I do agree however that the level of empathy in the parts of china that I have visited seem to be much lower than I’ve seen elsewhere. I agree with Kai about the reasons behind people not acting in many of the situations given as examples, though I disagree heavily the reasoning behind one arguement. In a life or death situation where a person is trapped if a person where to truly empathise if they believed they could help and save that individuals life no matter the financial/ legal risk then surely at least one person would overcome their fear and act. i.e It could be me trapped there and I would want someone to help me so I will act.Easy to say perhaps…

on the westernization-vs modernization debate( really enjoyed reading the posts)I’d say there are signs of westernization coming through not just superficial ones of dress and eating habits;but also the adoption of ‘western’ words and concepts into hanzi that did not exist before in the 80’s (language helps to define how people think by adding foreign concepts and ideas you can’t help but shift some peoples thinking) , the shifting of moral standards on acceptable behaviour as mentioned before by someone, old traditions being left behind… I could go on but I want to balance this a bit, with the reverse has also been true and one wonders how much of what we think of western has been drawn from elsewhere. I think the use of developed countries rather than western might get rid of some of the baggage. Sorry this is all a bit messy too tired. Last but not least I think a one party country is perfectly possible and can be more efficient than democracy in a fluid or overly large environment. To encapsulate so much power in so few however necessitates that you can get rid of corruption, enforce all laws equally and make sure the people in power are intelligent and compassionate or at least be Just, otherwise it will eventually become oppresive. Human nature here does tend to make that inevitable. The good thing about democracy as a system is it tends to take into account the corruption, stupidity and a selfserving nature in its leaders and in most cases corrects before things can get too bad. If it doesn’t democracy ends and well..

You called Shin a mind boggling idiot for making a comment that you “fully understand and identify with”.

I called shin a mind boggling idiot for make an indefensible statement, not for making a comment I “fully understand and identify with.” I do not “fully understand and identify” with the idiocy required to say something as patently absurd as “empathy is simply non-existent in China.” You’re intentionally misrepresenting my objection.

So why did you sidestep the issue and roll with a childish insult instead?

I didn’t side-step the issue. I clearly bolded and explained what I was objecting to and insulting. You’re intentionally misrepresenting my position yet again.

I know, I know… because it is offensive and not worth a proper response;

I offered a proper response. I explained why the indefensible statement I objected to was false and idiotic when it became apparent that you couldn’t accept that such an indefensible statement could be criticized because it resonates with you.

Instead of making a valid argument against my explanation of why shin’s statement was idiotic and indefensible, you proceeded to defend it by broadening the issue and making hypocritical self-righteous attacks against me, accusing me of having a phobia the record does not evidence me having.

Instead of acknowledging the indefensible as indefensible, you went on the attack, making unfounded and unsupported accusations about my character.

If people like you (someone who knows about China and is ready to tackle cultural issues) can’t address a point that thousands of visitors here “fully understand and identify with” then what the hell kind of issues are you tackling with your comments?

Wow, when did you suddenly know what “thousands of visitors here” think and become qualified to speak on their behalf?

The issue I was tackling with my initial comment to shin was that such a patently idiotic comment is offensive, not appreciated, and liable to be called out for what it is.

The issue I am tackling with my subsequent comments to you is that your disingeneous, misrepresenting, hypocritical, self-righteous, fallacious attacks against me are, well, disingenous, misrepresentive, hypocritical, self-righteous, and fallacious. I think I’ve done a good job above providing evidence and argumentation supporting this conclusion.

That’s why I called you bland earlier,

Right, you can’t figure out how to counter my argument so you call me boring instead. That’s new.

because you never actually deal with the big issues head on.

Only according to you. Or have you become the arbiter of what is a “big issue”? I do not exist to deal with the issues YOU think are “big.” I deal with the issues that matter to me. Your self-righteousness manifests itself yet again with you dictating what other people should consider important or not.

You microscope and de-contextualise stories as part of your phobia of generalisations and fear of being guilty of the crime of feeling superior to China.

