Cultural genocide in Tibet. Oh, and guns, too. (no spam)

[kyle]

"Isn't the whole point of journalism and reporting to provide a non-biased view of events?"

Isn't the reason the media is so godawful these days because they try to maintain the pretense of non-biased reporting? I think it should be the job of the media to report the truth, and the truth is inherently biased against anyone who is wrong.

In Canada the other day the Chinese ambassador was given a press conference where he was allowed to present China's point of view. I didn't catch all of it, came in about part way, but I do remember the way he equated 1940s Tibet with Nazi Germany (seriously), the way he said that Tibet was a medieval country before China 'elevated' it to modern status (as a former overseas teacher, I can attest to the fact that parts of China still look like something out of the middle ages), and that the Dalai Lama had tricked the world into believing he is a peaceful figured (I knew it! I knew he was only pretending to be a nice guy).

All this stuff scares me - China is a bully (please don't tell me that so is the U.S., I already agree with that), and the next real war that gets fought will be against it.

[Tricky]

Looking at the rate of China's economic growth, one wonders if there will be more 'elevating' before long.

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by kyle

"Isn't the whole point of journalism and reporting to provide a non-biased view of events?"

Isn't the reason the media is so godawful these days because they try to maintain the pretense of non-biased reporting? I think it should be the job of the media to report the truth, and the truth is inherently biased against anyone who is wrong.

Wrong! In so many ways. The "truth" you speak of is carefully constructed by people who make a living as "spin-doctors" and grab on to every opportunity they can find, no matter how far fetched, to bend the "truth" into their point of view. The "monks of Tibet" is a media opportunity without equal. The Dalai Lama has presented himself, for as far as I can remember, as a person of peace and wisdom. Hell, he's blessed every celebrity twit from Richard Gere to Steven Seagal as followers of the "true path to enlightenment and peace." He ain't Ghandi, and if you do a little research, Ghandi ain't what he's made up to be either. I grew up supporting Taliban against the Soviet Union. Look where that got me. Use your head, see both sides of every issue, and don't buy the hype.

[Claudius]

But the da lai lama and gandai support non-violence. Quite a bit different from the Taliban!

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Claudius

But the da lai lama and gandai support non-violence.

Does 'violence' also include 'two men sleeping with each other'? Because that would also be correct.

It's the little things, you know.

[Claudius]

The da lai lama has reported what he has understood from scriptural sources within buddhism regarding homosexuality. However he is open to evaluating if those beliefs from said scriptual sources are in fact correct. I think he is acknowledging that the prohibition of homosexuality could be simply be native to one culture and time rather than a universal principle.

For more information: +++ Dalai Lama Speaks on Gay Rights +++

I don't think the da lai lama has stated that he disagrees with the buddhist scripture but he is open to dialogue to take a closer look at it.

Oh and I don't think homosexuality is considered violence unless it is rape.

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by Claudius

But the da lai lama and gandai support non-violence. Quite a bit different from the Taliban!

Oh, really? I'm not gonna lecture you about Ghandi. You can figure that one out for yourself. The current Dalai Lama and his cohorts of other "lamas" has recognized Steven Seagal, a man known for classic movies like "Mercenary for Justice" and the upcoming "Pistol Whipped" (I kid you not) as a holy person. A "Tulku." Talk about the non-violent approach...

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

Oh, really? I'm not gonna lecture you about Ghandi. You can figure that one out for yourself. The current Dalai Lama and his cohorts of other "lamas" has recognized Steven Seagal, a man known for classic movies like "Mercenary for Justice" and the upcoming "Pistol Whipped" (I kid you not) as a holy person. A "Tulku." Talk about the non-violent approach...

I have no idea why the Dalai Lama have done that (although actors seem to end up in wierd religious positions every now and then), however I fail to understand how you can draw a conclusion about an (action movie) actors position with a stance pro/against violence as a political tool.
I simply can't see the two connected.
It isn't like Steven Segal is out using violence as a tool to change political situations in real life.
How are those two things connected?

There is in my world a huge difference between actions in a B-movie and real life events and the support of one rarely constitute a support in the other. Many people enjoy action movies, doesn't mean they support violence in real life by any mean.

[Moonbiter]

Originally Posted by Xandax

It isn't like Steven Segal is out using violence as a tool to change political situations in real life.

Since it's Friday evening, and things are a bit out of focus, I will delay my usual Moonbiter-ish blowout regarding this statement. In the meantime, I would suggest watching a few of mister Seagal's latest flicks as research.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

Since it's Friday evening, and things are a bit out of focus, I will delay my usual Moonbiter-ish blowout regarding this statement. In the meantime, I would suggest watching a few of mister Seagal's latest flicks as research.

Point being that the movies are still only movies. Not him running around beating up real life people to change a real life political situation.
Thus implying that the Dalai Lama supports violence because Steven Segal is an action film performer, and the two are connected via religious believes seriously needs some connecting of dots to be understandable.

Even if his movies have religious or "free Tibet" undertones or motives, then I still think it is a very large leap of deduction to say him beating up "bad guys" in a movie as an explanation that the Dalai Lama is supporting violence or at least not supporting "non-violence" when it comes to the situation in Tibet.

I just do not follow that train of thought without some explanation at least.

[Moonbiter]

Damn, I'm glad I didn't follow up on this one last night. I had just spent sever hours down the local boozer debating this very same issue with a bunch of clueless first-year student activists who plans on going to Tibet to support the uprising. Yeah, like that's gonna help. I was in a bit of a huff, to put it mildly. Sorry if I sounded a little crass.

@Xan, I completely understand your point of view. The point I'm trying to make is that the picture painted by the media of the monks being poor, peaceful, lotus-eating wisemen being stomped upon by nasty, jack-booted blackguards is pretty far removed from the actual truth. It's a political movement, and even worse, a political movement based on religion. Those have a tradition of going sour, and it seems like that's happening now. The Dalai Lama has, as far as I know, been remarkably silent when it comes to speaking out against the violent anarchy, the burning and looting and general nastiness that's going on. The hypocrisy is IMHO staggering.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

<snip>
@Xan, I completely understand your point of view. The point I'm trying to make is that the picture painted by the media of the monks being poor, peaceful, lotus-eating wisemen being stomped upon by nasty, jack-booted blackguards is pretty far removed from the actual truth. It's a political movement, and even worse, a political movement based on religion. Those have a tradition of going sour, and it seems like that's happening now. The Dalai Lama has, as far as I know, been remarkably silent when it comes to speaking out against the violent anarchy, the burning and looting and general nastiness that's going on. The hypocrisy is IMHO staggering.

Well, I have seen reports on Danish media (television and internet) taking a public and outspoken stance against the violent rioters, and have on these media expressed that he'd leave the position of being a Dalai Lama if the violence continued to spiral out of control.
Might be spin, might not - that is of course up to interpretation.

And religious political mixture aside, then I still fail to see the connection of supporting Steven Segal and supporting violence, or any direct indication that the Dalai Lama supports the violent uprising in general other then vague innuendo and subjective interpretation of said.
I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama would like to see a independent Tibet, but as said - so far I've only seen him express himself against the violence in the current situation.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Xandax

Well, I have seen reports on Danish media (television and internet) taking a public and outspoken stance against the violent rioters, and have on these media expressed that he'd leave the position of being a Dalai Lama if the violence continued to spiral out of control.
Might be spin, might not - that is of course up to interpretation.

It's been all over the media. For example, here.

[Moonbiter]

Okay, I stand humbly corrected, and apologize. Good for him. However, this has not been covered in Norwegian media at all, which underlines my point regarding media hype and "truth." the interesting thing is that the enthusiastic activists I argued with last night hadn't heard about this either.

@Xan: My initial argument was that I find it hard to understand why the leaders of a religious movement that has been hyped for ages in the public mind as the frontline for peace and harmony, ordains a person who smashes people to pulp as a sollution to every problem as a "holy person." It wasn't more complicated than that. Are those dots hard to connect? Because I think we're arguing for argument's sake here.

However, as I see the whole situation as another ridiculous, poorly planned and executed "independence at all costs" thing, which seems to be all the rage nowadays, I will refrain from further comment. Get back to me in a couple of years, and we'll see if it was worth the pain.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Moonbiter

<snip>
@Xan: My initial argument was that I find it hard to understand why the leaders of a religious movement that has been hyped for ages in the public mind as the frontline for peace and harmony, ordains a person who smashes people to pulp as a sollution to every problem as a "holy person." It wasn't more complicated than that. Are those dots hard to connect? Because I think we're arguing for argument's sake here.<snip>

Oki - wasn't sure whether it was that point you were arguing or if you had actual tangible information.