Don’t worry, Biden just imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs so they can rest easy now.

I just clicked through to a guardian link that talked about why she was initially convicted. It’s harder to pin down exactly what misinformation she was accused of spreading though since most western outlets are causally dismissive of the claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/citizen-journalist-facing-jail-in-china-for-wuhan-covid-reporting-zhang-zhan

That said, this guardian article references interviews she did with VoA, an American government outlet, and The Epoch Times, a far right wing outlet run by the Falun Gong cult. The Epoch Times I know in particular has promoted antivax or anti lockdown conspiracies in the US, as well as other stuff like with Qanon and the idea that Trump actually won in 2020. It wouldn’t surprise me to know she was promoting similar anti lockdown conspiracies but just in China.

It seems she was detained for spreading misinformation about the pandemic when the initial outbreak was at its peak. That may not be illegal in the US. However, plenty of countries have such laws that go into effect during emergency situations.

I think it’s worth discussing the merits of those laws and how effective they are. However, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to use this case as a way to imply that China is silencing journalists when they report on inconvenient truths.

In most cases yes. However there is a range to that success. Some developments have been in such high demand that they’re now expanding. Others are still struggling.

The US definitely had its fair share of housing developments that were basically real estate investment scams. Most of the endless suburban sprawl in California was developed that way. One of my favorite examples is California City. It’s still mostly empty and is located in the middle of the desert. Also if you ever watched the show Arrested Development, it was making fun of the people who ran these kinds of real estate scams.

What’s happening in China isn’t all that different. It’s just happening on a much larger scale given the population size and the kind of urban density China is targeting. That’s what I think is shocking to anyone not looking at numbers. Instead of empty blocks of houses you might get empty apartment buildings instead.

What you’re saying just isn’t true though. China isn’t overbuilding by any meaningful metric. Their urbanization rate is really low compared to developed nations like the US. They have a huge population so their total rate of construction while urbanizing is unique. However the actual process of urbanization isn’t unique at all.

If you look at historical data the US followed a very similar trend with rapid urbanization ramping up until around the 1960s. That rapid development included a mix of shoddy and quality construction. Additional urbanization was more difficult to achieve and growth slowed. That’s basically what you’re seeing in China now too.

I don’t think the article is actually all that critical. It might have been worth providing more context for why China is using that much concrete. However, even without that I think it’s fine.

The real problem I think is the headline. It frames China’s concrete use as an irrational mental illness which is just absurd. I’m betting that was the work of one of the BBC’s editors and not the actual author.

It’s complicated. Chiang Kai-shek was a historical adversary of the CPC and is viewed as a traitor and war criminal in the PRC. However, his nationalist party, the KMT, is alive and well in Taiwan. The CPC currently favors the KMT even though they were former adversaries because the KMT advocates for deepening economic ties to the PRC.

With this context I’m guessing the KMT’s primary opposition, the DPP, wants to highlight the KMT’s fascist legacy while also conflating the KMT’s and the CPC’s expression of Chinese nationalism. Making that false equivalency is easier because of the KMT’s interest in building stronger economic ties with the mainland.

Western media usually frames issues from the DPP’s perspective which would explain the commentary in the article.

Honestly I think people just get defensive when their worldview is challenged. It sucks but it is what it is.

I don’t see how you think that’s a gotcha unless you ignore everything else I mentioned. Also your assessment is just incorrect. The DPP (the pro Independence Party) made an effort to push for a new constitution but that failed because they never had enough legislative votes. The opposition wasn’t against it because they felt threatened by the mainland. Rather Chinese nationalism is still very much alive and well in Taiwan.

This is just a guess but it might be a way to get people to move into new developments which would increase the value of the other unsold homes in said development. Nobody wants to take the risk of moving into an empty neighborhood in case nobody else does. However if you don’t have to worry about the risk of selling your existing home it might make it easier to take that leap of faith.

The answer isn’t “no”. The answer is “yes but the current situation is unstable for these reasons.” I’m sorry you have a problem grasping the complexities of geopolitics.

What do you mean silently made the choice? The Taiwanese people have never really had a say. Taiwan existed under a far right wing dictatorship for decades after the Chinese civil war was left unresolved. Local opposition to the KMT government were massacred. The current democracy is still incredibly young and very flawed. It’s not surprising that they still have militaristic holdovers from the dictatorship. They still operate with the same constitution!

I think there actually may be ways cement the status quo under an economic union where Taiwan maintains political independence. The US does not want anything like that to happen and has taken action to prevent it. That in turn has caused the PRC to respond with Xi making statements like this one.

This is a wild take. The Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT did not have any more legitimacy than the CPC. He was a straight up fascist and after fleeing to Taiwan he politically repressed native Taiwanese people by having them massacred. You can oppose Xi and the CPC without having to pretend the KMT was at all legitimate.

Okay and as far as the Taiwanese people are concerned they apparently see that choice as a lose lose situation. Why then does it matter if they prefer the ambiguity of the status quo? Why is it so urgent that they make a choice they clearly don’t want to make?

He’s not saying it will have to be taken by force. Where did you read that? He’s implying that China is willing to use force but he’s not asserting that the use of force is necessary if that makes sense.

If you want to understand the situation you have to understand that Taiwanese only remained politically independent thanks to US intervention in the Chinese civil war. When the nationalists fled to Taiwan the US stationed a fleet between the island and the mainland. That prevented the communists from finishing the fight against Chiang Kai-shek’s fascist KMT. The US then supported the KMT as the legitimate government of China right up until Kissinger realized the US could ally with the CPC against the USSR.

Given their long victimhood at the hands of colonialist and imperialist nations, the CPC is worried about what allowing Taiwanese independence would mean for their national security. They see foreign support for Taiwanese independence as the continued meddling of outside powers in Chinese affairs. That said I imagine they would be more amicable with maintaining Taiwanese political independence under the umbrella of an economic union if the US agreed to stop funding pro independence groups in Taiwan.

Taiwanese people don’t want the island to be recognized as its own nation though. They benefit from close economic relations with the mainland and so are happy to maintain the status quo. The majority voted against pro independence candidates in recent elections, something this article fails to mention. That of course doesn’t mean Taiwanese people trust the mainland nor do they want to be politically integrated into it. However the situation is more nuanced than many western media outlets would have you believe.

Good luck with that. The US is the world’s largest oil producer and therefore it has a vested interest in preventing the development of sustainable energy alternatives.

deleted by creator