Again, Chinese is an idiom-heavy language. That context may not exist to a native speaker.
Of course he is, but you clearly don't understand the difference between implied violence and an explicit declaration. The use of this language allows for a facade of civility. That's the whole fucking point. He isn't going to outright say he will crush people's bones because that's not what people do if they want to seem like they aren't lunatics. There are people in this thread telling you how Chinese idioms work, but you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears.
I'm just quoting your post here to indicate that I support your effort to clarify what he's saying for those of us who don't speak Chinese. That you got criticized for doing this is patently ridiculous.
What you are doing in this thread is trying to justify your accusation that someone who clarified that the combination of words used here are an idiom was suspiciously lacking in anti-Xi fervor. It's ridiculous.
So, basically, having context for the translation doesn't matter to you.
No, because no one speaks like that in English. In Chinese, everyone speaks like that. Idioms are things you learn in preschool. They're a natural part of the language.
Maybe not in your nation.
Why do you appreciate the context here? What has it changed for you?
...a-are you saying nobody uses idioms on a day to day basis in English? I've got some news to break for you...
It absolutely matters. The violence being only implicit is what makes it so much more insidious. It allows them to hide behind a veneer of respectability.
It's not implicit when it's a direct fucking reference to a goddamn massacre he already bloody well committed.
Chinese idiomatic expressions have a very specific place in Chinese linguistics. I'm not saying that English and other languages don't use idioms; I'm saying that they're not fundamentally idiomatic languages like Chinese is. The specific "contextual quote" you provided doesn't sound natural because no one speaks like that. If someone did, it'd be very clear what they were implying based on that specific diction. This isn't always the case in Chinese, where the words in the idiomatic expression may or may not be at all related to the context they're used, and are much more integrated into everyday speech since childhood.
It's a common expression that has no direct connection to Tiananmen that I know of. Anecdotally, I asked my mom and she thought nothing of the idiom. It's funny that you call people Trump supporters for explaining the meaning when you're the one with the arrogance to assume you understand the nuances of a different language based on an imperfect translation and then doubling down on when challenged.
Because it sheds more light. How a leader, especially a dictator, speaks is very important. In this case, it outlines a facade. Yes, in the end, it may not matter. I agree. However, it is worth noting his facade because it can be obviously tied to the massacre but Chinese/Mandarin speakers may not see it that way.
I wouldn't say complete collapse but they are going to quickly lose what leverage they currently have by pushing way too far. Corporate greed is so willing to forgive and placate but it's like they are even pushing the limits of that and are going to force corporations to chose between western markets and them because they've been so openly hostile and cartoonishly evil right or left people in the west aren't having any of it. It's pretty rare we agree on anything but seeing universal condemnation from our politicians here is an example of how they are fucking up badly
It's a lot more likely they're all working off the same press release.
Yes, the usage in my example wasn't meant to be subtle or natural as it was only a blatant example meant to be seen through and wasn't a professionally written opaque statement meant to be delivered as a representative of the people.
That was very clearly sarcasm. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy at saying that these distinctions don't matter when they absolutely fucking do, while engaging in semantics in your own posts.
The world thought they would do what every country did as it emerged as a developed nation, they were wrong.
It would only be a hypocritical act if your "Gotcha!" snark was a legitimate 1-1 comparison.
Right.
Srsly dude, grow up. Aint no one gon isolate a country as rich as China, same way aint no one isolates Saudi Arabia, who's in the process of genociding yemenis for some years now. Money talks, and china has not only a fuckload of money, but also bout than 20% of the worlds population. No one's gonna do shit.
See below quote--he explains why the nuance matters much better than I could. Shrugging it off with "it doesn't matter anyway" is pretty ignorant.
I think I agree. China's recent nationalistic saber rattling is probably not so much a warning to the outside world, but a warning of internal fears. I suspect China's economy is slowing down, and being a dictatorship over a very large country only really works as long as most people are optimistic about the future. The recent fanning of nationalist flames seems like it could be a distraction, and now threats are getting uttered to stop possible unrest in its tracks. You could even link the installation of all the cameras as a deliberate cautionary move for when the economy stalls.
In an ideal world yes. Journalism is kind of hurting too much to get bogged down in "boring details". At the end of the day the difference is inexistant for the Western audience.
All of my responses have been "In this specific instance it really doesn't matter". I agree that it's a thing and that it usually matters. Political context strips this facade naked, idiom or no idiom.
