Of Chinese Censorship, Punning and Braising
December 3, 2014 3:34 AM Subscribe
"China’s Web Doorkeeper", Lu Wei, may be the most powerful man on the Internet (NYT), and he has "ratcheted up restrictions in what is already the world’s most sophisticated system of online censorship." He addressed the 7th China-US Internet Industry Forum yesterday and everybody was listening (SCMP). But there is one big question: Will he joining the country’s print and broadcast watchdog's new campaign to “crack down on the irregular and inaccurate use of the Chinese language," specifically puns and wordplay (Grauniad)? If so, he may have issues with Google searches that match up his name with a new category of take-away food in Taiwan called "lu-wei" (“lu” means braised and “wei,” flavors) (Inquirer).
Puns don't kill people …
posted by scruss at 4:49 AM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by scruss at 4:49 AM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]
The new restrictions on puns and wordplay would give the Chinese authorities yet another way to clamp down on this technique, while claiming that they were simply enforcing a law about language purity.
Ah, yes, an oh so reasonable law about language purity.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:12 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ah, yes, an oh so reasonable law about language purity.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:12 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Punning in this instance is being used as a good-enough form of steganography.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:35 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by LogicalDash at 5:35 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
As far as indicators that a government is dangerously totalitarian go, laws banning puns and other "irregular language" are high up on the list. Not that we didn't already know the PRC was totalitarian in stupid ways, but this certainly reinforces that doesn't it.
posted by sotonohito at 5:50 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 5:50 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
ChinaSmack has a decent glossary of Chinese internet memes, slang, and puns. It has Mandarin characters and pinyin so you can see similar pronunciation. Not sure how often they update it, but it's a good introduction.
posted by msbrauer at 5:58 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by msbrauer at 5:58 AM on December 3, 2014 [6 favorites]
ChinaSmack has a decent glossary of Chinese internet memes, slang, and puns. It has Mandarin characters and pinyin so you can see similar pronunciation. Not sure how often they update it, but it's a good introduction.
This is the website I didn't even know I needed in my life. 我爸是李刚!
posted by chainsofreedom at 6:16 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is the website I didn't even know I needed in my life. 我爸是李刚!
posted by chainsofreedom at 6:16 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh, but I love those steamed pork puns, man, they're delicious!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:19 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:19 AM on December 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
As far as indicators that a government is dangerously totalitarian go, laws banning puns and other "irregular language" are high up on the list.
a dangerously totalitarian society wouldn't need to have a law banning puns, the populace would simply unthinkingly repeat the correct opinions... such as: mainland China is a totalitarian country.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:42 AM on December 3, 2014
a dangerously totalitarian society wouldn't need to have a law banning puns, the populace would simply unthinkingly repeat the correct opinions... such as: mainland China is a totalitarian country.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:42 AM on December 3, 2014
a dangerously totalitarian society wouldn't need to have a law banning puns, the populace would simply unthinkingly repeat the correct opinions... such as: mainland China is a totalitarian country.
I was wondering how many posts it would take before the "America is the real repressive state" comments started.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:12 AM on December 3, 2014
I was wondering how many posts it would take before the "America is the real repressive state" comments started.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:12 AM on December 3, 2014
China's not a totalitarian state, it's just a state where there is no civil society or rule of law.
posted by Nevin at 8:34 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by Nevin at 8:34 AM on December 3, 2014
ennui.bz, I'm not sure that even Dr. Nathan, author of Chinese Democracy, would agree with you that China isn't a state with totalitarian ambitions. And he's pretty hardcore on the side of "China is just different" in the perennial "is China oppressive or does it just have a different definition of freedom".
A totalitarian state is one in which the state seeks or holds total authority over society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. I'd argue that the PRC at least leans that direction. You can't move within the nation without governmental approval, communication is censored to as great a degree as is economically and technologically possible, books can't be published without official governmental approval, and now the government is seeking to enforce norms of speech. It isn't entirely totalitarian, there aren't sumptuary laws, the Ming and Q'ing era laws mandating only approved hairstyles are no longer in place, etc.
To an extent we can argue over the legitimate distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian. We could also get into a discussion of whether China is actually Communist in any real sense, or whether it retains the label despite mutating into a different form of government (I'd argue for the latter, and argue that China is much closer to Fascism than Communism, though it isn't what I could call genuinely Fascist either).
Certainly the US government has an interest in presenting the PRC as bad. But that doesn't particularly mean the PRC isn't bad. Stopped clocks and blind pigs and other proverbs apply.
posted by sotonohito at 8:48 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
A totalitarian state is one in which the state seeks or holds total authority over society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. I'd argue that the PRC at least leans that direction. You can't move within the nation without governmental approval, communication is censored to as great a degree as is economically and technologically possible, books can't be published without official governmental approval, and now the government is seeking to enforce norms of speech. It isn't entirely totalitarian, there aren't sumptuary laws, the Ming and Q'ing era laws mandating only approved hairstyles are no longer in place, etc.
