Obligatory reminder that the Tiananmen protests were against capitalist reforms that were crucial in shaping todays China and were very much welcomed by the Western countries.
It is adding insult to the injury, that the western narrative keeps eluding this aspect to make it seem like the protestors died for the opposite of what they actually protested for.
The protests were precipitated by the death of pro-reform Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Hu Yaobang in April 1989 amid the backdrop of rapid economic development and social change in post-Mao China, reflecting anxieties among the people and political elite about the country’s future. The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy that benefited some people but seriously disadvantaged others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge to its legitimacy. Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. Although they were highly disorganized and their goals varied, the students called for things like rollback of the removal of “iron rice bowl” jobs, greater accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Workers’ protests were generally focused on inflation and the erosion of welfare. These groups united around anti-corruption demands, adjusting economic policies, and protecting social security. At the height of the protests, about one million people assembled in the square.
China was already state capitalist by then and people protested that.
Yes. But people dont want to acknowledge that because then they would need to acknowledge, that mass murder and massacres are nothing specific to any form of economy, but specific to authoritarianism and then they might have to face their own support of current authoritariansm.
Red August (simplified Chinese: 红八月; traditional Chinese: 紅八月; pinyin: Hóng Bāyuè) is a term used to indicate a period of political violence and massacres in Beijing beginning in August 1966, during the Cultural Revolution.[1][2][3] According to official statistics published in 1980 after the end of the Cultural Revolution, Red Guards in Beijing killed a total of 1,772 people during Red August, while 33,695 homes were ransacked and 85,196 families were forcibly displaced.[1][4][5] However, according to official statistics published in November 1985, the number of deaths in Beijing during Red August was 10,275.[5][6][7]
This was back in Mao’s time.
It seems that Communism killed those Chinese people.
What kind of abstruse logic is this? Next thing you are going to say the people murdered in Gaza today are the victims of Christian crusaders.
The victims under Mao were victims of communism. But it wasn’t Mao that committed the Tiananmen massacre. It was a state capitalist regime that was supported by the West.
Why are you trying to spread disinformation about historical events?
And the Nazis called themselves national socialists. Doesn’t mean their economic policies had anything to do with socialism (quite to the contrary).
Advertisment labels are not what to judge these things on, but concrete policies. And those were state capitalist in China and the reason for the protests and massacre. And they continue to this day.
By the early 1970s, however, Albanian disagreements with certain aspects of Chinese policy deepened as the visit of Nixon to China along with the Chinese announcement of the “Three Worlds Theory” produced strong apprehension in Albania’s leadership under Enver Hoxha. Hoxha saw in these events an emerging Chinese alliance with American imperialism and abandonment of proletarian internationalism.
The might have been the reasons, or some of the significant reasons, for the protest but I don’t think Mao would have tolerated them more than did Deng.
You are just doing what i criticised. You are cherry-picking instead of acknowledging the protests as a whole.
Freedom of expression was one of many goals. And the protests were caused by the capitalist reforms, which gave rise to people demanding freedom of expression to be able to express their anger over the consequences of those capitalist reforms.
The protests were precipitated by the death of pro-reform Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Hu Yaobang in April 1989 amid the backdrop of rapid economic development and social change in post-Mao China, reflecting anxieties among the people and political elite about the country’s future. The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy that benefited some people but seriously disadvantaged others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge to its legitimacy. Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. Although they were highly disorganized and their goals varied, the students called for things like rollback of the removal of “iron rice bowl” jobs, greater accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Workers’ protests were generally focused on inflation and the erosion of welfare. These groups united around anti-corruption demands, adjusting economic policies, and protecting social security. At the height of the protests, about one million people assembled in the square.
China was already state capitalist by then and people protested that.
End of corruption within the Chinese Communist Party, as well as democratic reforms, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, social equality, democratic input on economic reforms
Mainly just people reading the headline, upvoting, then continue scrolling (I am guilty of this as a lurker). Working in healthcare, I don’t even need to read this article to know it’s true. Private equity is the antithesis of good public healthcare.
You’re certainly right about observing this incongruity. It’s probably one statement that feels so obviously correct that people upvote it without even bothering to read the article.
If civilization is going to survive, leaving this specific problem to our descendents won't be an option. Private Equity is an us problem, and we need to treat it like one.
Please no. :( I do like 99.99% of online payments through them because the convenience they offer is really great, especially with recurring payments. :/
There are plenty, although some might be regional, others had security issues. In Europe, I know of Klarna, Skrill and (kind of) Revolut. In the US there are Block (Cash App) and ofc Google, Apple and Amazon… But I guess they are not really an upgrade :D
Friends don’t let friends use PayPal. If something goes wrong and eventually something will, you will find zero customer support. Add exploitation to the list of reasons.
Interested myself. So far I had only good experiences as a customer, though i hear they are pretty rough towards vendors. It is also widely accepted where I live (EU), which makes it very convenient.
But i am always eager to stop using a corporate product or service.
