Have asked a question to AI which couldn’t provide an answer for about half an hour.
问了AI一个问题，结果半小时也给不出回答来。
🐶
你個人沒聽說不代表我沒聽說，這就是傳播，它不是指傳播到每個人那裡，但是，它指的是，有這樣的傳播，所以不認識的無關的公眾都可以得到這樣的信息。
另外，既然說我扯，請以後再也不用和我對話了，謝謝。
說明一下，這個法律，我指的是國際人權法。
所謂良知，道德，良心等行為指導學說總體上就是教人違反法律違反他人自由和生命的無知理論。
在文明社會，其實就是兩點最重要，尊重他人自由和生命，平等看待所有人。但是，基於某種文化出來的良知理論，基本上就是對這兩條的反對。
最近的信息是，2020年有個公子哥違反規定行走他鄉，把瘟疫帶到他的城市，導致數百人感染，被查出是他以後，據說，他的父親，處於良知，把他殺了。這在文明國家叫私刑，是謀殺罪，在中國叫良知。其實故事結局是否真實並不重要，重要的是，它被當作公民教育在社會上傳播。父親殺子的傳說在中國文化裡也不少，都是為了教育人良知可以促使人做任何事。
再早的時候，我的學校教育我們學習雷鋒，雷鋒說，對待敵人如秋風掃落葉般地殘酷無情。
許多人以此為座右銘，生怕留下一條活路給了敵人，但後來發現，這是多麼嚴重地踐踏了人權。
關於良知，我小的時候有個體驗
當時的朋友告訴我，全社會都堅信一種良知，就是，寧拆一座廟不拆一樁婚。於是，我記住了，然後我就照做了，但是長大後才知道這種所謂的良知對於痛苦關係中的人，尤其是女性，有多麼殘忍和不公。
One relay is in Hong Kong! 一個中繼是在香港🇭🇰的！
Excited to have receivef 2 zaps of 21 sats and 50 sats respectively. Many thanks to you, my 32nd and 33rd supporters. You have encouraged me to carry on.
很激動地又收到了兩筆打賞，分別是21聰和50聰。非常感謝你們，我的第32,33位支持者。你們的支持鼓勵著我繼續下去。
好久没发这个了
It's been long since I last posted this thing.
lnbc1pjq325ypp5m42070005qf23y3rqay4kk7t64vlf92m79pdn0wvptt6j5s667jqdqu2askcmr9wssx7e3q2dshgmmndp5scqzpgxqyz5vqsp5yhtvhdurg94lyf07g6dz8cxv0rcf9hqzp3wf6fjq0dr7y4yauj6q9qyyssq50v37l05c9y8zl0k27w60d5hy95f8hh5wdwz9e3juls4nav9fkqhku8w7ktffvy2lqrv4m452wc5p6ah8lek8aertdmagerc70vlw3gqmlwyh7
Now let’s address the issue of “Human rights are not political” and see why it’s so important. Let me put forward the conclusion first: rights defense (“HRD”) or human rights(“HR”) causes are NOT political opposition causes.
Since the end of Chinese Cultural Revolution in 1976, foeign journalists, teachers, and later some HR organizations (“orgs”) entered China. The first thing they did was to know and report on HR related cases, some of which even people of my age didn’t know at the time.
Looking back at some influencial cases, where, HR orgs were seen taking the lead in investigating and reporting, then were recorded by HR orgs into their annual reports on HR situation around the world. After that, some Western governments, e.g., U.S., would try rescuing the victims from imprisonment and invite them to live in their countries. Chinese government, under the policy of nourishing obscurity and developing power, restrained itself from repressing foreigners involved in reporting these cases, meanwhile, foreign governments pressed their counterpart in China for releases. Under kind of cooperation, some did manage to enjoy theirs releases and went to the West on exile.
In Jiang Zemin era (perhaps up to 2001 or so), such solutions were still open till China managed to be admitted to WTO. Then the next case of the kind happened ten year’s ago, i.e., Chen Guangcheng’s release on the intervention of Hilary Clinton, and entered America.
Later on, such incidents have never happened on the targeted people, such as Gao Zhisheng from China, Gui Minhai, a naturalized Swedeish citizen, Hongkongers, Taiwanese, even Caucasians. All got arrested, sentenced to imprisonments, etc.; none got released.
