Submitted by PrincessBananas85 t3_103ajcx in sports
feeltheslipstream t1_j2zw8oj wrote
>The WTA said it had received confirmation Peng was safe and comfortable but were yet to meet with her personally.
Unless their definition of "confirmation" is different from what I was taught, shouldn't this already be resolution.
RegalCopper t1_j2zwqnw wrote
It means that they have not met her personally to confirm she isn't saying these things at the end of a gun.
Why'd you think they refuse to let her meet? The last time someone tried to show they weren't torturing prisoners on TV, the prisoner has to spell out torture in morse code with his eye. 🤔
feeltheslipstream t1_j2zx7v2 wrote
That still falls under the definition of confirmed in regards to "safe and comfortable".
So they've confirmed that she is safe and comfortable, but aren't convinced she is safe and comfortable? There's a conflict here.
kvist56 t1_j301stx wrote
They want a resolution to the case that was the start of this. Her being safe and comfortable is nice and all (her saying I am safe and comfortable in a moderately controlled interview does not count), but she is clearly under duress to not speak of the incident. That’s what they want from this. They want her to be able to speak candidly and without punishment. Given that it’s China, it’s unlikely that will happen while she is in China, but who knows, China did make a sizable investment in WTA before this went down.
rainbowshummingbird t1_j30kah4 wrote
I am no China expert, but my gut is that she is being re-educated along with her family members. It is unlikely that she will ever be allowed to travel outside of China.
JK_Chan t1_j30zj5k wrote
They haven't confirmed that, they were just told that she was. I can tell you Im XiJinping but unless I prove it it's not confirmed that Im the man himself.
feeltheslipstream t1_j310g0v wrote
I'm literally quoting from the article when I state that they confirmed it.
So what you're doing now is accusing wta of lying.
JK_Chan t1_j31139j wrote
Article says WTA received confirmation, not that they confirmed it. I can send you confirmation that I am XiJinping, it's up to you to confirm it.
feeltheslipstream t1_j312iyp wrote
No you can't.
You can send me a claim that you're xi Jinping. To send me confirmation would require you're in a position to send me proof. Which you're not.
This is really basic stuff.
JK_Chan t1_j312w6y wrote
Well what are the requirements for me to be in a position to send you proof?
feeltheslipstream t1_j313ixd wrote
Well the lowest hurdle you would have to clear would be to provide some official documentation.
Think : what documentation a bank needs as confirmation that you're you when you are opening an account.
JK_Chan t1_j314zvt wrote
Are you sure the WTA has received that information from her then?
feeltheslipstream t1_j315duu wrote
No I'm not.
Read my post again. My point is that wta seems to simultaneously claim that they received confirmation and that its not enough to be a resolution of the issue.
These two things shouldn't be simultaneously possible. So if they're not lying about confirmation, they're pushing the issue in spite of proof otherwise. If they didn't get confirmation, they lied about getting it.
Confirmation means they received proof. So did they or not? Are they lying or acting in bad faith?
JK_Chan t1_j319btl wrote
The bank can send you confirmation that your money is with them. If a theif then proceeds to steal your money, you still have the confirmation, it doesn't mean that the bank still has your money. In this case you have received confirmation, but you can still doubt that the bank has your money after you read about a heist on the news.
feeltheslipstream t1_j31jbou wrote
You're adding a time component to the question, making it philosophical : all confirmations occur in the past.
If we were to use this on everything, we would conclude we are sure of nothing. Last time someone checked in on you, you were an outstanding member of society and law abiding citizen.
But who is to say you haven't fucked a goat this morning? We can't be sure!
I hope you see why that reasoning is pretty bad.
JK_Chan t1_j34rkeb wrote
Well no one from WTA has been able to meet her up to this day, and all they have is the confirmation. Same as in my analogy, if you then asked your bank whether your money is safe, and they send you another confirmation, but you are unable to withraw your money or to see it at all, would you still be convinced that the bank has your money? The confirmation from the bank can be offered at anytime irregardless of when the hypothetical theft occured, so the time component isn't really required.
feeltheslipstream t1_j35jgo9 wrote
If they met up with her and she's OK you can still use this logic to say "who's to say they didn't grab her after she met us?"
That's why this is a terrible logic to use.
