'Do Not Split': A Hong Kong protest film [video](fieldofvision.org)
fieldofvision.org
'Do Not Split': A Hong Kong protest film [video]
https://fieldofvision.org/do-not-split
285 comments
People are saying this film is anti-China propaganda. I'd say it's pro because it shows the hopeless, illogical, ineffective, futility of HK looters and terrorists, and how deluded, manipulated and used they were.
That's what happens under a "Western system" running loose, is one message that HK could be helping to shape. China made 1 law, and order is restored. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty much pro for China, despite the incessant shrill whining of the terrorist wannabes.
That's what happens under a "Western system" running loose, is one message that HK could be helping to shape. China made 1 law, and order is restored. Yeah, I'd say it's pretty much pro for China, despite the incessant shrill whining of the terrorist wannabes.
> The fragility of the CPC and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.
That's because they have single party system. Eventually they'll figure out that splitting into two parties and exchanging highest power between the two every few years while still colectively controlling everything of value is way more resilient system.
Then they will be able to let themselves to be hated because half of the people will hate one half of the party and the other half of the people will hate the other half of the party. And thanks to periodic swaps they can pretty much keep it indefinitely because people will never rebel. Instead people will be waiting patiently few years for their favorite half of the party to take highest offices.
But untill then they can't let people hate the party even a little bit. China has a history of multiple revolutions and costly turmoil when people hated those in power and toppled them.
They also have to find enemies for people to hate as far away from the party as possible.
That's because they have single party system. Eventually they'll figure out that splitting into two parties and exchanging highest power between the two every few years while still colectively controlling everything of value is way more resilient system.
Then they will be able to let themselves to be hated because half of the people will hate one half of the party and the other half of the people will hate the other half of the party. And thanks to periodic swaps they can pretty much keep it indefinitely because people will never rebel. Instead people will be waiting patiently few years for their favorite half of the party to take highest offices.
But untill then they can't let people hate the party even a little bit. China has a history of multiple revolutions and costly turmoil when people hated those in power and toppled them.
They also have to find enemies for people to hate as far away from the party as possible.
> they'll figure out that splitting into two parties and exchanging highest power between the two every few years while still colectively controlling everything of value is way more resilient system
This requires rule of law to function. Otherwise, one set of elites won't trust handing power to the other. The breathless levels of corruption at the top of the CCP would also have to go, which is a difficult transition to peacefully navigate.
This requires rule of law to function. Otherwise, one set of elites won't trust handing power to the other. The breathless levels of corruption at the top of the CCP would also have to go, which is a difficult transition to peacefully navigate.
They were being ironic.
Not really. I believe that's the future of China. I don't think it'll come any time soon though.
Deep informal connections between both "sides" might substitute rule of law to some degree.
> Deep informal connections between both "sides" might substitute rule of law to some degree
It's a poor substitute. To the point that I think single-party rule may be preferable. Informal power sharing arrangements almost deterministically go to shit after a single generation. They also calcify the elites' ranks.
It's a poor substitute. To the point that I think single-party rule may be preferable. Informal power sharing arrangements almost deterministically go to shit after a single generation. They also calcify the elites' ranks.
I might agree with you that it might be risky but I think exchange of top formal power every few years could keep unseen connections fresh and intergenerational.
> The breathless levels of corruption at the top of the CCP would also have to go
Need I mention the Trump and Clinton foundations? The Bush family and the Carlyle group (complete with the Bin-Ladens)? And that's while ignoring Trump's over-the-top stuff, like getting the government to use his personal resorts and hotels, as an outlier.
Need I mention the Trump and Clinton foundations? The Bush family and the Carlyle group (complete with the Bin-Ladens)? And that's while ignoring Trump's over-the-top stuff, like getting the government to use his personal resorts and hotels, as an outlier.
You are assuming that the corresponding figureheads would have a real power, they are not.
Do you think it is a coincidence that actors, reality tv stars elected to the highest political seats? A monkey would perform as well if not better.
Do you think it is a coincidence that actors, reality tv stars elected to the highest political seats? A monkey would perform as well if not better.
> actors, reality tv stars
Do you think the deep state is responsible for this? I don't think there's any evidence to inicate that these elected idiots aren't actually popular. The same thing happend in the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Estrada). Idiots electing idiots they like is a tale as old as democracy.