Nevertheless, the way of rescuing people from HR abuses seem to have formed a pattern, where orgs abroad would be dedicated in reporting, spreading, and rescuing. This pattern has been followed as routines, like a machine running day in and day out. Domestically, people have also adopted similar patterns trying to rescue people, such as petitioners, by pressing the government.
If looking back into the dissenting struggles over the past few decades since 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, you might not be able to find other incidents than those. The cases fall into the same type, except the names of the victims are different. These victims are called “political opponents”, because they are believed to have opposed the government.
However, by the International laws and mandates, these cases are categorized as HR or HRD cases, not political cases. Yet, why these cases were treated as political cases if they were in fact not? Why do all political opponents seek to identify themselves as such by involving themselves in the above mentioned mechanism?
The answer is: When a country does not have political opposition forces over the past decades, HR org and HR advocacy groups have become an alternative to the “political oppositions”; their causes, to the “politcal opposition causes”. However, HR groups and orgs by nature are neutral bodies in defense of individual HR cases. They won’t work on any political opposition agenda that may involve work such as strategizing, organizing, training, recruiting and expanding the political oppositions. As a matter of fact, none of these HR or HRD orgs has ever engaged in such actions aiming at political oppositions in China and Chinese issues.
Being alternatives involves two major issues: 1. Its state of being will consuming lots of resources for political opposition causes; 2. its state of being cannibalizes the genuine political opposition causes. These two problems prevent political opponents from joining political opposition camp, which does not exist, instead lead or mislead them to join HR advocacy groups or HRD camps, which have no agenda to advance political opposition planning or actions. That accounts for the reason why most HR & HRD group members are afraid and stay away from the “illegal” opposition forces.
In terms of political science, all authoritarian states will label political opposition forces as illegal, which is termed “parallel structures” in political science. If they were not illegal, as opposed to what HR or HRD activists would proudly do to justify themselves as legal actions takers and legal citizens, there wouldn’t be any political opposition movement at all. That’s why we see so many, or almost all, HR or HRD activists would gladly and openly announce their identities as such and their actions as role models, because after all, for what they have done, it’s not genuine political opposition movement (and thus legitimate by their own standards).
Now let’s address the issue of “Human rights are not political” and see why it’s so important. Let me put forward the conclusion first: rights defense (“HRD”) or human rights(“HR”) causes are NOT political opposition causes.
Since the end of Chinese Cultural Revolution in 1976, foeign journalists, teachers, and later some HR organizations (“orgs”) entered China. The first thing they did was to know and report on HR related cases, some of which even people of my age didn’t know at the time.
Looking back at some influencial cases, where, HR orgs were seen taking the lead in investigating and reporting, then were recorded by HR orgs into their annual reports on HR situation around the world. After that, some Western governments, e.g., U.S., would try rescuing the victims from imprisonment and invite them to live in their countries. Chinese government, under the policy of nourishing obscurity and developing power, restrained itself from repressing foreigners involved in reporting these cases, meanwhile, foreign governments pressed their counterpart in China for releases. Under kind of cooperation, some did manage to enjoy theirs releases and went to the West on exile.
In Jiang Zemin era (perhaps up to 2001 or so), such solutions were still open till China managed to be admitted to WTO. Then the next case of the kind happened ten year’s ago, i.e., Chen Guangcheng’s release on the intervention of Hilary Clinton, and entered America.
Later on, such incidents have never happened on the targeted people, such as Gao Zhisheng from China, Gui Minhai, a naturalized Swedeish citizen, Hongkongers, Taiwanese, even Caucasians. All got arrested, sentenced to imprisonments, etc.; none got released.
Nevertheless, the way of rescuing people from HR abuses seem to have formed a pattern, where orgs abroad would be dedicated in reporting, spreading, and rescuing. This pattern has been followed as routines, like a machine running day in and day out. Domestically, people have also adopted similar patterns trying to rescue people, such as petitioners, by pressing the government.
If looking back into the dissenting struggles over the past few decades since 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, you might not be able to find other incidents than those. The cases fall into the same type, except the names of the victims are different. These victims are called “political opponents”, because they are believed to have opposed the government.
However, by the International laws and mandates, these cases are categorized as HR or HRD cases, not political cases. Yet, why these cases were treated as political cases if they were in fact not? Why do all political opponents seek to identify themselves as such by involving themselves in the above mentioned mechanism?
The answer is: When a country does not have political opposition forces over the past decades, HR org and HR advocacy groups have become an alternative to the “political oppositions”; their causes, to the “politcal opposition causes”. However, HR groups and orgs by nature are neutral bodies in defense of individual HR cases. They won’t work on any political opposition agenda that may involve work such as strategizing, organizing, training, recruiting and expanding the political oppositions. As a matter of fact, none of these HR or HRD orgs has ever engaged in such actions aiming at political oppositions in China and Chinese issues.
Being alternatives involves two major issues: 1. Its state of being will consuming lots of resources for political opposition causes; 2. its state of being cannibalizes the genuine political opposition causes. These two problems prevent political opponents from joining political opposition camp, which does not exist, instead lead or mislead them to join HR advocacy groups or HRD camps, which have no agenda to advance political opposition planning or actions. That accounts for the reason why most HR & HRD group members are afraid and stay away from the “illegal” opposition forces.
In terms of political science, all authoritarian states will label political opposition forces as illegal, which is termed “parallel structures” in political science. If they were not illegal, as opposed to what HR or HRD activists would proudly do to justify themselves as legal actions takers and legal citizens, there wouldn’t be any political opposition movement at all. That’s why we see so many, or almost all, HR or HRD activists would gladly and openly announce their identities as such and their actions as role models, because after all, for what they have done, it’s not genuine political opposition movement (and thus legitimate by their own standards).
对不起，我一上达摩就会掉线
Sorry but every time I am on Damus, I get disconnected.
为什么人权不是政治，对于中国和中国人来说，会如此重要？它关系到我们的战略方向问题。我得开一个新帖来说明，因为分析相对比较长，还得用中英文分开发帖来解释。
Why is it so significant or even critical for China and Chinese to understand that human rights are not political issues? It concerns our strategic goals. I’m going to elaborate further in new notes, which may be lengthy and I’ll have to separate the explanations in Chinese and English respectively.
追问：这么说人权并不是政治，可以这样理解吗？
回答：人权是一种复杂的问题，复杂在它受到政治、社会、经济和文化等因素的影响，但倡导和保护人权是联合国所倡导的根本原则，而且是国际法加持的问题。
解读：“对，它不是政治，而是联合国倡导和保护的基本原则，虽然受到政治等因素影响。”
Follow up question: Based on this, human rights is not really a political type of issue. Can I interpret this way?
Answer: Human rights are a complex issue that can be influenced by political, social, economic, and cultural factors. However, the promotion and protection of human rights is a fundamental principle of the United Nations, and is enshrined in international law.
My interpretation
You’re right. It’s not politics, and promoted and protected as the fundamental principal by UN and under International laws.
说明：
为何有此疑问？因为中国，政府包括民间，都觉得非政府组织，尤其是人权倡导组织，是具有政治倾向性的。但这是一个误解。为何有此误解？原因是：政府认为一切都是政治，因此只要是对政府不利的，那就是政治。这是一个政治管制一切的国家，什么是政治管制一切？就是极权主义。但在另一方面，民间，基于同样的道理，也认为，或者说，误认为非政府组织，尤其是人权组织，是政治性的组织。不同的只是，他们是从反的方面来看待，即，他们在政治上倾向于民间。
How comes such a question? Because in China, not only the regime but also the civilians believe that NGOs, especially Human Rights NGOs, are politically oriented, which is a misinterpretation. But how comes such misinterpretation? Because the government believes everything has to be put under politics, therefore, anything that is not in government’s favor, is politics. This is a country where politics controls each and everything. What do we call such a system? It’s totalitarianism. But on the other hand, the civilians, based on the same grounds, have the same understanding or misunderstanding, but from the opposite perspective, namely, they stand,in terms politics, with the civilians.
1. 先从NGO组织开始 Let’s kick off from NGOs:
问：以合格的顾问身份加入联合国的NGO组织好像必须遵守一个规定，就是不能具有政治的倾向性。答：是的，总体上以合格顾问身份加入联合国的NGO组织被期待不能具有政治性。这是因为联合国是一个政府间的组织，寻求促进成员间的国际合作和协作，因此其不带倾向性和保持中立是很重要的。
Q: There seems to be a rule for NGOs to participate in United Nations sessions as qualified consultants that these NGOs should not be politically driven in their causes.
A: Yes, it is generally expected that NGOs participating in United Nations sessions as qualified consultants should not be politically driven in their causes. This is because the United Nations is an intergovernmental organization that seeks to promote international cooperation and collaboration among member states, and it is important to maintain its impartiality and neutrality.