Should Cup of Cha Ban nanheyangrouchuan?
I’m sure he’s a perfectly charming guy, and I know that most people let him post and say what he will. He gets lots of reactions, but he rarely adds any value to the conversation. I propose banning him, not because I believe in censorship, but because I believe in trying to promote a higher level of discussion. Typically he makes sweeping statements about how horrible China is without much basis. And the reality is, he’s only posted [thrice] on the site, so I doubt he’d even care if he were banned.
But I put the vote to the people:
[quote added] Here is one of his most recent posts:
Get used to the new reality, people have started rubbing China’s and the CCP’s polish to see how deep it goes and underneath they found pollution and pissed stained commie cinder block.
China deserves to be bashed, it hides behind its developing world status and yet with such a long cultural and academic history (that people like you love to point out)ought to know better than to keep doing the things it is doing and believing that it is ok because 1. China is developing 2. some other country did it or might have done it in the past 3. China is China and that is reason enough.
I’m personally glad to see the population of panda-licking soul sellers like you decline and be humiliated.
Loading …
The ShangHighRoller responds:
Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm →
Like Winston Churchill, I read only for pleasure or profit. His comments provide neither.
I usually oppose any kind of censorship. But the point of a blog is to inform, and to create an atmosphere of exchange and mutual benefit. Someone who just spouts ill-informed, malignant venom can find plenty of places on the web to do so.
Bars have bouncers to get rid of people who ruin the atmosphere. I say, kick the bum out.
canrun responds:
Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm →
No no and no. As long as no profanity or threats are personally leveled…no! That being said- it IS your blog.
And- specifically- how is Nanhe “ill-informed?”
The ShangHighRoller responds:
Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 7:45 pm →
Hi Canrun
There are plenty of examples of nanheyangrouchuan’s intellectual sloppiness. I’d first direct you to this November interview in Shanghaiist. The comments have plenty of the nasty ad hominem attacks you’re looking for.
http://shanghaiist.com/2007/11/14/interview_nanhe.php
My favorite excerpt (and it’s not even China-related)
“Fred Thompson… an experienced statesman with a realist’s point of view.” That’s a hoot.
It’s not at all clear that he understands much Chinese. Game over. If you can’t do more than call for another round of (admittedly weak) Qingdao, you can’t expect to be taken seriously. Non-Chinese speaking expats can have some useful, funny insights into this country. But how can you make sweeping, grand predictions and claims about any society without speaking the language? If someone whose English was terrible-to-passable tried to do the same with American society and politics, how seriously would you take their ideas?
Don’t get me wrong: China and America do plenty of bad stuff. If the USAF drops a bomb on your home, no one begrudges you the right to march around in protest. You got screwed, and you’re rightfully angry. But does your critique and “analysis” of high-level business/political operations deserve much attention?
Nanheyangrouchaun’s worst fault is over-generalization. It’s silly when Chinese people talk about “5,000 years of history,” and even sillier when someone who allegedly dislikes that kind of propaganda repeats it. National borders, national language, national customs– these are all extremely flexible. There is no such thing as national character– behavior, ideas and lifestyle are intimately tied to time and place.
So let’s compare his beloved Tang dynasty with modern China. I can think of about twenty major differences in society, economic and political structure without breaking a sweat. But the key point is that it doesn’t matter what eras you compare. A thousand, or even a hundred years ago, the world was so different. There have been very long periods in China where the government was practically powerless. How then does he make these sweeping claims of “5,000 continuous years of suppression”?
Strict civil libertarians would object to my advice that he be banned. You could argue that no matter how caustic his attitude, or how ignorant his opinions, he has a right to voice them. I agree 100%. But each blog owner must decide whether serving their readers means giving voice to such pointless comments. And incidentally, Nanheyangrouchuan has recently started his own blog. He’s not lacking for places to get out his message.
Nanheyangrouchuan sounds to me like a civil engineer whose ideas have gained traction among a few think tanks. At least he says so. But don’t be too impressed. The last few years should be enough proof that your ideas don’t have to be reasonable or verifiable in order for you to become popular in influential circles. You just have to fit someone’s agenda.
Josh responds:
Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 8:54 pm →
[editor's note: this is josh from peer-see.com, not Cup of Cha]
The constant China-bashing annoys me. TTC was celebrated. Sinocidal even more. I can’t understand it. But I wouldn’t block nanheyangrouchuan. That kind of digital racism doesn’t really require silencing.
And promoting “a higher level of discussion” is a waste of time. A person easily distracted by that kind of comment wasn’t going to be giving anybody gold, anyway.
You’re justified in doing what you want with your soapbox, but posting on the extrapohaters (like commenting on said posts) gives more publicity than is deserved.
Also - It’s TSINGTAO. Qingdao is a city. It’s like Scotch and Scottish. Ganbei!