Do you think the deep state is responsible for this? I don't think there's any evidence to inicate that these elected idiots aren't actually popular. The same thing happend in the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Estrada). Idiots electing idiots they like is a tale as old as democracy.
> splitting into two parties and exchanging highest power between the two every few years ... is way more resilient system.
I am not so sure of that. Doesn't this lead to what some call the polarization of the public? Time will tell how this one plays out.
I am not so sure of that. Doesn't this lead to what some call the polarization of the public? Time will tell how this one plays out.
The polarisation is actually a good thing. As long as it's about stuff that doesn't matter for the normal economic activity. If they can still work with each other and live in mixed communities it's all fine.
They can always hope that their side will be on top in few years and restrain themselves. Such polarisation is no more dangerous than polarisation around sports teams.
And channeling and managing people's hatered is very important for stability. Otherwise it could be directed towards system of power as a whole, or the rich, or some ethnic group.
They can always hope that their side will be on top in few years and restrain themselves. Such polarisation is no more dangerous than polarisation around sports teams.
And channeling and managing people's hatered is very important for stability. Otherwise it could be directed towards system of power as a whole, or the rich, or some ethnic group.
Wait a min... that sounds suspiciously specific..
> while still colectively controlling everything of value
If this post is meant as a whataboutist critique of US democracy then this line gives it away as over the top conspiracy theory. Who exactly is controlling everything of value in this theory?
If this post is meant as a whataboutist critique of US democracy then this line gives it away as over the top conspiracy theory. Who exactly is controlling everything of value in this theory?
I read this similarly. In the US, there are lots of things that the government doesn't control, and even for things the government does control the federal, state and local governments can be controlled by different parties that have conflicting priorities. Also, the way that the political parties are structured in the US is very different, where there are national party organizations, but also local party organizations that do as much influencing over the national parties as vice versa.
To reduce the difference between China's political situation and the US's to be the difference between 2 parties and 1 is not accurate.
To reduce the difference between China's political situation and the US's to be the difference between 2 parties and 1 is not accurate.
This somehow misses the Supreme Court.
The American Supreme Court can basically make up interpretations on essentially whatever, and it has and will so long as the Democratic and Republican party agree on it.
China also has local CCP organizations, and they have a significant level of influence on the national party (and vice-versa), but ultimately just like in the US the DNC and RNC chair can basically make up whatever arcane rules for nomination and get an agreeable candidate.
The American Supreme Court can basically make up interpretations on essentially whatever, and it has and will so long as the Democratic and Republican party agree on it.
China also has local CCP organizations, and they have a significant level of influence on the national party (and vice-versa), but ultimately just like in the US the DNC and RNC chair can basically make up whatever arcane rules for nomination and get an agreeable candidate.
The US is designed with the idea of checks and balances. It is a half-truth that the Supreme Court can make up whatever interpretations it wants. It can only consider cases that come before it, and it can only take so many cases in a year. With the cases before it, in practice, there are a whole host of things limiting what interpretations are possible, such as precedent, the desire to reach consensus on a more limited ruling, the possibility of setting a precedent that could later be used against the justice's goal, and the fact that justices have to work together even though they strongly disagree with each other. These are in addition to the other checks and balances spelled out in the Constitution, such as the possibility of impeachment of justices.
The issue is that literally every single check and balance in the US is controlled by either the Democrat or Republican Party.
In effect, these are checks and balances between two parties.
The desire to reach consensus is yet again a mechanism of partisan conflict resolution. Impeachment of justices is a partisan political process. The lower courts are also at the mercy of either of the two parties.
Ultimately, there is literally no process in the entirety of the USA to legally prevent something that both parties durably agree on.
In effect, these are checks and balances between two parties.
The desire to reach consensus is yet again a mechanism of partisan conflict resolution. Impeachment of justices is a partisan political process. The lower courts are also at the mercy of either of the two parties.
Ultimately, there is literally no process in the entirety of the USA to legally prevent something that both parties durably agree on.
Again, your summary is a simplistic half truth. There are lots of prominent examples of intra-party checks.