That sounded intelligent but it wasn’t. You’re still making the “phobia” accusation without substantiation. Pointing out that a comment made was patently idiotic is not microscoping or de-contextualizing anything. It’s calling a cigar a cigar. You’re still desperately trying to broaden the issue.

But in doing so, you negate the opportunity to look at the bigger picture here in China. There is a bigger picture, and generalistions can and do serve a function other than racism (I admit it is difficult in a country more resembling a continent).

You’re broadening and veering off topic. I have nothing against looking at the bigger picture here in China. I have nothing against reasonably used generalizations. I DO have something against people copping a superiority complex. shin’s comment indicated such. His subsequent defense corroborated it. I’ve already demonstrated how you have a nauseating superiority complex as well above.

Shin’s comment might have been offensive, but the issue itself WAS worthy of a proper response.

I gave a proper response and had good discussions with those who were able to discuss the issue without being patently offensive and then defending such offensiveness. You’re still broadening.

It’s the same thing with your CNreview blog, which serves as another example of your misleading people and avoiding the larger issues. You rightly observe that foreign people very rarely have Chinese friends (which so many are not ready to admit), but then go on to write an entirely innocuous blog reminding people who came to integrate that they should review their current situation. I mean.. WTF kind of point is that? Why would that make interesting reading?

What isn’t interesting to you doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting to others. How arrogant can you be to think that your tastes and interests define everyone elses?

I didn’t think it was necessary to lecture foreigners to make Chinese friends. 1. I don’t think they need to.
2. If they want to, a simple reminder that they think about their situation, consider their original goals, and then maybe make different decisions going forward is sufficient in my mind for my purposes.

Your criticism of CNR is the lamest argument I’ve seen you make yet. Now, maybe YOU don’t think these are big issues, but I’ve written about racism in China, Jackie Chan’s comments on the Chinese needing to be “controlled”, freedom of speech on the internet, biases and prejudices towards the movie Nanjing Nanjing, and Tiananmen Square amongst others. Do I need to tell you how “big” these issues are? Or are you going to dismiss them all because it is more convenient for your argument to do so? Or because you might not agree with my position on these issues?

So anything you disagree with is automatically not a “big” issue, eh?

(Any readers still following this should note that Kai did later admit that this blog was ‘probably a trap’ in response to the MANY people who ‘misread’ it. This is one of the reasons why I called him a troll – Wiki definition of troll is someone who has the “primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response”)

Wow, if you mistake an provocative introduction that segways into a larger point as trolling, you’re a bigger idiot that I though. I am, however, glad you finally looked up what “troll” means. I hope you’ll now realize that the vast majority of my comments on this website are is not “trollish” behavior. Likewise, various writing techniques used to engage or prompt a reaction from a reader is not trolling. Keep reading that Wikipedia definition.

It was the same on the ‘woman drowns in car’ story. You get red-faced and shout at people who cite it as an example of how Chinese people don’t help each other when in trouble, and in doing so, completely fail to take up a very obvious phenomenon here, which is the fact that people often don’t help each other.

Ah, I was waiting for when you’d bring that up. You’re basically demanding that I have the same thoughts and reactions as you do. This is ridiculous. I already made my point in that thread. I’m not going to re-argue my point here. You’re again broadening and trying to change the subject instead of simply acknowledging that I have the right and freedom to take offense to what shin said but you’re trying to force me to accept it. I don’t need to accept what I find unacceptable, even if you demand it, Asis.

You want to fight against oversimplifications; fine, but please don’t do it at the expense of honest discussion about China.

You’re not very good at honest discussions, Asis. When someone starts an honest discussion, I’ll honor it with an honest discussion. What shin did was not an honest discussion, thou you apparently think so and demand that I agree. When others like bert or pug started honest discussions, I was happy to engage them on it. You’re again depending on broadening the issue in order to make a criticism against me that isn’t applicable.