The ShangHighRoller responds:
Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 9:31 pm →
Hi Josh
Although I never used the phrase “a higher level of discussion,” I dig your reply. It’s ok with me if my commenters have views that are totally different from mine. But they should add some value to the ongoing conversation.
I put a lot of work into producing a blog that provides something interesting/useful for my readers. I wouldn’t appreciate someone using my soapbox to air their own prejudiced views. But to each their own.
Anyway I enjoy this blog and look forward to future posts and discussions.
Will Lewis responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 1:53 am →
A blog is not a democracy, but NH adds flavor to the conversation. And, to be fair, he was responding to a comment by Mark Anthony Jones in the comment quoted above who seems to be NH’s antithesis making long sweeping statements about how swell China is.
beijinger responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 8:58 am →
Oh come on, Will Lewis.
Mark Anthony Jones is one of the best debaters on China-related blogs. He is apparently well-read and knowledgeable. You can call him biased at best, but comparing him with a hater like Mutton-On-A-Stick is a disgrace!
I don’t think we should ban Nanh. We should keep him for entertainment value.
richard responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am →
You can learn all about his excellent debating skills here: http://pekingduck.org/archives/002656.php. It is easy to be best debater when you you use other people’s arguments.
Also Josh, be sure to watch IP addresses, especially of strangers who suddenly appear and defend MAJ. You might be fascinated by what you see.
About Nanhe, I have chosen not to ban him from my ow blog because the guy is obviously bright and can actually offer some smart insights from time to time. I have threatened to delete individual posts in which he shows signs of overt racism and hatred,
Josh responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am →
@Richard
It looks like most people agree with you about Nanhe.
BTW- the IP address for the MAJ defender did not match MAJ’s posts.
Mark Anthony Jones responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 10:49 am →
I would just like to clarify that at no time have I ever requested or endorsed the banning on Nanheyangrouchuan - here or an any other site.
He does ccasionally offer a few valid criticisms worth considering and responding to, as Richard says. However, more often than not, the views he expresses are over the top, and he appears to be full of hate.
Richard likes to smear me whenever he gets the chance, which is fine, but I see nothing wrong with drawing from the views of others when formulating my own ideas and perspectives. I was wrong not to always acknowledge my sources when leaving comments, as I often did four years ago when I used to comment on Richard’s site, but as those who are familiar my my more recent debates with Anban over on the China Law Blog will know, I now take much more care to cite all of my sources when writing comments. See for example: http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/11/china_pollutionchina_dissing_i.html
I look forward to contributing to similar friendly discussions here on this site, which I have only just discovered, thanks to a link provided by the China Law Blog.
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am →
Vote Me for most favored blogger. I promise to:
1. Reduce taxes!
2. Increase civic improvements!
3. Get tough on crime!
4. Increase employment!
5. Two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot!
6. Keep the China blogosphere from becoming a moribund exercise in kowtowing, soul-selling panda licking!
beijinger responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 11:17 am →
Mr. Peking Duck
What’s wrong with citing other people’s arguments? MAJ uses credible sources to aid his own arguments, that’s what a good debater does and that’s what sets him apart from others.
I sense a little jealousy, perheps it’s because you know he read more books than you do?
beijinger responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 11:36 am →
And, Richard, I think you owe MAJ an apology. If you are man enough, you should invite him back to comment on your blog…
Mark Anthony Jones responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pm →
Dear Beijinger,
I appreciate your support, but Richard, it would appear, has already accused you of being merely a persona of mine, and he’ll do so again if you continue to leave coments here in defense or praise of me! I doubt very much that he will ever invite me back to comment on his site, which is fair enough. At any rate, I only have time to engage in the occasional debate these days, and the China Law Blog provides a well organised space for this, although the posts there tend to cover a narrower range than that offered by Richard on his site. This site is showing some promise though.
China Law Blog responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm →
Josh,
Great post! I am reading the comments and checking the vote because I have often wondered what to do with NH myself. I oppose most of his views, but that’s not the issue. He is generally pretty well mannered on my blog and when he crosses a line (my undefined line), which he rarely does, I just delete whatever I find to have crossed. When he actually tries, he does offer insight, but when he just posts something random without any support, he obviously does not. Like Richard, I will not allow “overt racism and hatred.”
But, the reason I was so interested in your post and the comments and my biggest concern about NH is that people are sick of him and sick of the retorts he elicits. I do not want a situation where NH says something of the wall and then the discussion goes down (or is it up) that wall. Seems the consensus (so far anyway) is that people are not all that concerned about that.
Amban responds:
Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pm →
Don’t ban NH. I don’t always agree with him, but he brings a breath of fresh air to rather stale discussions every once in a while. If there is no diversity of opinion in the blogosphere, what’s the point? And he speaks with his own voice instead of cutting and pasting stuff from other sources, like someone else (who shouldn’t be banned either).