JK_Chan t1_j35m1mw wrote
Well as I said, they weren't even able to meet up with her. If she didn't disappear in the first place I wouldn't doubt that she's fine, but she has and no one from WTA has been able to meet up with her until now. Using my example, if I didn't hear about a theft on the news, and was unable to withdraw my money, sure I would still trust the bank on their guarantee. But now that I know money has been stolen and that I am unable to get my money, I need to see my money physically to trust that the bank still has it.
feeltheslipstream t1_j35njmg wrote
But the bank has just given you a video call to confirm money is still in the bank. And you're still saying its not enough because it might have been stolen after the call. I assure you that if this scenario ever occurs, your bank will NOT be arranging a private visit of their vault for you.
Wta has been able to talk to her over video call. That's what they mean by confirmation.
You are talking about a woman who has outed herself as a mistress in a Conservative society, and expect her to make herself available to be in the spotlight. That's ridiculous. This isn't even unprecedented. People with far bigger star power have disappeared from the public eye overnight because they've been exposed of being part of an affair.
JK_Chan t1_j361b9t wrote
No, the bank has given me a video call to show me my supposed money. I however, am still unable to access it. I fully understand that in my case the bank cannot and will not arrange a private visit to the vault for me, and therefore, I can still be skeptical that the confirmation is legitimate.
As for WTA's case, there have been cases where prisoners were able to video call the outside world, and in one case, they verbally communicated that they were not being tortured, but using morse code in their blinks, told the world that they were in fact, tortured. This acts as an example to show that video evidence alone is not enough to ensure the safety of anyone or anything.
True, it may be that she is ashamed of her actions, and therefore has disappeared from the public eye. On the other hand, China is also known to have people appearing in their courts claiming that they commited atrocious crimes, yet in multiple cases, those people have disappeared from other countries, with no immigration record of them leaving the country at all. Why would one leave a country illegally just to go to China and turn themselves in? It's more likely that they were kidnapped and brought into the courts with a false crime attributed to them, so their disapperances could be easily explained.
To clarify, I have no clue what happened. I'm just saying WTA has enough information in front of them to be skeptical of the confirmation.
feeltheslipstream t1_j362fcq wrote
They literally have zero information in front of them to be skeptical.
They're skeptical based on suspicions. All information actually points to this being nothing.
You're confusing suspicion and evidence.
But this isn't the point I was trying to make from the start. My point is that the statement from WTA is self contradictory. If your only rebuttal is going to be splitting hairs on the semantics of confirmation, I have to point out it's a very weak one.
No evidence will ever pass the bar you've set. Peng Shuai could fly to your house and stay with you for a year, and your argument would still hold : who's to know she didn't get captured the moment she left your house?
If nothing can satisfy the bar, the bar is set wrongly.
JK_Chan t1_j365ena wrote
No, my bar is that if they can meet Peng Shuai without the monitoring of Chinese authorities, they can resonably believe that she is safe. I have given you examples of video confirmation of safety being unrealiable, and examples of instances that are more likely to be Chinese abductions than not. Both are reasons to be suspicious. Since all attempts for them to meet her have been unsuccessful, there are reasons to remain doubtful of the confirmation video.
​
Edit: as before, I am not tyring to comment on the case, but rather I'm trying to show that the presentation of confirmation to a party does not mean that they have to believe it. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the article. If the WTA produced such confirmation, what you are saying makes sense, but they were just shown confirmation produced by a third party.
feeltheslipstream t1_j365v0z wrote
>No, my bar is that if they can meet Peng Shuai without the monitoring of Chinese authorities
It isn't.
Because you've already clarified that stuff can happen after the meeting. And that's enough for it to fail your bar again.
After the meeting, you'll give me more examples of people who got arrested after public appearances. And use that to tell me it fails your bar.
Come on. You know its true.
If the meeting is in China, you'll say she's still within ccp influence. So you insist she flies out to meet you. There, you'll say ccp has a history of grabbing people from other countries. Or maybe you'll claim she has family in China.
Nothing she does will pass your bar. Let's reverse roles for fun. Let me have a turn being the troll. You come up with what you think is a bullet proof scenario and I either prove she's now your prisoner, or give you a reason why she still fails to meet the bar set.
JK_Chan t1_j366hh4 wrote
Yes I've clarified that stuff can happen after the meeting, but I could care less about that. That has nothing to do with my bar. My bar (and the WTA's bar) is for them to meet, which for one reason or another, is not possible. (Also people who got arrested after public appearances has nothing to do with this, all I listed were people who dissappeared and then reappeared in China without the required legal documents to pass through immigration. Such cases has no correlation to my bar, but were rather used to show you that they have resonable reason to suspect that there is foul play.)
