One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead.
The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows:
1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM
4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you for a short while after which the bubble bursts. Restructure your company and make sure it actually works for the benefit of the people". I'm not sure in which instance there was a gag order and in which instance the people involved voluntarily decided to lie low. But voluntarily lying low is not at all an uncommon practice during a major scandal involving a celebrity. In all these cases, after their reappearance (and a public announcement of the punishment), the situation is considered solved. Jack Ma is now vacationing in Europe and Fan Bingbing is making movies again.
Given these points, Chinese people at large don't believe at all that she's "disappeared" in the Soviet/Mao-era sense. They don't believe that she's ever been in danger. My relatives don't even believe that she's silenced. "What, why would they silence or catch her? She didn't do anything illegal. If she wants to file a rape charge, the police will help her."
Anti-corruption is a thing in China nowadays. Even though western media frames anti-corruption purely as an excuse to purge political opponents, Chinese don't believe so. They have faith in it because it has actually produced results. Thus, Chinese have high trust in their police w.r.t. catching corrupt officials. People trust that if Zhang is truly guilty, then he will be convicted, even if he has a lot of power. It isn't the first time that a corrupt but powerful high official was convicted, and it won't be the last time.
Why Chinese wife is like, "why do westerners think that the Chinese government is a monster? westerners are so weird"
Some other posters noted patriotism. While this indeed plays a role, it's not the whole story. I think my above points are much more important. What patriotism contributes, is the sense that western criticism is often hypocritical and full of ulterior motives (which they often are).
There is indeed no evidence that any of her friends or family have reported her as missing. Western reports are purely based on the reasoning "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared". Hence "Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place?"
Okay this post has been very long and I'm about to hit the text limit. And it's late, so I'll continue tomorrow with part 2. Feel free to ask questions in the mean time.
[1] I'm just going to assume good faith on part of WTA here. There are those who doubt its good faith because it's not the first time that an organization is or has been turned into a front for US regime change operations. This probably sounds conspiracy theoristy if you've never heard of this concept, but you really should research what the NED does and how the US weaponizes human rights.
From the paper I linked, section "Content of Censored and Uncensored Posts", here's one example:
> we now highlight the obverse condition by giving examples of two posts related to events with collective action potential that support the state but which
nevertheless were quickly censored. During the bombings in Fuzhou, the government censored this post, which unambiguously condemns the actions of Qian Mingqi, the bomber,
and explicitly praises the government’s work on the
issues of housing demolition, which precipitated the
bombings:
> “The bombing led not only to the tragedy of his
death but the death of many government workers.
Even if we can verify what Qian Mingqi said on
Weibo that the building demolition caused a great
deal of personal damage, we should still condemn
his extreme act of retribution.... The government has
continually put forth measures and laws to protect
the interests of citizens in building demolition. And
the media has called attention to the plight of those
experiencing housing demolition. The rate at which
compensation for housing demolition has increased
exceeds inflation. In many places, this compensation
can change the fate of an entire family.”
---
A more recent example. Jerry Grey is a Canadian who lives in China and who opposes the Xinjiang narrative in western mainstream media because he has travelled to Xinjiang and saw a different reality than described in the media.
On Chinese social media he posted a criticism of Adrien Zenz, one of the people pushing the genocide narrative. Grey's criticism was that Zenz has never been to Xinjiang, and Grey says that Zenz should go and take a look. This was then censored, because "it's not China's place to encourage other's to change their minds".
When the CIA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Chinese people were mad and going around in pro government/ anti-US riots and tried to storm the embassy/ consulates in Beijing and other cities. The government shutdown the subways and public transportation and enacted some degree of censorship in the state controlled news. (This was in '99 before widespread adoption of the internet)
>Large demonstrations erupted at consular offices of the United States and other NATO countries in China in reaction to news of the bombing. On May 9, 1999, then-Vice President Hu Jintao delivered a national televised speech calling the act both "criminal" and "barbaric" and that it "has greatly infuriated the Chinese people." He said the unauthorized demonstrations in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Shenyang reflected the anger and patriotism of the Chinese people, and which the Chinese government fully supported, but urged against extreme and illegal conduct.
