti conservative support of Trump cemented this starkly and clearly. Trumpism has nothing in common with the conservative political movement no matter the brands they steal and use. However, I am ignoring this and talking about the WSJ foreign political advice. It is almost always bad in recent history, particularly when they try to assess which regime they donât like being close to collapse.
@Limiescouse has it right. Bulwark is principled and conservative, WSJ is something else. Something that bends with the wind.
I know he has his detractors here, but about 6 years ago Ben Rhodes labelled the US foreign policy establishment as The Blob, basically the foreign policy version of Eisenhowerâs military industrial complex, and something that is essentially the right hand of that. His point was the uniformity of thought not just in what should be our goals, but the approach that need to be employed to achieve them. This limited the room for alternative ideas (such as the JCPOA when dealing with iran) and the inability to hold people accountable for mistakes (because this means its never one person who is ostracized, but when the entire blob is shown to be wrong, they can collectively just move the goal posts to show they were actually right after all). What this means is that all foreign policy discourse is lead by people who have been shown to be wrong over and over and over again and never lose credibility. So the next time there is a foreign policy issue in the public consciousness, its these same perpetually wrong people who are rolled out onto NPR for interviews, or writing Op Eds in the Wa Po to tell us about what the correct approach should be.
2 Likes
The article says that these cowards invoke so-called âsecurity reasonsâ in order to dismantle it. Still, they do it by night behind a curtain of plastic sheets⌠
Technically, itâs for the security of the CCP regime I guessâŚ
1 Like
You think you canât be shocked anymore, and thenâŚ
To be fair, the ending of the book was a lot less triumphant than the Fincher film was. Sure, it wasnât quite so âChineseâ as âthe authorities winâ, but it did seem to imply these sorts of movements were ineffectual.
1 Like
Hmm, when US films butchered the original ending of a movie (more often than not, the entire fvcking movie) from other countries (EU, Far East, South East, you name it), you donât hear a chirp about itâŚBut Ooooo, when China modify the ending, it is such an unforgivable sin.
Rant over.
Itâs true that Hollywood has messed around with a lot of films from other countries and has changed characters and plotlines. However, they usually do it in order to create a happy ending or make the film more commercial in their eyes. Canât remember such blatant political editing, although itâs not impossible.
Have you seen the Star Wars posters that massively diminish Finâs face (black) for the Chinese market? Thatâs pandering to Chinese cash (pun intended) which is massively ironic given Hollywoodâs current agenda.
Isnât that the case all over the world ?
Itâs not as if China is renowned for itâs news being impartial and always true without any governmental interference.