Trump recently was opposed in political processes by his own Vice President and Supreme Court nominees, as well as some members of Congress.
Within the Democratic party, there are also examples of these checks happening within the party. DeBlasio (mayor of NY) and Cuomo (governor of the state of NY) have been fighting against each other for years.
More generally though, not everything in the US is a political decision. There are other practical checks on the political process itself, like the freedom of speech Many Americans either don't like either party, or at least don't like the leadership if either party right now. We don't have songs like "Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_the_Communist_Party,...). While unlikely, in the US parties can go, and have gone, extinct through the normal political process. And every four years (depending on who wins the Presidential election) there are opinion pieces considering one party or the other's demise. If people disappear for comparing the CCP's leader to Winnie the Pooh, I can't imagine it's very safe to write about the CCP's demise within China.
Trump recently was opposed in political processes by his own Vice President and Supreme Court nominees, as well as some members of Congress.
Within the Democratic party, there are also examples of these checks happening within the party. DeBlasio (mayor of NY) and Cuomo (governor of the state of NY) have been fighting against each other for years.
More generally though, not everything in the US is a political decision. There are other practical checks on the political process itself, like the freedom of speech Many Americans either don't like either party, or at least don't like the leadership if either party right now. We don't have songs like "Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_the_Communist_Party,...). While unlikely, in the US parties can go, and have gone, extinct through the normal political process. And every four years (depending on who wins the Presidential election) there are opinion pieces considering one party or the other's demise. If people disappear for comparing the CCP's leader to Winnie the Pooh, I can't imagine it's very safe to write about the CCP's demise within China.
> Who exactly is controlling everything of value in this theory?
In US? Same as everywhere. Network of people who make the laws and people who amass capital thanks to those laws.
It wasn't meant as whataboutism or as a critique of US. It was meant as praise of US and potential direction China should evolve towards to protect their rulers with less fragility.
In US? Same as everywhere. Network of people who make the laws and people who amass capital thanks to those laws.
It wasn't meant as whataboutism or as a critique of US. It was meant as praise of US and potential direction China should evolve towards to protect their rulers with less fragility.
This is unlikely to happen as it would contravene basic doctrine of Marxism-Leninism about the purpose of establishing a party (which is supposed to take over the the state, and then gradually become obsolete). The Maoist development of this is supposed to stop the party from becoming ossified by continually measuring how well it is meeting the needs of the people similar to product development or marketing, except that their service is civil/industrial administration. I don't know enough about later developments in their official ideologies, or enough about China to say to what extent their governance is a reflection of their cultural mores, but it seems to me that communists start with a rationalistic view of economics and production (ie beginning with axioms identified by Marx) and then try to build empirically on top of that by trying out different policies in pursuit of the general goal of maximizing collective utility.
My impression is that one succeeds in Chinese public life by successfully innovating in pursuit of received (and perhaps arbitrary) goals, such that being good at the means eventually allows you to have input on what the appropriate ends may be, and this is why many Chinese VIPs come from an engineering background. But success in civil administration or development of infrastructure is built upon getting results in response to specific conditions rather than the articulation or application of general principles, and is judged by administrative peers rather than the public.
I don't feel one can understand China in terms of just capitalism v communism both because they have a sort of mixed economy that that is hypersocialistic in some respects and hypercapitalistic in others, and because of the different philosophical currents in Chinese culture like the hierarchism of Confucianism, the legalism of Mencius, and the oddness of Taoism, which can seem like pure solipsism or all encompassing systems theory. But it does seem to me that once the emergence of distinct factions would be regarded as an existential problem to be resolved as urgently as possible through some kind of intra-party showdown rather institutionalized duopoly. Harmonious stability has been a strong cultural more there for ~2000 years, so very dynamic internal politics would risk a sort of national introversion that would weaken China with respect to the rest of the world.
My impression is that one succeeds in Chinese public life by successfully innovating in pursuit of received (and perhaps arbitrary) goals, such that being good at the means eventually allows you to have input on what the appropriate ends may be, and this is why many Chinese VIPs come from an engineering background. But success in civil administration or development of infrastructure is built upon getting results in response to specific conditions rather than the articulation or application of general principles, and is judged by administrative peers rather than the public.