>The protests continued for several days, during which tens of thousands of rock-throwing protesters kept U.S. Ambassador James Sasser and other staff trapped in the Beijing embassy.
There's zero evidence that the CCP censors pro- and anti- government information equally here. None. Only that, after first inflaming the rioters.... they eventually owned up to their internationally recognized responsibility to protect embassy staff.
> Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over
Being put under house arrest and prevented from having contact with the outside world by the government, without being charged with a crime is a pretty big abuse power. Imagine if Trump just put one of his critics under house arrest and prevented contact with the outside for several months. This would be an outrageous thing to do, and there'd probably have been riots outside the White House.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I believe that you earnestly feel this is an okay thing for the CCP to do. But that's not swaying my skepticism and distrust of the Chinese government. The fact that it's successfully normalized this level of authoritarianism among mainland Chinese to such an extent that they earnestly see it as normal is precisely why most Westerners are so distrustful of the Chinese government.
You can be put into regular arrest without being charged for a crime for weeks in almost every country on earth and there is no obligation in most country to allow for more than one or two monitored calls that can be interrupted at any moment for any reason.
As far as I know Jack Ma never criticized Xi. He criticized (international) banking regulations that were ratified in 2009 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and that he was not in compliance of. Legally in the United States that could very well put you in prison for fraud and you are not guaranteed the right to make a phone call or see family federally, though some states guarantee phone calls to some people on the day of arrest. Then the prosecutors can seal the indictment and you can be held for a year without anyone except your immediate family and attorney (if you can afford one) knowing. And then the prosecutors can drop chargers a few months later.
What happened to Jack Ma could have happened in the US because he was did something (fraud) that is a federal crime in the US. Thankfully it doesn't happen often. You also don't know that he wasn't charged. He recorded himself giving probable cause for a crime. It was really stupid of him.
> I believe that you earnestly feel this is an okay thing for the CCP to do
This is a wrong characterization.
China has different values and practices. Freedom means something different in China than in the west. China values other things more than western-style freedom of speech. For example there is a greater emphasis on responsibility.
The practice you quoted is unacceptable in the west. That's fine — for you. Chinese think differently and believe that such practices are sometimes necessary to prevent rumors from running wild and causing social instability. That's also fine — for them.
I just want you to know that Chinese genuinely have a different opinion and a different perspective. That you disagree with them is fine.
To each their own. The Chinese way would work disastrously in the west. The western way would work disastrously in China. Let each country decide what they value and how they want to do things.
> The practice you quoted is unacceptable in the west. That's fine — for you. Chinese think differently and believe that such practices are sometimes necessary to prevent rumors from running wild and causing social instability. That's also fine — for them.
What a marvelous coincidence for the CCP that "what Chinese people value", according to you, is the kind of submissive defference totalitarian governments desire from the people under their control.
And so what if you view them as totalitarian? By and large the Chinese do not. Let them decide what kind of society they want. There's no need for you to make the judgement for them. They aren't forcing their ways on you either.
It's important to understand the concept of the Petrodollar, how that system is secured by US maritime supremacy, and how it underpins the US financial system.
*If there is another strong power that can provide military security and at the same time offer sufficient funds and industrial products, the whole Middle East oil can be freed from the dominance of the dollar*
>>>What size defense force do you think China should have?
It's not the size that matters per se, it's the content. China used to have a largely-coastal navy. It has massively expanded its ability to conduct expeditionary warfare, with aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. The latter category are basically carbon-copies of the equivalent US classes. You only need warships like this if you expect to put entire battalions of troops on other people's shores.
> One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Why would she put herself and her family in danger to do that? She's basically at the age of retirement in her career. What do you think she'll do after she retires, with the CCP denying her further career prospects?
Well I, and many other Chinese people, don't think that "CPP will deny her further career aspects". We'll see in a few weeks whether she continues playing tennis.
Specifically, there are doubts on whether it's a rape charge at all. See the translation discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29344244
One possible interpretation of the main point of the post is that it was venting about Zhao having left her and played with her feelings.
