Chinese, do you have civil rights?
answers are just three, either there is or there is no, or there is but it is not enough.
is just three questions: why do you think you have civil rights, why do you think you don’t have civil rights, and why do you think you have civil rights, but it’s not enough.
first talk about the first one.
Why do you think there is civil rights?
is very simple, because except for basic human rights, all rights of Chinese people, can be explained by political rights of Chinese citizens . And it is a legal right protected by the Constitution.
can be said to be completely different from those who have been deprived of political rights according to law, as long as you have Chinese nationality and are over 18 years old.
will inevitably enjoy complete political rights. Deprivation may not be carried out in any form except for judicial judgments. That is, civil rights.
So I can't figure it out, especially in recent times, why do people think that Chinese people do not have civil rights, or that there is, but it is not enough.
But when I ask why I think there is no civil rights, or if there is no enough, I ask over and over again, but I can't find out what it is.
In the end, it is nothing more than freedom of speech, right to vote, right to gather.
But these rights are clearly found in our political rights. It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand it, there are a lot of specific steps and procedures online.
Then why do you think there is no or there is, but it is not enough?
asked in detail, it means that the Western civil rights system is advanced. I started to compare it. Then I asked where it is advanced. Everyone in the West is equal, and where equality is. People have a perfect bill to protect civil rights.
What specific bills are, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act.
But in my impression, aren’t these bills all about solving the racial discrimination problem of African Americans and whites ?
Although the problem of racial discrimination still exists objectively after the completion of the matter, it has indeed made African Americans go from second-class citizens to first-class citizens with the same political rights as whites.
But the problem is that we do not have racial discrimination. This is the feature of . We do not have . So compared to the equal political rights enjoyed by every Chinese citizen, where is the Western civil rights system advanced?
I thought hard, thought for a long time, read a lot of books and looked up a lot of information, including the Western Civil Rights Movement, but I still couldn't figure out where the basis for these people came from.
Or is it because of the so-called Western freedom of speech that has been hotly discussed on the Internet.
The most ideal freedom of speech is to say anything and say anything in the public field.
But back to reality, is there such a place?
isn't it?
It can be said that as long as a country has less than two citizens, not including two people, after all, both of them may still have differences.
If there is any difference, conflict may arise. If there is conflict, it may develop into a war. Even if there is only two people in this country, there are only two people, which means that this country may perish because of the war between these two people.
If you don’t want the country to perish, then these two people will definitely find a way to avoid disagreement as much as possible.
If you want to avoid differences, these two people will subconsciously weigh the pros and cons in speaking or acting, and then they will not be able to have idealized freedom of speech.
And even if a country really has only one citizen, he may not be able to achieve ideal freedom of speech.
Unless he can see the remarks he says, it depends on whether this country with only one citizen can withstand the competition from other countries.
includes the Western world, which has always claimed to be democratic and free, and their freedom of speech is also a pseudo-concept.
If you are living overseas and think that Western public opinion is really the idealized state of freedom of speech, then you can publicly spread some inflammatory and separatist remarks on local public platforms to see if any intelligence agencies will come to check the water table.
Of course, it has nothing to do with me. This is just a subjective judgment error based on my own subjective consciousness. I am not responsible for . If
really doesn't work, we can also check similar cases online. There must be precedents. There are many leaders of various Western sports, and they can be found at a glance. You can refer to their processes and results.
Does that mean that freedom of speech at the realistic level of is actually just a relatively concept . also requires a certain degree of constraints, so that public opinion can reach a relatively healthy scale and state.
Then let’s look at the so-called freedom of speech in the Western world. Compared to us, the scale is indeed a little larger, but is it healthy?
Everyone raises their right hand, touches their chests, and asks themselves.
How many people are there? They try their best to build ladders and climb over the walls, and take risks of illegality. They have to go out to experience the so-called outside world.
resulted in a variety of pornographic bloggers who couldn't extricate themselves.
or finally found that in addition to various pornographic bloggers and rumors bloggers, there are news outside the wall, and there are also news outside the wall, and there are not outside the wall, and there are still at home.
For example, there are many kinds of contents such as current affairs analysis, financial information, art and humanities, and many other aspects, from the inside out, and from all angles and without blind spots.
is nothing more than not seeing the content of some foreign personal bloggers, but there are probably similar views, and it is even more comprehensive, without language troubles.
So please tell me, where is the freedom of freedom of speech that many people say has been heard?
is yellow push free? Is it free to spread rumors? But is this freedom healthy? Is it useful?
Do you want your next generation to be active in such a social network full of unhealthy content all day long?
If you don’t want to, where is the advanced freedom of speech in the so-called Western civil rights system?