I don't feel one can understand China in terms of just capitalism v communism both because they have a sort of mixed economy that that is hypersocialistic in some respects and hypercapitalistic in others, and because of the different philosophical currents in Chinese culture like the hierarchism of Confucianism, the legalism of Mencius, and the oddness of Taoism, which can seem like pure solipsism or all encompassing systems theory. But it does seem to me that once the emergence of distinct factions would be regarded as an existential problem to be resolved as urgently as possible through some kind of intra-party showdown rather institutionalized duopoly. Harmonious stability has been a strong cultural more there for ~2000 years, so very dynamic internal politics would risk a sort of national introversion that would weaken China with respect to the rest of the world.
gonehome(4)
#nostradamus
I mean they censored Winnie the Pooh because of light hearted comparisons between Pooh and Xi (that were arguably positive). [0][1]
Once you're doing that, pretty much anything is going to clear that bar.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Censorship
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China
Once you're doing that, pretty much anything is going to clear that bar.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Censorship
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China
I'm really skeptical that's true.... Winnie the Pooh is such a popular theme in products in China, I've never heard anything remotely close to such a ban....
> I'm really skeptical that's true.... Winnie the Pooh is such a popular theme in products in China, I've never heard anything remotely close to such a ban....
IIRC, it's not a general ban, it's just censored from social media, probably by official directive.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-win...
IIRC, it's not a general ban, it's just censored from social media, probably by official directive.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/07/china-bans-win...
Well it's definitely not censored on social media:
https://s.weibo.com/weibo?q=%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%86%8A&wvr=...
Even if it was slightly true it must have been incredibly insignificant hence my skepticism.
My point is that we could leave out a bit of noise as it is very easy to come across misunderstanding already.
Even if it was slightly true it must have been incredibly insignificant hence my skepticism.
My point is that we could leave out a bit of noise as it is very easy to come across misunderstanding already.
Over these years a lot of words and characters got banned, some with good intention like to stop lewd or not-suit-for-kiids content from spreading, most other times with intention to stop people from talking about things CCP not willing to let people discuss about.
If you can read Chinese, you will found that on some forums people are like talking with magic spells, in extreme cases, whole paragraph or article is composed of word/characters that pronounce same but looks different, or just looks similar enough so people understand what it implys.
Even if Chinese is my native language I can't read ciphertext of that level.
Talking about censorship, I'd like to share my 2 cents. For some time I had been actively browsing Zhihu (a Chinese knowledge sharing social platform), even posting and talking with the users. It's around a decade ago, the censorship back then was much looser. I am a Taiwanese, we even talked about a political incident which is basically Taiwanese people protesting about the ruling signing CSSTA... some Chinese agree, some do not, some just left hatred comments, but people back then was really talking and sharing opiinion. You find no more stuff like this now, the censorship got strengthened over years, a lot of topics are risky and people would rather not talk about it.
If you can read Chinese, you will found that on some forums people are like talking with magic spells, in extreme cases, whole paragraph or article is composed of word/characters that pronounce same but looks different, or just looks similar enough so people understand what it implys.
Even if Chinese is my native language I can't read ciphertext of that level.
Talking about censorship, I'd like to share my 2 cents. For some time I had been actively browsing Zhihu (a Chinese knowledge sharing social platform), even posting and talking with the users. It's around a decade ago, the censorship back then was much looser. I am a Taiwanese, we even talked about a political incident which is basically Taiwanese people protesting about the ruling signing CSSTA... some Chinese agree, some do not, some just left hatred comments, but people back then was really talking and sharing opiinion. You find no more stuff like this now, the censorship got strengthened over years, a lot of topics are risky and people would rather not talk about it.
I share your sentiment. I couldn't agree more with the funny and sad cipher text. Zhihu could have been a good site for idea exchange but it too became obvious a target. I was very envious of online forum culture in Taiwan such as PTT and you never know there may be many chinese netizens from the mainland posing and hiding in disguise.
I think what you are saying about censorship is true but it's also because we are facing unprecedented challenges both online and in real life. The traditional academic settings of intellectuals on various sites are not the same anymore. I won't say what is better or not but I hope more communications will eventually bridge gaps. If you're skeptical about the relationship between Taiwan and the mainland, look at Republic Ireland / Northern Ireland. It could be much worse until eventually an ambiguous agreement arrived. Sometimes people just need a bit cool down to communicate.