Her social media accounts being censored, plus the fact[1] that the WTA chair said that he couldn't reach her, made the WTA and western journalists suspect that she "disappeared", i.e. in jail or dead.
The problem with the "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared" reasoning are as follows:
1. Censorship in China is not about removing posts that criticize the government. Censorship is applied equally on praises and criticisms of the state. What actually determines whether a post gets censored is whether the post has collective action potential, e.g. whether it can get out of control and cause social unrest. Chinese authorities do not want a post to cause mass protests on the streets or things like that. Posts critical of the state are not censored as long as they have no collective action potential, i.e. they don't go viral. This is corroborated by Harvard research: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
2. Censorship is not related to jailing offenders. They're orthogonal. The Chinese government is actually very responsive to criticisms, in the sense that they regularly actually change policies in response to criticisms. It is not uncommon for criticisms to be censored and listened to at the same time. See expat Cyrus Janssen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM
3. Chinese have high trust in their government, between 93% and 98%. These are not fake government numbers: they're measured by Harvard and York University through thousands of participants and anonymous surveys. See https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pande...
4. "Disappearances" in the sense of not appearing publicly (instead of the Soviet/Mao-era sense of being kidnapped into jail) is common if someone was caught for violating a law, and at the same time there is potential for a major scandal. Celebrity Fan Bingbing is a good case. Jack Ma is another case. In all these cases, the person in question is not in danger in the sense of being tortured in a prison. It's taking in for questioning with a gag order (and depending on the severity of the case, a house arrest) until it's over — a practice which is not unique to China. Both Jack Ma and Fan Bingbing never "disappeared" as in being jailed — they all appeared publicly later on, and then information is released on what happened. Fan Bingbing was caught for evading tax. Jack Ma's example was not so much "the Party punished him for criticizing the state". It was more like a stern talk: "Mr Ma we are a socialist country, you can't just pump money into a big pyramid scheme which only benefits you for a short while after which the bubble bursts. Restructure your company and make sure it actually works for the benefit of the people". I'm not sure in which instance there was a gag order and in which instance the people involved voluntarily decided to lie low. But voluntarily lying low is not at all an uncommon practice during a major scandal involving a celebrity. In all these cases, after their reappearance (and a public announcement of the punishment), the situation is considered solved. Jack Ma is now vacationing in Europe and Fan Bingbing is making movies again.
Given these points, Chinese people at large don't believe at all that she's "disappeared" in the Soviet/Mao-era sense. They don't believe that she's ever been in danger. My relatives don't even believe that she's silenced. "What, why would they silence or catch her? She didn't do anything illegal. If she wants to file a rape charge, the police will help her."
Anti-corruption is a thing in China nowadays. Even though western media frames anti-corruption purely as an excuse to purge political opponents, Chinese don't believe so. They have faith in it because it has actually produced results. Thus, Chinese have high trust in their police w.r.t. catching corrupt officials. People trust that if Zhang is truly guilty, then he will be convicted, even if he has a lot of power. It isn't the first time that a corrupt but powerful high official was convicted, and it won't be the last time.
Why Chinese wife is like, "why do westerners think that the Chinese government is a monster? westerners are so weird"
Some other posters noted patriotism. While this indeed plays a role, it's not the whole story. I think my above points are much more important. What patriotism contributes, is the sense that western criticism is often hypocritical and full of ulterior motives (which they often are).
There is indeed no evidence that any of her friends or family have reported her as missing. Western reports are purely based on the reasoning "censorship + WTA non-contact -> disappeared". Hence "Who had the right to declare her missing in the first place?"
Okay this post has been very long and I'm about to hit the text limit. And it's late, so I'll continue tomorrow with part 2. Feel free to ask questions in the mean time.
[1] I'm just going to assume good faith on part of WTA here. There are those who doubt its good faith because it's not the first time that an organization is or has been turned into a front for US regime change operations. This probably sounds conspiracy theoristy if you've never heard of this concept, but you really should research what the NED does and how the US weaponizes human rights.