Now I will ask you another question, is there any problem with China's public opinion control? There is indeed a problem with
, and you can always have sensitive words. This is not something to say, but the general direction is fine.
because this is caused by the Chinese locale environment.
Mandarin standard syllables are more than 400, including tone changes, more than 1,000.
But there are only thousands of Chinese characters, including those that are not commonly used, and they can be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands at any time. Even the official dare not be 100% sure that all Chinese characters have been included.
Then the same Chinese character may also have multiple pronunciations and meanings.
The most important thing is that Chinese people who grew up in such a language environment seem to have a halo of typos correcting typos. Even if they use typos, it is even more outrageous that Chinese characters that are not related to each other can guess the correct meaning they want to express.
Let’s give an example, Mars article.
Have you learned these things since you were a child? Is these words meant to be released separately?
But these typos can correctly convey the meaning he wants to express. Even if he can't understand it immediately, calm down and try to think about the pronunciation, the radicals and other words in the following text, and then he will understand it magically.
So everyone says that if the threshold for such a complex language environment is not set higher, how can we filter out those illegal remarks with bad intentions?
may have some degree of accidental injuries, but have these accidental injuries affected everyone's lives?
As the algorithm becomes more and more intelligent, I believe it has been much better, right?
If at this time, there are still people who think that still affect their expression of speech, then it is not too much to say that you should really look back and consider yourself to see if your speech is healthy enough, whether it is subjective speculation or objective expression.
Here I don’t care what many people think about freedom of speech should not be restricted. I can only say, you say whatever you want to say by yourself.
But public platforms are not lawless. You may be prepared for ideal freedom of speech, but are you sure you are ready to take responsibility for your own speech?
Don’t underestimate the bottom line of law and morality because of a momentary sensation. This is also the bottom line that no country can violate.
After talking about this, let’s talk about the voting rights and gatherings that have been hotly discussed on the Internet.
The so-called symbol of Western democracy and freedom.
Many people think that Western democracy and freedom are because people have votes and freedom of assembly.
is as mentioned at the beginning. I really can't figure it out. These people really don't know that the political rights of our Chinese people actually include the right to vote and the right to freedom of assembly.
is just because people talk about votes every day, publicly publicize a referendum from time to time, and come from time to time to time, so they feel that they are democratic and free. Is there a possibility of
? I mean Is there a possibility of ?
In the Western world, citizens' voting rights and citizen gatherings are actually tools for Western politicians to win over voters or achieve some specific political purposes.
For example, elections, they are tirelessly publicly publicizing and even investing a lot of election funds, in fact, to create momentum for candidates.
For example, those Western people's gatherings seem to express dissatisfaction with the bill or certain systems on the surface, but behind these gatherings is really the kind that everyone thinks about just contacting them secretly, and come at the right time.
is afraid that there is no misunderstanding of citizens' right to assemble.
No matter which country it is in, including the Western world, any non-violent rally or demonstration needs to be applied for approval in advance, and the theme, location, approximate number of participants and routes are determined.
is a bit outrageous, such as Washington . Due to the frequent gatherings, it not only requires an application 120 days in advance, but also requires a declaration whether someone plans to violate the rules intentionally, or how many people are preparing to be arrested, as well as specific personnel to maintain order, etc.
I wonder if you have discovered that in the Western world, the fundamental reason why they are tireless in building momentum for elections or various rallies are emerging one after another is their multi-party system.
Because of multi-party system , we need to create momentum for our candidates to get more votes. Because of the multi-party system, we need more gatherings to create momentum for our candidates or criticize competitive parties.
For Western politicians, whether the problem can be solved is second-hand. The key is to induce public opinion and spread its influence.
If it is a one-party system, is it necessary to build momentum with hard work and money?
For example, when we were students, we voted for class monitors, . If you like to choose or not, there are some candidates. If you don’t choose, you will be abstention.
After all, there is only one squad leader. Everyone has the right to vote and the right to be elected, that is, they can all participate. Whether they can be selected depends on the things the squad leader candidates do, and whether they are considering the entire class.
If you are not considering the entire class, even if you choose today, you can find a teacher tomorrow. After that, you will give the class monitor a re-select.
is that simple, and there is no need to create momentum to attract votes by expending money and money. There is no need at all.
I believe everyone can see that no matter whether it is a vote or a gathering, no matter how powerful it is, the key is to solve the problem.
cannot solve it, that is, the common theme of equal rights, environmental protection, and racial discrimination that are commonly used in Western rally activities. How many problems do you think are there?
also cannot prove the advancedness of the Western civil rights system. Where did our civil rights system come from?
Don’t tell me about the previous issue of African American second-class citizenship. If the situation continues to develop, it will no longer be a gathering.
We do not have racial discrimination problems in ourselves. African Americans have the same political power as whites, which is equivalent to standing on the same starting line as us. However, the deeply rooted racial discrimination in the West still exists objectively.