This is indeed one of the things cryptocurrencies exist for, but social media denizens around these parts have long conditioned themselves to hate it.
So a rock and a hard place, it seems. Which is more hated; the big data-harvesting corporation co-founded by Elon Musk, or a big bad NFT-hosting blockchain?
For people who are concerned about data harvesting I would recommend something like Monero or Aztec over Bitcoin, though. Bitcoin's basically obsolete at this point, coasting on name recognition and inertia, and has no built-in privacy features.
I’m not joking - if you follow your existing “should I even be using this site anyway?” signs, it’s going to typically be fine (in 2024!) to use your debit card there.
(Edit: To be clear, things have changed. Time travelers from the past should absolutely not follow this advice back in 2002!)
And when something does go wrong, you’ll get better support from your credit union than PayPal would. (You don’t still use a bank like a sucker, right…?!)
The worst case, usually, is they reverse the fraud and issue a new card to prevent further fraud.
So I guess it’s a few things:
Get a credit union, rather than a bank.
Choose one or two of debit (edit: or credit) cards for all online use. Life is simpler when fraud does occur, if I have another card that still works for gas and groceries.
Use the debit card directly, online, with any trusted site. There’s no need for PayPal to exist anymore.
Many years ago, PayPal’s innovation was treating people who shop online like actual people. The rest of the world has caught up, while PayPal lost sight of that.
Source: I worked in FinTech. It’s amazing how bad your current options are, but it tends to work out, anyway. There’s an extremely ethical and detail-oriented army of women named Karen, behind the scenes, looking out for you.
Edit: And as far as I can tell, not one of the extremely ethical and detail oriented women named Karen works for PayPal. Big tech companies rarely successfully keep that kind of no-nonsense-tolerated top talent.
I’ve heard this advice as well. It certainly doesn’t hurt, if you have credit cards, to prefer them.
I imagine it is a lot nicer to have a fraudulent item on a future bill, than an actual fraudulent deduction from a current active account. And fraud correction is prompt enough, that the bill never comes due on a CC, whereas the money is, indeed, missing immediately on a debit card.
That said, not having any credit cards, I would never open one simply for the fraud protection.
Debit card fraud correction has always been prompt and accurate, for me.
The card companies do not discriminate, currently, between corrections on credit and debit cards. Currently, that’s largely thanks to contract language with their debit card customers that prevents them from such discrimination.
I added disclaimers like crazy above, because FinTech is a constantly evolving industry with constantly changing terms of service. And because most people working in FinTech are assholes who want to scam you.
Edit: I’ve corrected the above advice with yours, thanks! There’s certainly no reason to prefer debit over credit for online use, for anyone who has both card types. I just have a bad habit of using the words interchangeably because I only carry debit cards.
In Spain (not sure about Europe in general) things are slightly different.
I have been living in Canada for 9 years, and there if you see a transaction you don’t recognize in your credit card statement you phone your bank and they take care of that.
Here in Spain you need to go do the police, file a report, then talk to your bank, then they’ll think about it.
So when I came back I was talking with some guys I know and they convinced me that, at least around here, it’s still a good idea to use Paypal. You also get faster refunds, etc (and that could be due to some European regulation, not sure).
Santander and Caixa are perfect examples of how to terribly handle fraudulent payment disputes. I worked in the industry is it’s kinda well known they don’t even follow scheme (Visa/MC) requirements and when you ask them to escalate to scheme they gaslight you.
Knowing this is the hoops you have to jump through in .es means it makes sense they don’t have a robust anti-fraud process outside of .es.
I’ve generally had good experiences with Privacy.com. It seems like a decent solution when I want something from a semi-reputable website.
I particularly enjoy the bit where cards are vendor-locked, which has been interesting to observe in a couple of instances where a site seems to have had their credit card db breached and the attackers turn around and try to use the card on another site, where it is inevitably denied, but I still get an email that shows which site got hacked and where the attackers were trying to use the information.
But how can you trust them not to screw you over. ( The apparent goal of every company). Now days… Even Google has turned Evil… Meaning you can literally no longer trust Any company
Everything is transient and eventually becomes shitty, sure, but I generally trust them because they’re able to make money just from people using the service. I don’t know how profitable they are, but I am reasonably certain that as the card issuer they get a cut of every transaction. Given that they aren’t issuing physical cards and have no obvious costs other than maintaining their platform, I don’t see a reason not to trust them in the medium term.
I’ve told companies that use PayPal to register as a business, not as an individual. If you’re an individual and a lot of money comes through, they will lock you down for “regulatory reasons.” Which is hilarious because they are technically not a bank (But I think they are a NA). You’ll never see that money again.
The issue is every competitor will use the same targeted ads. No advertiser who is not using targeted ads by utilizing tracking data will never be as competitive because their ads won’t be as effective.
Until we can kill these types of advertising by making laws against it or make tools that counteract them widespread enough that it makes the business unprofitable we will continue to have our data used against us.
wsj.com
Active