To an extent we can argue over the legitimate distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian. We could also get into a discussion of whether China is actually Communist in any real sense, or whether it retains the label despite mutating into a different form of government (I'd argue for the latter, and argue that China is much closer to Fascism than Communism, though it isn't what I could call genuinely Fascist either).
Certainly the US government has an interest in presenting the PRC as bad. But that doesn't particularly mean the PRC isn't bad. Stopped clocks and blind pigs and other proverbs apply.
posted by sotonohito at 8:48 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
China wouldn't have this problem if they just adopted Newspeak.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 9:07 AM on December 3, 2014
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 9:07 AM on December 3, 2014
We should be careful not to interpret news stories in a way that fits our preconceived notions.
This story about China "banning wordplay" has been getting some attention and along with the attention comes some sensationalized interpretations; the probability of someone bringing up newspeak seems to be approaching one.
This new regulation doesn't have anything to do with banning puns to stop people from evading online censorship (some puns are already censored and no one is suggesting banning all puns from the Chinese internet). It also doesn't have anything to do with scrubbing puns from everyday speech.
This is the Chinese equivalent of the FCC getting all worked up about people using "incorrect" language -- not ideologically incorrect, but grammatically, historically incorrect. Think of the children, they will be confused. It's ridiculous, but not as Orwellian as people are interpreting it to be.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:13 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
This story about China "banning wordplay" has been getting some attention and along with the attention comes some sensationalized interpretations; the probability of someone bringing up newspeak seems to be approaching one.
This new regulation doesn't have anything to do with banning puns to stop people from evading online censorship (some puns are already censored and no one is suggesting banning all puns from the Chinese internet). It also doesn't have anything to do with scrubbing puns from everyday speech.
This is the Chinese equivalent of the FCC getting all worked up about people using "incorrect" language -- not ideologically incorrect, but grammatically, historically incorrect. Think of the children, they will be confused. It's ridiculous, but not as Orwellian as people are interpreting it to be.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:13 AM on December 3, 2014 [2 favorites]
When China looks its most totalitarian, it's typically the central government trying to cover up the fact that it has approximately zero practical ability to enforce its laws.
People - rich, connected people - do whatever the fuck they want. Occasionally the Eye of Sauron comes to rest on some particularly egregious bit criminal wrongdoing and some heads roll (see: splashy executions for white collar corruption crimes), but then the Eye moves on and everything goes back to normal. The further away you get from Zhongnanhai, the more factory owners and local officials operate like feudal warlords. Even in Beijing it's like living through The Sheep Look Up; if modern China is anything, it's a capitalist dystopia.
The PRC obsession with controlling communications media has one real purpose, I think, and that's to preserve the illusion that the Party has things under control. It's a cheap, effective way to be omnipresent in the lives of the people. When your weibo post gets censored, or you can't get on Facebook, that's direct experience of government power. Which provides a sort of cognitive dissonance when you try to reason about why the government can't do anything about illegal dumping turning the rivers tie-dye, or illegal farming practices making all of your food poisonous, or the fact that most days you can't go outside without a mask. And that friction is enough to make most people put their heads down and just try to get through their day to day.
posted by zjacreman at 9:19 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
People - rich, connected people - do whatever the fuck they want. Occasionally the Eye of Sauron comes to rest on some particularly egregious bit criminal wrongdoing and some heads roll (see: splashy executions for white collar corruption crimes), but then the Eye moves on and everything goes back to normal. The further away you get from Zhongnanhai, the more factory owners and local officials operate like feudal warlords. Even in Beijing it's like living through The Sheep Look Up; if modern China is anything, it's a capitalist dystopia.
The PRC obsession with controlling communications media has one real purpose, I think, and that's to preserve the illusion that the Party has things under control. It's a cheap, effective way to be omnipresent in the lives of the people. When your weibo post gets censored, or you can't get on Facebook, that's direct experience of government power. Which provides a sort of cognitive dissonance when you try to reason about why the government can't do anything about illegal dumping turning the rivers tie-dye, or illegal farming practices making all of your food poisonous, or the fact that most days you can't go outside without a mask. And that friction is enough to make most people put their heads down and just try to get through their day to day.
posted by zjacreman at 9:19 AM on December 3, 2014 [3 favorites]
Kutsuwamushi,
We should be careful not to interpret news stories in a way that fits our preconceived notions.
We should also be careful not to swallow blatant propaganda. I mean, come on, your position is hopelessly naive.
This new regulation doesn't have anything to do with banning puns to stop people from evading online censorship (some puns are already censored and no one is suggesting banning all puns from the Chinese internet). It also doesn't have anything to do with scrubbing puns from everyday speech.
On its face, it is about that, sure. But all of China's control policies are presented in this light, which is why people are suspicious of this new directive. You're trying to address this new law outside of the greater context of the massive regulation and control by the Chinese government of the Internet and all forms of communication in the country, and the increasing general crackdown on dissent that's been occurring over the last 10 years.
This law isn't being passed in a vacuum, and new rules like this in light of things like China announcing they're sending artists to the country for "re-eduction" seem awfully suspicious. That law too is described as being about helping artists to "form a correct view of art" and "unearth new subjects" and "create more masterpieces".
I'd be interested in hearing, given this situation, how you maintain your position that this has nothing to do with increased censorship of online dissent and a pretext for cracking down on people.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:40 AM on December 3, 2014
We should be careful not to interpret news stories in a way that fits our preconceived notions.
We should also be careful not to swallow blatant propaganda. I mean, come on, your position is hopelessly naive.
This new regulation doesn't have anything to do with banning puns to stop people from evading online censorship (some puns are already censored and no one is suggesting banning all puns from the Chinese internet). It also doesn't have anything to do with scrubbing puns from everyday speech.
On its face, it is about that, sure. But all of China's control policies are presented in this light, which is why people are suspicious of this new directive. You're trying to address this new law outside of the greater context of the massive regulation and control by the Chinese government of the Internet and all forms of communication in the country, and the increasing general crackdown on dissent that's been occurring over the last 10 years.
This law isn't being passed in a vacuum, and new rules like this in light of things like China announcing they're sending artists to the country for "re-eduction" seem awfully suspicious. That law too is described as being about helping artists to "form a correct view of art" and "unearth new subjects" and "create more masterpieces".
I'd be interested in hearing, given this situation, how you maintain your position that this has nothing to do with increased censorship of online dissent and a pretext for cracking down on people.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:40 AM on December 3, 2014
We should be careful not to interpret news stories in a way that fits our preconceived notions.
We should also be careful not to swallow blatant propaganda. I mean, come on, your position is hopelessly naive.
Yeah, remember when the Chinese government banned English? Now anyone who says "GDP" instead of "国内生产总值" is sent to a re-education camp in the country.
posted by bradf at 9:49 AM on December 3, 2014
We should also be careful not to swallow blatant propaganda. I mean, come on, your position is hopelessly naive.
Yeah, remember when the Chinese government banned English? Now anyone who says "GDP" instead of "国内生产总值" is sent to a re-education camp in the country.
posted by bradf at 9:49 AM on December 3, 2014
zjacreman, while I think you're downplaying the power of the state, I'm also in agreement with a lot of your position. That's why I argue that the PRC is really closer to a Fascist state than it is Communist.
I do think you've missed/ignored the way the state is used by the corporate entities, and vice versa. Effectively China has seen a merger of state and corporate power to the extent that it's difficult to impossible to tell where, or if, one ends and the other begins.
It isn't that the PRC wants to stop pollution but is powerless to do so, the situation is more that the PRC finds the benefits of unchecked industrial activity more important than the pollution. Any anti-pollution efforts are purely for show, both to the West and to the masses, rather than any serious (and failing) effort on the part of the PRC to stop pollution.
Similarly, the occasional execution of corporate types, and the occasional execution of government types, is part and parcel of the whole thing. They're the sign of internal power struggles, or the occasional unlucky few being tossed under the bus to give the impression of cleaning up the "corruption" that has passed beyond being corruption and become simply the way the state functions.
I'm not going to argue that China really works as a well oiled machine run by the CCP's executive secretary, it's bigger and messier than that. But to discount the government as being ineffective and quasi-powerless is to miss the whole thing. The corporate warlords are as much a part of the government as the CCP, any separation is merely a matter of terminology and deniability.
posted by sotonohito at 10:04 AM on December 3, 2014
I do think you've missed/ignored the way the state is used by the corporate entities, and vice versa. Effectively China has seen a merger of state and corporate power to the extent that it's difficult to impossible to tell where, or if, one ends and the other begins.
It isn't that the PRC wants to stop pollution but is powerless to do so, the situation is more that the PRC finds the benefits of unchecked industrial activity more important than the pollution. Any anti-pollution efforts are purely for show, both to the West and to the masses, rather than any serious (and failing) effort on the part of the PRC to stop pollution.
Similarly, the occasional execution of corporate types, and the occasional execution of government types, is part and parcel of the whole thing. They're the sign of internal power struggles, or the occasional unlucky few being tossed under the bus to give the impression of cleaning up the "corruption" that has passed beyond being corruption and become simply the way the state functions.
I'm not going to argue that China really works as a well oiled machine run by the CCP's executive secretary, it's bigger and messier than that. But to discount the government as being ineffective and quasi-powerless is to miss the whole thing. The corporate warlords are as much a part of the government as the CCP, any separation is merely a matter of terminology and deniability.
posted by sotonohito at 10:04 AM on December 3, 2014
« Older Mole Day: Deeper'N'Ever Pie, Deeper'N'Ever Squats | The Original San Francisco Eccentric Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rory at 4:09 AM on December 3, 2014 [4 favorites]