All of my points here are just to tell you that the presentation of confirmation does not mean that you have to believe such confirmation. There is no contradiction by WTA. I am not commenting on the case since I have no clue what actually happened.
feeltheslipstream t1_j366ngf wrote
Your argument is based on the poorly defined idea that a confirmation isn't a confirmation. Which leaves me scratching my head.
There's a difference between saying "I've received some information" and "I've received confirmation. You're saying they are the same thing. Which they are not.
If you say you received confirmation, it means you believe it confirms the information you got.
JK_Chan t1_j367tni wrote
Yet again, a bank can send you confirmation that your money is with them, but if you can't access the money and you heard that a theft has occured, you could reasonably doubt that the given confirmation is correct.
feeltheslipstream t1_j3689p1 wrote
>but if you can't access the money
video call. She's available to talk to you(well, not you...but people more important than you)
>you heard that a theft has occured
You've heard nothing to indicate she's been detained. All you have are "they could if they wanted to"
JK_Chan t1_j3694i9 wrote
Yes I heard nothing to indicate that she's been detained. However, she has disappeared for a period of time and the WTA isn't able to meet her. Sure the WTA ain't a big organization, but it's big enough that meeting her shouldn't be a problem, so when they have a problem with arranging a meeting right after her brief dissappearance, there's enough to indicate there might be something going on behing the scenes. I mean yes they got a video call but it was a controlled one, and as I raised before, videos are often unreliable as confirmations.
feeltheslipstream t1_j369wsv wrote
There's also been private meetings, not just video calls. And just not with the WTA. WTA also didn't get even a video call. The IOC has been the ones in contact, along with a couple of interviews for the media (some non Chinese).
Video calls are just the only ones we, the public, get to witness.
I think a lot of context is lost when people read the truncated/translated version of the post that started this. Reading it in Chinese, it is 90% a love letter and 10% details of the man using his power to get the girl.
The post has bad timing to be caught in the middle of the me too movement, but sexual assault/abuse is not really the point of the post.
There's no reason for anyone (or the ccp) to think it was intended as an accusation of crime. Why would there be a need to silence her?
JK_Chan t1_j36cint wrote
Oh the IOC is corruption at it's finiest, just like FIFA and the NBA. If the confirmation came from them then yea I wouldn't trust them either. Im not here to argue about or comment on about what happened though, I don't know enough. Im just here to say that the WTA did not contradict themselves.
As you said, the WTA did not even get a video call from her let alone a meeting, I can definitely see how they can be suspicious of the confirmation they were sent.
As to why the ccp might want to silence her, the ccp tried to silence the news of COVID within China for quite a while before the global outbreak. I don't see why they would want to do that instead of getting global help to contain the virus, but yet here we are.
PS: if you don't mind, could you send me some of the sources? I understand Chinese so Chinese sources would be fine too. I'm kinda busy but would like to look a bit more into this maybe during the weekend.
feeltheslipstream t1_j372mea wrote
Well it's been a year and even back then it was really only available on Taiwan sites. I would advice you search for it in Chinese.
>It’s always good to see Peng Shuai, whether in an interview or attending the Olympic Games. However, her recent in-person interview does not alleviate any of our concerns about her initial post from 2 November.
See, people have met in person. But I bet that's not going to be enough anymore right?
>As to why the ccp might want to silence her, the ccp tried to silence the news of COVID within China for quite a while before the global outbreak. I don't see why they would want to do that instead of getting global help to contain the virus, but yet here we are.
We really going to do this?
The provincial government covered this from the federal level government for a week. Once this was discovered, the ccp immediately informed the WHO. It wasn't like the covered it up and got found out.
JK_Chan t1_j3k44g9 wrote
I mean that's good enough for me but if it isn't for WTA, then it isn't. And yes, we're really gonna do this. Even if they weren't trying to cover it up, the news reached the media before the WHO was informed by the ccp, and the WHO requested the information from the ccp (due to a statement from the provicial government(?)) rather than it being the ccp informing them immediately after realizing a cover up. Independent inquiries on the origin of COVID 19 have been actively blocked by the Chinese government and they have also tried to shift the blame to Italy for the virus' origin. Not really what I was here for (I was just gonna say that receiving confirmation from a third party doesnt mean you have to believe in such confirmation), but hey if you wanna I guess.
Osmium_tetraoxide t1_j30vr1i wrote
They've decided on a political take and that will be that. Even when they meet her they'll magic some rubbish about, well she was brainwashed in some camp so we can't take her testimony as made in good faith, we need more proof.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments