you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 2 years ago (9 children)

I've seen this in comments a lot but never a source, do you happen to have one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Only source seems to be this Slate article:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/09/why-drivers-in-china-intentionally-kill-the-pedestrians-they-hit-chinas-laws-have-encouraged-the-hit-to-kill-phenomenon.html

    In respect to that specific Slate article, Snopes had some issues with it and labeled the story as “unproven”:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chinese-drivers-kill-pedestrians/

    The Snopes article does a nice job of pointing out the Slate article’s issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    You're right about the Snopes article. It does do a decent job of pointing out that a lot of this reporting is rumor based.

    This first anecdote (also highlighted by Snopes) is amusing

    Double-hit cases" have been around for decades. I first heard of the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in Taiwan in the mid-1990s when I was working there as an English teacher. A fellow teacher would drive us to classes. After one near-miss of a motorcyclist, he said, "If I hit someone, I'll hit him again and make sure he's dead." Enjoying my shock, he explained that in Taiwan, if you cripple a man, you pay for the injured person's care for a lifetime. But if you kill the person, you "only have to pay once, like a burial fee." He insisted he was serious—and that this was common.

    So is it Taiwan or the mainland with these wild laws?

    Another false claim about China, it seems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Can always tell a hexbear crackhead from the comment alone. On the mark again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The idea that a lack of proof refutes the idea is an argument in ignorance. Literally tankie ragebait.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments