You can say that the Chinese are now just imitating what Westerners did at the first half of the last century. Look at the image below of a sign in front of a restaurant in Beijing, the capital of China. By the way, does it want to remind people of what kind of insult the Chinese receive in their own country in the first half of the last century? Do these Chinese think that the insult the Chinese received back then was acceptable?
I guess money can not buy decency or civility or intelligence, just as money can not buy happiness.
What should be noted is that this kind of uncivilized behavior is actually the result of the use of derogative language by the Chinese government when criticizing Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam. In China, there seem to be little distinction between official diplomatic language and Internet chat room language. If government officials, who dominate the air waves and the Internet news, can not lead in civility, who can?
你们还是必须告 ABC 和 Jimmy Kimmel。Jimmy Kimmel 说他不怕被告。那就告他，让他和像他那样的人知道向大众宣扬种族灭绝是要付出代价的。不要怕国内的人说什么。你们有权利确保你们的安全。与美国同胞搞好关系不等于说不讲原则。美国人知道做人有些什么规矩，只是以为在对待中国人时不必守那些规矩。
ABC 的很多主持人是维护上层社会（白人阶层）的、很有偏见的。求他们是没有用的，只会让他们看不起。对待 ABC 这种公司，美国人的一贯做法是来硬的：抵制在他们的节目上做广告的公司，使得他们的节目难以拉得到广告赞助。
我也注意到那些 signs 看起来很好看，不像是 home made 的。但是近年来在美国的很多游行，包括美国人的，都是这样的。游行组织者向社会募捐（这里可能是向华人社区募捐），然后用捐款买 signs 发给大家。大使馆有没有提供帮助，华人团体应该也都可以组织得起来。这种抗议活动在美国很常见。
Q: It is just a show. Why asking for an apology?
A: Watching this show will make some people think that it is OK to consider 1)killing people; 2)killing a whole group of people; 3)killing a whole country of people; 4)killing someone to get rid of a problem; 5)killing your creditor; 6)borrowing money without keeping it in mind that you will have to return the money one day. I think ABC and Jimmy Kimmel not only have to apologize to China and the Chinese people, but also have to apologize to the American people, especially the American kids.
Q: Why Chinese Americans and China are asking for an apology?
A: Saying “killing everyone in China” is an interesting idea and asking if the Chinese should be allowed to live is to say the United States can do anything to China because China is not equal to the United States and has to be at the United States’ mercy. Is that not showing disrespect for China and the Chinese people? If you fail to see that, it means that you think China does not deserve any respect and so should just accept the insult.
Q: Do Jimmy Kimmel and ABC not have the right to free speech?
A: Genocide advocacy is not protected by the laws.
Q: Jimmy Kimmel has said “I’m a comedian, I was trying to make people laugh.”
A: That is where the problem is. Some Americans enjoy talking about killing Chinese (probably simply because they think they can if they want to). And Jimmy Kimmel just wanted to make money out of that. That is how the entertainment world makes money a lot of time. But not everything you can make money doing is right.
Q: Why is the show disgusting?
A: If you don’t find it disgusting, it could be because you would have said the same thing, done the same thing yourself. But the fact that you would have said the same thing, done the same thing does not mean that it was right. I guess people who fail to see any problem with joking about killing certain people were raised with so much prejudice against those people that they are not able to see that there is a problem with joking about killing them.
Q: We are just joking, why being so offended?
A: You are just joking, not really doing anything, because you don’t want to break the laws and get punished for it. But plenty of people will turn words into actions and will do the dirty work for you (trying to harm Chinese living in America since they can not really go to China to kill people over there) and they will have to go to jail for you to get a good laugh out of it. Do you realize how mean you are? If you do not have the thought of killing Chinese, why talk about it? If you have the thought of killing Chinese, why only talk to others about it? You know that you can not kill, but talk to others as if anyone who wants to can give it a try. Is that not misleading? You are also suggesting that the Chinese deserve to get killed. Is that not offensive enough?
Q: It was a child who said it. Why being offended?
A: It was Jimmy Kimmel who not only failed to tell the child that it was not right to think of killing people to solve a problem, but also kind of gave him certain degree of encouragement, then allowed the show to be broadcast without that part being edited out. Jimmy Kimmel and ABC were basically using the child to express their own opinions. The child was innocent, but Jimmy Kimmel and ABC were not.
Q: People in or from a communist country like China don’t deserve an apology because they are not getting anything better from their government.
A: Don’t use ideology as a justification for genocide advocacy. You are way behind the time if you do. There are problems with every social system. There is no system a people choose that should make them subject to genocide. Those who think people should be killed for choosing one social system over others have no concept of human rights or democracy.
Q: Look at how Chinese are treated in China. Why are they asking for dignity here?
A: Do you think that if Chinese are oppressed in China, they should not get anything better here? You want to compete against the Chinese government to see who is more mean to the Chinese people? Well, at least the Chinese government is not saying that it is going to kill everyone in China.
I guess you will want to ask, so why are the Chinese coming to America and some won’t leave. Well, quite many Americans have come to China and some have not left, either. People move around for different reasons. If you just don’t like the Chinese to come to America, you can just say so. But that does not justify talking about killing everyone in China.
I quite honestly thanks this show for showing to the world how much disrespect and hatred Americans have for China. Kids are just telling what adults have told them and have not publicly said for fear of political incorrectness. I don’t think it is important to stop people from saying what they think. I think it is more important to help people gain more knowledge about China and the problems America is facing and whether those have anything to do with China. It is better to let this kid start a debate. You can not let American politicians keep blaming China for American problems and expect Americans not to hate China.