I think what you are saying about censorship is true but it's also because we are facing unprecedented challenges both online and in real life. The traditional academic settings of intellectuals on various sites are not the same anymore. I won't say what is better or not but I hope more communications will eventually bridge gaps. If you're skeptical about the relationship between Taiwan and the mainland, look at Republic Ireland / Northern Ireland. It could be much worse until eventually an ambiguous agreement arrived. Sometimes people just need a bit cool down to communicate.
It's not noise - the censors drop specific comms over time when there's focus.
When the Pooh meme was happening if you tried sending it the receiver would never get it.
Now that it has died down it's no longer a focus (though I'm still unsure if that image would be received). The same thing happens around certain events (Tiananmen Square Anniversary) where they get more extreme about the censorship.
The fact that they applied the censors to the Pooh meme shows that they'll do it for even the mildest 'threat'.
When the Pooh meme was happening if you tried sending it the receiver would never get it.
Now that it has died down it's no longer a focus (though I'm still unsure if that image would be received). The same thing happens around certain events (Tiananmen Square Anniversary) where they get more extreme about the censorship.
The fact that they applied the censors to the Pooh meme shows that they'll do it for even the mildest 'threat'.
I'm not sure it's censored for the reason you've stated (the mildest 'threat' part). But I take your point. The censoring regarding June every year is a very different story. I just hope I can contribute to a more meaningful discussion here as there are simply too much misunderstanding.
Yeah - I'd guess it's less 'threat' and more 'things that embarrass the party leader'.
Winnie the Pooh was censored in the Chinese version of the video game Kingdom Hearts III [0][1]. Do you think a massive white blot around Winnie the Pooh in every appearance is a “misunderstanding”?
As I pointed out in another comment, it was also the content of the most censored Weibo post in 2015 [2], according to the Weiboscope cenorship tracker.
These examples are very easy to find if you Google for them (assuming you can Google from your country).
[0] https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/winnie-the-pooh-china-ba...
[1] https://gamerant.com/kingdom-hearts-3-winnie-pooh-censorship...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/31/china-top-5-censored-po...
As I pointed out in another comment, it was also the content of the most censored Weibo post in 2015 [2], according to the Weiboscope cenorship tracker.
These examples are very easy to find if you Google for them (assuming you can Google from your country).
[0] https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/winnie-the-pooh-china-ba...
[1] https://gamerant.com/kingdom-hearts-3-winnie-pooh-censorship...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/31/china-top-5-censored-po...
I can not verify your claim since I don't play Kingdom Hearts. That's exactly my point; if the issue is very trivial then over-iterate on it seems a bit sensationalist. Official censoring some posts and 'chinese-cut' version of some imported art/entertainment are very much loathed and aware in China, 'banning' a whole commercial theme is a very different story.
"(assuming you can Google from your country)" I think it's a bit unnecessary to assume that given that HN is largely targeting tech space and people will have very diverse reasons of not using Google? Assuming we're discussing this out of good faith one should realise if one can only read english sources it might be a little biased IMHO.
"(assuming you can Google from your country)" I think it's a bit unnecessary to assume that given that HN is largely targeting tech space and people will have very diverse reasons of not using Google? Assuming we're discussing this out of good faith one should realise if one can only read english sources it might be a little biased IMHO.
> I can not verify your claim since I don't play Kingdom Hearts
When you Google “Kingdom Hearts III China Cenorship”, Google returns more than 4 million results. Assuming there are repetitions and only 0.1% of them (i.e. 4K results) are genuine and unique. You think all these search results are fake?
I will also claim that atomic bombs exist. Do you need to make an atomic bomb yourself to verify my claim?
The first article I linked above [0] discussed several instances where Winnie the Pooh is banned, and many more it is not. So the censorship is real but not universal.
[0] https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/winnie-the-pooh-china-ba...
> if one can only read english sources it might be a little biased IMHO
Since you don’t like English source, let me Google some Chinese sources for you:
[1] https://dailyview.tw/Popular/Detail/1182
[2] https://www.bcc.com.tw/newsView.4791295
> "(assuming you can Google from your country)"
Because those links are the first few hits when I googled Winnie the Pooh censorhip in China. You seemed unable to find such news.
