Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
Yet another one of China's elite has disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping
Chinese economist Zhu Hengpeng disappeared after criticizing Xi Jinping, the WSJ reported. He reportedly made comments on China's sluggish economy.
A top economist has joined the growing list of China's elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.
CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China's cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a "body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership."
According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China's sluggish economy and criticizing Xi's leadership in a private group on WeChat.
You're viewing a single thread.
Western media talking about "disappearances" is always the funniest thing to me. If somebody just goes like a week without appearing on TV, they can say they "disappeared," and the audience will immediately assume that they're in some black site with a bag over their head. If they show up the next week and tell everyone they're fine, then they have plausible deniability since they never actually said anything bad happened to them. Of course, then you've got your audience primed to believe that something's up and can write another headline like, "Questions remain regarding the disappearance of so-and-so." Once you get a name trending, it doesn't matter what the facts are.
I remember coming under fire from an irl friend over the "disappearance" of tennis player Peng Shuai... until she reappeared, and the International Olympic Committee confirmed that she was perfectly fine. The only evidence that anything bad had happened to her was the lack of a public appearance, but then, after making public appearances, the story didn't die, instead each new appearance simply gave the media more to talk about, keeping it in the public consciousness and always insisting that "questions remain."
Of course, that's not even mentioning all the times the media doesn't just claim a "disappearance" but just outright lies about these things. If Business Insider can't even muster up a "detained," it's pretty safe to assume it doesn't mean anything. And of course, if someone says anything critical of the government, then they are immediately absolved of any and all suspicion of having committed actual crimes - absolutely zero investigation into the charges of corruption is needed for everyone to conclude with 100% certainty that they're trumped up.
I can't wait to see how many downvotes I can get lmao.
People in China say something the government doesn't like and aren't heard from at all for a while, you really think they can say that something bad happened to them when they reappear?
We're really entering into conspiracy theory territory here. Imagine if I monitored every public figure in the US and whenever one of them didn't appear in public for a while, I automatically assumed that they had been abducted by the NSA, and when they later showed up and were fine, I concluded that the only reason they weren't talking about it was because the NSA was holding their family hostage or something. Do you need any actual evidence to make conclusions like that, and is there any form of evidence that could possibly falsify such conclusions?
It's impossible to account for ever minute of every person's life so it's always theoretically possible that any time someone doesn't have an alibi, it means that they're being held in detention where they are also sworn to secrecy about being held in detention - but just because it's theoretically possible doesn't make it a reasonable assumption.
This isn't people being unaccounted for for a few minutes. It's people who normally doesn't do things for sensationalism saying something controversial and then going missing, and this happening in a pattern in one country in particular.
Yes by definition it's a conspiracy theory, but these people aren't providing a detailed accounting of the time they were away. That should rightly raise questions, and international media is absolutely ethically in the right in wondering publicly about their wellbeing.
Is it actually that it happens in one country in particular, or is it that nobody makes a note of it when it happens in other countries because someone not being in the public eye for a bit is normal and routine, and it's only because China is treated with suspicion that it's considered noteworthy?
Of course, I can't even imagine the shitstorm that would happen if another country tried to demand that public figures in the US provide, not only testimony saying they were fine, but a detailed account of any time they were out of the public eye, to confirm that they weren't being interrogated by the NSA and then forced to lie about it. It's absurd, as you admit, it's a conspiracy theory. There are so many actual real problems that have actual real evidence that I don't understand why anyone would care about something that's grounded on pure conjecture and circumstantial evidence.
Probably because most other countries aren't under the justified suspicion that China is for directly repressing speech it doesn't like. It's a conspiracy theory but it's not at all absurd, it is plainly the most reasonable explanation for what is happening.
When was the last time this was asked about anyone in Saudi Arabia? Or Israel? Or...
When was the last time this was asked about anyone in Saudi Arabia?
All the fucking time. Holy shit, do you just not pay attention to international news? The Saudis are constantly fucking with internal dissidents.
Or Israel?
Israel doesn't kill journalists in secret. They do it in the open and claim it was an accident. There's a lot of reporting on it (ironically?)
But they aren't front-page news.
Israeli killings of journos very much are. The Saudis, it's just expected.
What i find interesting is that youre so quick to criticise "the west" but when its china there is always a way out. Where you fail is you are extremely one sided while on lemmy most people i see are pretty critical of the US, china and every other entity that does a bad thing. If china does something bad, you try to explain why its actually good but when the eu wants to do some shitty thing, lemmy actually wants to change that instead of just mindlessly criticising or endorsing it.
I'm happy to criticize China on its actual faults, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions based on inadequate or inaccurate information. The standard for evidence is much lower when it comes to criticizing China, most of the media we consume comes from Western sources, and people just don't have firsthand experience and will believe just about anything, and so I may push back more simply because there is more bullshit to push back on.
You accuse me of "mindlessly endorsing" everything they do, but there is stuff I criticize and when I don't, I explain my reasons quite thoughtfully. What I don't do is mindlessly criticize everything they do (or are accused of doing, or assumed to be doing, without evidence) which is pretty much the standard that people expect from me. There's countless accounts on here that only ever criticize China and do so without providing explanations or justifications for it. They don't even come up with any original quips, it's all just lazily repeating "haha Winnie the Pooh" to each other with zero thought or analysis. Generally, these people could only name one or two events from Chinese history, and have no interest whatsoever in learning about or understanding their perspective, which makes having an intelligent discussion on the subject impossible.
You seem much more reasonable than most ml users and while i dont agree with you on a lot of things, i dont think downvoting evrything you disagree with is a good idea and you even responded which is more than i expected. But yeah both "sides" are guilty of this.
I try to take such claims seriously and I think we all should, just in case there’s any truth to them and someone is actually kidnapped. Of course knowing that they may not have been. Flagging certain individuals as potentially at risk isn’t wrong per se. But I get your point about how it is a relatively easy claim to make and exploitable politically. Still, I think it should be taken seriously, just in case.
That's perfectly fine, I just think it's important to treat claims critically, and to understand what it actually means to say that someone has "disappeared" in this context - it doesn't mean that their friends or family have reported them missing, it doesn't mean that a reporter has checked their house and found it abandoned, it just means that they haven't been on TV, and it requires a lot of assumptions on the part of the audience to conclude from that that they've been kidnapped or extrajudicially detained.
You make a fair point. Not all “disappearances” are made equal. Unfortunately some people on here (and many out there) love taking sides, and once they have, they find it difficult to process anything with a certain critical distance. Maybe it didn’t help that your original comment sounded very dismissive, as if any such claims in Western media are more likely to be BS than not. We don’t know that. At least I don’t know that. One could of course collect data on that, could be an interesting little project. I’m sure there are folks tracking disappearances and disappearance claims.