For China’s part, it is also important to examine if China has really intentionally done anything to serve China’s interests at the expense of American interests. If not, China should better try to explain why China has continued doing what has been bothering Americans.
Another issue is the lack of ethics education. For some people killing is the way to get rid of a problem. And as long as they feel some people do not deserve much respect or are not powerful enough to defend themselves, those people can be killed. How many people have been killed because of this?
A comment on this article on Yahoo! News: Protesters Pound ABC Studios, Call For Jimmy Kimmel’s Firing
I find it very obvious that ABC and Jimmy Kimmel made the wrong choice and deserves the backlash. But most of the people who have commented on this article do not. It seems as though when it comes to talking about the Chinese, anything is fine with them. But I wonder how can one ask if someone deserves to live just because he has lent you money and will ask for the money back one day? Is there no line that can not be crossed when it comes to protect your interests?
First of all, he is neither the only one nor the first one who fights against NSA spying. Others have been fighting against it for years. However, sometimes you just have to break the law to get the press to report about and thus start a public debate over an issue that others have been fighting over for years. How many people have been protesting NSA warrantless wiretapping in the past decade?
What about his revelation to the world of NSA’s spying on people in other countries and other governments? Would you rather see the US as a friend or foe of other people and other governments? If you prefer to be friends with other people and other governments, then don’t do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself. I think what Edward Snowden has done will change the US to her advantage, stop her from going over the cliff. Would you rather losing friends after being found not being really friendly to your friends? Actions speak louder than words. Don’t expect to betray your friends and not being found out later.
Check out the comments on Jorge Geysel, New York Insurance Salesman, Dies “Car Surfing” On Rincon Beach In Puerto Rico. The news story itself does not give you any information about what caused the accident to happen. And it does not express any sorrow for the victim. All Huffington Post is doing is to let people cheer on it. And people do cheer on it. Check out the comments on that story and you will see.
What kind of news report and what kind of people is that? There is no any compassion for a fellow human being in the report or in the comments. And they even deleted one of my comments expressing my dismay at their lack of humanity, sensitivity, and basic decency.
I have the feeling that they are not much better than the onlookers at the gang rape in Richmond.
I just learned this word “polyandry” – the state or practice of having more than one husband or male mate at one time. In fact, polyandry is quite common. Men enjoy competing for sex as much as or even more than women. Those who are weak-minded are willing to put up with the unpleasant aspects of polyandry.
I am not sure if polygamy and polyandry are immoral. I guess if all parties involved are willing participants, it may not be immoral. Children can still be born and raised. I am not sure what other aspects should be examined.
I guess the reason why polygamy and polyandry are not acceptable to some people is that they assume that when two people are in a relationship, they should be in love with each other. But for those who practice polygamy and polyandry, they are mostly in it for financial gains or physical enjoyment, not for love.
Not only when money is offered in exchange for sex can it be considered prostitution. If a person’s willingness to have sex is driven by a desire to receive some kind of favor in return, it can also be considered prostitution.
This kind of desire to receive some kind of favor in return is completely different from the desire for a serious relationship to guarantee the well being of a child in case one is born.
When a woman is abstaining from sex because of the desire for a serious relationship, she is not acting like a prostitute who asks for money for sex because what she is demanding is for a child who she is morally responsible for, not for herself, as in the case of prostitution. She is sacrificing her desire for her own physical enjoyment and possible benefits she may receive from a relationship with the man out of true love for the man.
When a woman is willing to have sex without a serious relationship, she is either doing sex for her physical enjoyment, or expecting to receive something in return, which is prostitution. Either way, it is for her self interest, not out of true love for the man. But men often take women’s willingness to have sex as evidence of love, and women’s eagerness to have sex as evidence of the intensity of their love. So a woman is deceiving a man when she has sex without a serious relationship. Therefore, it is not moral. Women often scam a lot of money from men by making this kind of deceptions. That is why prostitution is objectionable. That is why securing a relationship before having sex is a moral standard. It is unfortunate that it is now a rarity in modern societies, even among people who are affiliated to some kind of religions, probably because religious entities are not doing a good job of explaining it.
I have met quite a few young women who seem to be very proud of their prostitution. When they are questioned, their answer is, they don’t believe in God, or, they are not Christians.
It is unfortunate that many societies count on religions to enforce certain moral standards. So when religions are challenged, the moral standards advocated by those religions are discredited at the same time. As a result, people think that moral standards do not exist.
In fact, there is a set of moral standards, which most religions advocate, that are the fundamentals that make human societies different from most animal societies and make human beings superior to animals.
The world today desperately need to know this set of moral standards. Too many people are abandoning religions and do not know that there are still moral standards that they need to follow.
Some famous universities are charging very high tuition and at the same time are accepting students without looking at how hard it is for them to pay for all the expenses. So some students enroll in those universities even though they have a lot of difficulties paying for all the expenses. Some of these students who are young women then sell love, which most of the time involves sex, mostly during their college years, but for some, even after they have graduated. With the famous university names attached to them, they can earn more money selling love. Guys pay more or are more eager to pay for romances with female students and alumni from famous universities. It is like the escort business. Escorts get higher pay for things other than sex, such as looks and talents. The universities get the money from these students. So they are basically functioning like prostitution rings.
One surprising thing about these students is that they seem to have been coached on how to lie to get the opportunity to sell love. They pretend to be engaged to someone else when they are pursuing their targets.