When you Google “Kingdom Hearts III China Cenorship”, Google returns more than 4 million results. Assuming there are repetitions and only 0.1% of them (i.e. 4K results) are genuine and unique. You think all these search results are fake?
I will also claim that atomic bombs exist. Do you need to make an atomic bomb yourself to verify my claim?
The first article I linked above [0] discussed several instances where Winnie the Pooh is banned, and many more it is not. So the censorship is real but not universal.
[0] https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/winnie-the-pooh-china-ba...
> if one can only read english sources it might be a little biased IMHO
Since you don’t like English source, let me Google some Chinese sources for you:
[1] https://dailyview.tw/Popular/Detail/1182
[2] https://www.bcc.com.tw/newsView.4791295
> "(assuming you can Google from your country)"
Because those links are the first few hits when I googled Winnie the Pooh censorhip in China. You seemed unable to find such news.
It's rather strange you assume that I support all the exaggerated points above (none of them mine). I was trying to use respectful language to engage in a meaningful discussion. I never said google results are fake or dislike english source either. 4 million results of trivia is still trivia. I don't know where these assumptions of me personally come from but I hope it's for a better understanding of the issues, not a lecture on my googling skills.
> you assume that I support all the exaggerated points above (none of them mine)
Because you have never admitted censorship of Winnie the Pooh happened on Chinese social media. You kept questioning many of the evidence I provided (“if one can only read english sources it might be a little biased IMHO”, “I can not verify your claim since I don't play Kingdom Hearts”), or dismissing evidence as “trivia”.
I don’t know if you agree that censorship of Winnie the Pooh actually happened. So I had to keep Googling for alternative sources for you. You need to point out whether you agree with the key points in the above articles, or provide solid counter evidence (with sources).
Until then, there is no way to move the discussion forward.
BTW, more censorship news: https://game.udn.com/game/story/12982/5338115
Because you have never admitted censorship of Winnie the Pooh happened on Chinese social media. You kept questioning many of the evidence I provided (“if one can only read english sources it might be a little biased IMHO”, “I can not verify your claim since I don't play Kingdom Hearts”), or dismissing evidence as “trivia”.
I don’t know if you agree that censorship of Winnie the Pooh actually happened. So I had to keep Googling for alternative sources for you. You need to point out whether you agree with the key points in the above articles, or provide solid counter evidence (with sources).
Until then, there is no way to move the discussion forward.
BTW, more censorship news: https://game.udn.com/game/story/12982/5338115
>Because you have never admitted censorship of Winnie the Pooh happened on Chinese social media.
I never said that censorship never happened ever in the above discussion. Maybe it wasn't clear enough for you I apologise. I'm sorry if that's the interpretation in your mind. I encourage you to read the comments again. You would notice I never denied censorship happened in China either, in multiple places. I merely point out the difference between the sensationalised notion of 'Anything related to Winnie are banned' and 'posts been censored at specific time' in China. My nephew's english name is Winnie so you can see how popular Winnie the Pooh is.
Indeed I agree there's no way to move the discussion further if the initial points were overlooked and just embarking on a path of assumptions.
I never said that censorship never happened ever in the above discussion. Maybe it wasn't clear enough for you I apologise. I'm sorry if that's the interpretation in your mind. I encourage you to read the comments again. You would notice I never denied censorship happened in China either, in multiple places. I merely point out the difference between the sensationalised notion of 'Anything related to Winnie are banned' and 'posts been censored at specific time' in China. My nephew's english name is Winnie so you can see how popular Winnie the Pooh is.
Indeed I agree there's no way to move the discussion further if the initial points were overlooked and just embarking on a path of assumptions.
I also apologize for my overly confrontational approach. I mistook you as one of the wumaodang (fifty-cent party) who keeps denying and apologizing CCP behavior. (There is one such user with exactly this user name in some of the comments in this post.)
I just searched for 小熊维尼 and 小熊维 on bilibili, and got the same findings as this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/China_irl/comments/m9vziq/%E5%AD%98...