You’re trying to blackmail me into accepting offensive comments, claiming that if I don’t, then I’m wasting an opportunity for an honest discussion. That’s some fucked up logic, Asis. The person who squandered the opportunity for an honest discussion is the person who first made the patently idiotic and indefensible statement. How does someone engage shin in an honest discussion when he already came out saying “empathy is simply non-existent in China?” When confronted and called out, he then defends it? I’m supposed to have an honest discussion with someone who is more interested in casting judgement and condemnation, reaffirming his own ethnic/racial/cultural superiority? Sorry, Asis, you’re defending the wrong example and picking the wrong battle. An honest discussion begins with mutual respect. Why is it that you’re arguing that I should accord shin respect when he offered none?

Are you one of those people who think foreigners and foreign opinions should be sincerely considered and accepted no matter how offensive they are?

Instead of deliberately evading and misleading just to prove your point that foreigners feel superior to the Chinese, why not spend some time actually tackling these issues?

Because I don’t owe it to you to play by your ridiculously unfair rules. Instead of deliberately trying to assert superiority over the Chinese, why not spend some time actually tackling these issues? See how it works, Asis?

It would make you a hell of a better writer;

Um, yeah, I don’t think I’m very interested in being a “better writer” in your eyes.

“I’m not Shin’s fucking parent”

I can almost hear you shouting it at your screen. This Kai, is exactly what I am talking about. There’s a fire inside you that affects your ability to speak pragmatically and maturely about China. To address the things that really matter.

You called Shin a mind boggling idiot for making a comment that you “fully understand and identify with”. That’s what I took you up on, and who can blame me for misunderstanding you, given your strange use of words?

You favour calling people names (misleading names at that) for making generalisations, rather than taking up observations that you “fully understand and identify with”. A lot of us did, like you, “fully understand and identify” with Shin’s statement. So why did you sidestep the issue and roll with a childish insult instead?

I know, I know… because it is offensive and not worth a proper response; but that was, and is my point. If people like you (someone who knows about China and is ready to tackle cultural issues) can’t address a point that thousands of visitors here “fully understand and identify with” then what the hell kind of issues are you tackling with your comments?

That’s why I called you bland earlier, because you never actually deal with the big issues head on. You microscope and de-contextualise stories as part of your phobia of generalisations and fear of being guilty of the crime of feeling superior to China. But in doing so, you negate the opportunity to look at the bigger picture here in China. There is a bigger picture, and generalistions can and do serve a function other than racism (I admit it is difficult in a country more resembling a continent).

Shin’s comment might have been offensive, but the issue itself WAS worthy of a proper response.

It’s the same thing with your CNreview blog, which serves as another example of your misleading people and avoiding the larger issues. You rightly observe that foreign people very rarely have Chinese friends (which so many are not ready to admit), but then go on to write an entirely innocuous blog reminding people who came to integrate that they should review their current situation. I mean.. WTF kind of point is that? Why would that make interesting reading?

(Any readers still following this should note that Kai did later admit that this blog was ‘probably a trap’ in response to the MANY people who ‘misread’ it. This is one of the reasons why I called him a troll – Wiki definition of troll is someone who has the “primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response”)

It was the same on the ‘woman drowns in car’ story. You get red-faced and shout at people who cite it as an example of how Chinese people don’t help each other when in trouble, and in doing so, completely fail to take up a very obvious phenomenon here, which is the fact that people often don’t help each other.

You want to fight against oversimplifications; fine, but please don’t do it at the expense of honest discussion about China. Instead of deliberately evading and misleading just to prove your point that foreigners feel superior to the Chinese, why not spend some time actually tackling these issues? It would make you a hell of a better writer; and at the same would save me and MANY others from ‘misinterpreting’ your meaning and thinking that you are deliberately ignoring the relevant features in this society.

Kidding! I’m on Kai’s side here. For the most part his points are solid, his complaints valid and any criticisms that I’ve seen him make are, frankly, deserved. Keep going Kai.