So where does this so-called Chinese people have no civil rights, or have a concept that they have not yet been sufficient, and what is the basis?
Or, if you go around to the end, you actually want to pass some real phenomena in the Western civil rights system.
expressed to me the problem that a multi-party system should be more advanced than a one-party system.
To be honest, I'm too lazy to talk about this question.
I will ask three questions.
is the first, Since the unification of Chinese civilization, why did centralized system become the mainstream ruling idea in the feudal era?
The second one, The party struggles in all dynasties became one of the main reasons for the decline of dynasties in the feudal period.
The third one is, The imperial power, ministerial power, and civil rights in the feudal period. How to sort these three powers?
In fact, as long as you can understand the third issue, the difference between the multi-party system and the one-party system, it is obvious that it can be seen.
However, considering the profoundness of Chinese history, many people may go astray in the process of pondering Chinese history, and even get completely wrong answers, and the misunderstandings are even deeper.
So let’s answer this question with Western history.
Take the American civil rights movement as an example.
The civil rights movement in the United States can actually be divided into two stages.
The first stage was around the Civil War, which was mainly through the 13th, 14th, and 15th constitutional amendments to the United States to abolish slavery in the United States.
But this time it is not complete. Although African Americans have citizenship, they are second-class citizens lower than whites.
Then it led to a problem. Although African Americans are American citizens, most of them are in an embarrassing position of economic poverty, political power, and lack of dignity in public life.
At the end of the 19th century, in the southern United States, the apartheid policy was implemented nakedly. Although black men were given the right to vote, they were excluded from the voter team because of the apartheid .
Then there is the second stage of the American civil rights movement, which is also the stage we are more familiar with. African Americans have successfully escaped from second-class citizenship and have the same political rights as whites.
The key lies in the second stage of the civil rights movement. According to many Western historians, this stage is called the second constitutional revolution in the United States.
He is not just a civil rights movement, he is also a political game of reshuffle and reorganization of the United States.
If you have followed the history of the US party struggle, you will easily find that the current supporters of the US Republican Party and the US Democratic Party supporters are completely opposite to those of historical supporters.
has achieved a very dramatic exchange of political views in the face of continuous opposition.
The second constitutional revolution in the United States, the civil rights movement, is one of the reasons that led to this dramatic result.
The southern part of the United States was the camp of the conservative Democratic Party.
Due to the implementation of apartheid policy, a large number of African Americans began to move to the northern and midwest of the United States, and successively entered the Republican camp.
plus In the late 19th century, with the development of industrialization and urbanization, the Republican Party, which has been allying with large capital and professional trade unions, became increasingly strong.
With the support of the increasingly strong urban power of African Americans, the Democratic Party has to re-examine the black issue.
It’s a coincidence that in the early 20th century, a great depression that swept the entire capitalist world came.
Taking advantage of this Great Depression, the Democratic Party successfully gained the favor of many African-Americans from Republican supporters through various welfare policies.
It was from this time that welfare became the main propaganda slogan of the Democratic Party in the United States.
Then it gradually created the current Democratic Party. Apart from the conventional large enterprises and urban wealthy classes, the remaining votes often come from LGBT, as well as minorities such as African, Asian, and Hispanics.
So everyone says that the Democratic Party, which represents the interests of conservative farmers in the southern United States, successfully transforms to represent the interests of minorities such as African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics with welfare slogans.
How did they get these American minority votes.
is very simple. What these minorities care about most is their own rights. Naturally, various equal rights movements and racial discrimination topics are the breakthrough points of the Democratic Party.
Then as I said before, Western politicians will inevitably find ways to use various slogans and propaganda to create momentum for their candidates. Whether
can be solved is not important, and the promise is to be achieved. After all, these problems are all humane. Personal factors are too heavy. If they really can be solved properly, how can the concept of political correctness still appear?
What is important is to make these minorities subjectively believe that the Democrats can solve these problems and then vote for the Democrats. If
cannot be solved, it is someone who interferes with it. If voters ask who are interfering with it, they will push it to their competitors, which is not their own problem anyway.
This is the operating logic of the multi-party system. Formalism is greater than real materialism.
All parties are either competing or on the road of competition. There is no effort to manage people's livelihood. Now the West can barely maintain it because the previous expansion results have not been consumed, but it is almost the same as it looks.
The one-party system does not have this problem at all. For the people, solving the problem is the fundamental one. If you cannot solve the problem, it is your responsibility. If you have borers, clean up the borers. The responsibilities are clearly divided, and there is no room for formalism to develop. The people will not agree in the first place.
So please tell me which system is more advanced, multi-party system or one-party system? Do the Chinese, as a member of the Chinese people, have civil rights?
