8mo ago

Yuntai: Hiker finds pipe feeding China's tallest waterfall

www.bbc.com Yuntai: Hiker finds pipe feeding China's tallest waterfall

A hiker posted a video showing the water flow of the fall was coming from a pipe built into the rock face.

A controversy over a waterfall has cascaded into a social media storm in China, even prompting an explanation from the water body itself.

A hiker posted a video that showed the flow of water from Yuntai Mountain Waterfall - billed as China's tallest uninterrupted waterfall - was coming from a pipe built high into the rock face.

The clip has been liked more than 70,000 times since it was first posted on Monday. Operators of the Yuntai tourism park said that they made the "small enhancement" during the dry season so visitors would feel that their trip had been worthwhile.

"The one about how I went through all the hardship to the source of Yuntai Waterfall only to see a pipe," the caption of the video posted by user "Farisvov" reads.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

164 comments

I guess I'm just confused then. When China enacted economic reforms in the 80's, there were people who opposed them and felt that these reforms entailed a right-wing deviation from communism. Those people were/are known as Maoist hardliners. You can see where I thought you might be one.
If you're not that, then does that mean you do approve of those economic reforms? Perhaps I misunderstood, when you said China abandoned communism, did you mean it as a good thing, and you support China's direction from a pro-capitalist standpoint?
If that's not it, I give up. I'm afraid I'm at a loss what your ideology is or what you think about Chinese history or the country's economic reforms. If you could explain it to me, I'd be quite grateful, I see a lot of people around here who appear to me to be Maoists, but when I ask if they are, they don't answer or elaborate. It's very confusing to me.
- Why do you need to know the other commenters ideology, their stance on China's direction, history, and economic reforms, as well as on capitalism?
  All they said was that China's economy isn't currently communist, which is true whether you like it or not.
  
  Because I'm trying to understand their perspective. I consider China to be communist in the sense that the people in charge are communists, the same sense that it was communist under Mao. They call themselves communists, they explain their reasons for doing things from the perspective of communist ideology, they teach Marxism in schools, etc.
  To say that they are specifically no longer communist, when they claim to be, seems to be weighing in on what communism is and isn't. Specifically, it seems to be taking the perspective that Mao's leadership constituted "real" communism while Deng's leadership constituted "fake" communism. As I am not a Maoist, I disagree with that perspective.
  It's strange to me that you think understanding someone's stance on China's economic reforms, the point in history where they allegedly abandoned communism, would be irrelevant to understanding the standard by which they consider China to have abandoned communism. What could be more relevant?
  
  They don't know anything about China's government or its history, they're simply combining their hate of capitalism with their hate of China - they've picked up a few wesponized talking points to allow them to talk like they know everything because admitting the whole thing is super complex and confusing makes them feel scared and lost in this big old world.
  It's also racism, communism and capitalism are western ideologies so they consider them valid, Chinese principles and reforms are foreign and worthless in their eyes - they simply can't accept that they're not playing the western way, the idea of a third thing is incomprehensible to them. It's the same with Chinese tech, people want to belive all they can do is copy the west, I think partly it just feels weird trying to accept that even in some small way people are ahead of us.
  Their electric cars for example are presented as a rudimentary version of American ev but the reality is they're a product very well suited to China's integrated transport network which allows easy and affordable train travel for long distance and commuter transit. Small last-mile and runaround focused EV works in China because that's how they planned for their transit system to work, they're flowing a series of five year plans which lay out the shape and direction of their economy with the goal of benefitting the people. It's a centrally planned economy working through a complex series of committees and congresses. Of course that's communism, anyone that says it isn't is just being weird.
  
  Thank you, yes. It's pure chauvanism and falls apart easily under examination, which seems to be why they always disappear so quickly.
  1.4 billion people live in China and I'd venture to say that a large chunk of them consider themselves to be communist and the party to be communist. That is easily the majority view of self-indentifying communists worldwide. But surely, they think, as a Westerner, I'm the authority on what communism is and not these backwards Chinese.
- You should comment less and lurk moar and you'll pick up the vibe.
  Or just keep trying to corner people and wonder why they don't want to engage with you.
  
  I guess I don't really operate on vibes too much when looking at geopolitics.
  
  Ah one of those beep boop robot people unable to see any nuance that can only deal with absolutes. That'll hold you back.
  
  That doesn't seem to describe me very well. Seems like a strange take. I would think that studying history and basing beliefs on evidence would lead one to arrive at a more nuanced understanding than going, "idk seems bad."
  
  I would think that studying history and basing beliefs on evidence would lead one to arrive at a more nuanced understanding than going, “idk seems bad.”
  You'd think so but here we are, "beliefs" are based on "faith" and "evidence" is up for "interpretation." A room full of people can read a story and all take something different from it, if we could all just study history and decide what the best course of action is, that'd be cool.
  
  “beliefs” are based on “faith” and “evidence” is up for “interpretation.”
  No, they are not. I believe more of the earth's surface is water than land. Is that belief based on faith? Is that evidence up for interpretation?
  Some beliefs are based on faith and some evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a rational, evidence-based belief.
  A room full of people can read a story and all take something different from it, if we could all just study history and decide what the best course of action is, that’d be cool.
  Yes, people disagree on things, but when they are grounded on evidence and reason, they can discuss them rationally and present reason or evidence that the other person might not be aware of, and possibly resolve the disagreement. If you just go off vibes, and someone else senses different vibes from you, then there's nothing you can appeal to to convince them of your perspective.

164 comments