Talk:Asian values

Defining the topic

The article previously said

More often the west thinks of Asian meaning Southeast and (north)East Asian people. But in reality, Asian values are conservative ideologies that apply mainly to Southeast Asia and (north)East Asia.

It isn't the entire West that thinks of "Asia" mostly as the East & Southeast. Even in the UK, the word "Asian" implies South Asian, so I corrected this. But the second sentence there sounds awkward. What is it trying to clarify? It says "But in reality", but the rest of the sentence doesn't refute anything written above. Was there a mistake? If this really is supposed to be about the values of East, Northeast, & Southeast Asia, than that would basically be the East Asian cultural sphere, also known as the "Confucian world". I think this article should be more upfront about this, and describe how this topic is tied to Confucianism.

This article is a misshapen blob of grammar/spelling mistakes, shoddy formatting, awkward wording and run-on sentences. Twodots (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

True. I shaped it up a bit, but more work is needed to make it sound more sensible. Bongolian (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is half-misleading

The idea that conservatism is in line with Asian values is false. Many people in atheistic China are fine with abortion (especially sex-selective and eugenic abortions), which conservatives are strongly opposed to. Unclescrooge (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative" can mean different things in different cultures/different times.-Flandres (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. In other words, putting "Category:Conservative wingnuttery" will give the impression that Asian values are in line with traditional (American) conservative principles, which isn't very true. Unclescrooge (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Well that's the reader's problem for not putting the effort into learning shit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

And just like that, you drove away 90% of RW readers! Unclescrooge (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A laughable exaggeration if I ever heard one...-Flandres (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories are to briefly summarize key aspects of an article for internal (non-reader) organization. They are not to be used as the body of an article, and anyone expecting such is seriously mislead and confused. Also, forgive me for thinking most of RW's readers are not complete morons, and in fact possess at least an inkling of critical thinking skills. You know, one of the key aspects in this site's POV... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yah, but that category is still very misleading for the article. It seriously needs to be removed and the page should be improved. Unclescrooge (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No,, it's not. It's only "misleading" if you don't know much about politics.-Flandres (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean I'm pretty sure we got that category not because values held by Asian people amounts to conservative wingnuttery, but it's a loaded term conservative Asian politicians use to make their wingnut positions in a similar vein as "European values/American values" that racists use here. On the other hand, one sentence I don't quite agree with is "Asian values are not usually thought to be compatible with Western liberal democracy or individualism." as if collectivism is mutually exclusive with individualism compared to more likely falling in a spectrum, especially when both terms aren't strictly defined to begin with. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

opening quote

why the fuck do we have a quote from a norwegian mass murderer opening on an article concerning and titled 'asian values'? seriously? couldnt find a quote expressing the same sentiment (not 100% sure what the quote is driving at) from someone who hasnt committed and known entirely for mass murder? really?AMassiveGay (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That was from User:BluePink. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And not a single reference was given

Really? Really. This article is abandoned and haunted. We've received a complaint about that, uh, anyone gonna do free work? Otherwise what parts of this should be scrapped? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Values depend on who is editing them....

We often find right-wing advocates of "Christian values" taking up positions that seem inconsistent with the words and deeds of Jesus as recorded in sources supposedly authoritative for believers. Something of this sort also happens with so-called "Asian values." While Confucianism is not democratic or egalitarian, it does sometimes express values that fit uncomfortably with authoritarian rule.

For instance, it is basic Confucian doctrine that if the common people are dishonest or immoral, the primary reason for this fault is that they have been corrupted by dishonest and immoral leaders. The commoners are seen in the same light as children, but like children, they do not bear the full weight of moral responsibility for their faults -- their leaders must themselves take the blame, rather than blaming and punishing their inferiors. A "Confucian" response to video game addiction, for instance, would focus on why youths were so eager to retreat into fantasy worlds and how poorly they must be led and inspired if they are dominated by that desire. Confucius would have whole-heartedly agreed with the Russian proverb that a fish rots from the head. Naturally, this has never been an emphasis that has been particularly popular among the powerful.

Again, many Confucian thinkers advocated that the scholar class denounce misbehaviour in superiors, up to the Emperor himself, without deferring in the slightest to their rank. Mencius, the most important follower of Confucius, even suggested tossing the statues of the local gods into the river if they failed to respond to prayers for rain. The record of Mencius' interaction with the feudal lords of his time contains many examples of him telling them, sometimes in rather insulting ways, that they would get the commoners that they deserved and if they wanted the common people to improve, the best place to look would be in the mirror.

This tradition was reflected in many ways: in stories of role models such as the Historian of the South, who insisted on writing that an usurper had seized the throne even at the risk of his own life, and in the officials of the Censorate, charged with investigating corruption in the bureaucracy, a few of whom were bold enough to send memorials to the Emperor castigating his faults in blunt language. One Emperor, furious at such an insult, ordered an official to seize the author of the criticism and execute him. The official replied, "That won't be hard. He's brought his coffin with him and he's sitting on it at the palace gate, whistling a tune!" The Emperor, realizing what a fool he'd look if he killed someone so obviously unafraid of death, rescinded his order. (Many centuries later, a play about this censor, Hai Rui, was the spark that set off the Cultural Revolution in China -- Mao was as sensitive as any emperor to indirect criticism expressed through culturally symbolic historical figures.)

The history of science in China is also relevant. It is often said that "Asian values" privilege the collective and denigrate the individual, but the development of alchemy in China and the search for the elixir of immortality, the "drug of no death" (bu si zhi yao) is one of the most relentlessly individualistic quests in human history. The Daoist alchemists who spent centuries searching for this drug, ironically discovering gunpowder in the process, knew and expressed the fact that if the state and society could no longer kill you, then you would be free, and some of them even rejected the power of the gods, trying to attain eternal life in physical form because, as one of them said, you had to kiss even more ass in Heaven than you did on earth.

Maelen (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)