Winnie-the-Pooh videos are clearly censored when you searched for 小熊维尼 (you only get generic Disney videos), but you can bypass the filter and find a few genuine Winnie-the-Pooh videos if you only search for 小熊维. The censorship is ongoing, even though not universal.
I just searched for 小熊维尼 and 小熊维 on bilibili, and got the same findings as this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/China_irl/comments/m9vziq/%E5%AD%98...
Winnie-the-Pooh videos are clearly censored when you searched for 小熊维尼 (you only get generic Disney videos), but you can bypass the filter and find a few genuine Winnie-the-Pooh videos if you only search for 小熊维. The censorship is ongoing, even though not universal.
It was the most censored Weibo post in 2015, according to Dr. Fu Kingwa, who ran the Weiboscope censorship tracker out of Hong Kong University’s Journalism and Media Studies Centre:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/31/china-top-5-censored-po...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/31/china-top-5-censored-po...
> The fragility of the CPC and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.
The next dimension I predict will be the fragility of the CPC for being portrayed in a positive light. What is going to happen when hypernationalism and hyperidealism is at odds with the personal and political projects of its leaders?
The next dimension I predict will be the fragility of the CPC for being portrayed in a positive light. What is going to happen when hypernationalism and hyperidealism is at odds with the personal and political projects of its leaders?
American viewership of the Golden Globe awards sank to a new record low this year (likely the same will hold true of the Oscars) [1].
What percentage of Chinese mainlanders do you think watch American awards shows?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/entertainment/golden-globe-ra...
What percentage of Chinese mainlanders do you think watch American awards shows?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/entertainment/golden-globe-ra...
Percentage? Not many. But as an absolute number? Probably the same number that watched them in the United States.
brundolf(2)
> The fragility of the CPC and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.
The fragility of American imperialism and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.
That’s why they focus on creating propaganda like this.
I’ve liked some Field of Vision stuff before (shining a light on content moderation practices on Silicon Valley social media platforms), yet this feels part of the larger ‘West hating on China’/sinophobia + red scare stuff. It’s getting boring.
The fragility of American imperialism and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.
That’s why they focus on creating propaganda like this.
I’ve liked some Field of Vision stuff before (shining a light on content moderation practices on Silicon Valley social media platforms), yet this feels part of the larger ‘West hating on China’/sinophobia + red scare stuff. It’s getting boring.
> The fragility of American imperialism and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.
This is 100% unarguably, demonstrably false. Americans write books critical about American imperialism (https://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire...), we make (and fund with public broadcasting money!) documentaries that criticize both the effectiveness and wisdom of our own military efforts (https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/). Most US media has been very critical of recent military efforts. These are just a few examples.
Is the US perfect? No. Are there examples of it the US behaving in a way that makes its citizens less than proud? Yes. But there is a wide gulf between the US and the CCP and what one can get away with saying and doing in the US vs. what one can say or do under CCP control.
This is 100% unarguably, demonstrably false. Americans write books critical about American imperialism (https://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire...), we make (and fund with public broadcasting money!) documentaries that criticize both the effectiveness and wisdom of our own military efforts (https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/). Most US media has been very critical of recent military efforts. These are just a few examples.
Is the US perfect? No. Are there examples of it the US behaving in a way that makes its citizens less than proud? Yes. But there is a wide gulf between the US and the CCP and what one can get away with saying and doing in the US vs. what one can say or do under CCP control.
In the US you have freedom of speech until you start to impact the status quo. See: McCarthyism, Fred Hampton, etc.
I didn't know anything about Fred Hampton, so I looked him up (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton). I suppose his example highlights the difference between the US and China, as his family was paid $1.85 million for his death, which is probably still not what they have wanted, but an acknowledgement of government wrongdoing. When is the last time CCP acknowledged wrongdoing?
McCarthyism offers another interesting contrast. Read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism. There was lots of opposition to McCarthy. Even a noted anti-communism person such as President Truman criticized McCarthy. Most if McCarthy's victims got their day in court, and ultimately the scale (affecting hundreds of people) is dwarfed by the scale of CCP persecution of pro-democracy or those who wish to practice a religion not endorsed by the CCP, which has damaged the lives of millions.
McCarthyism offers another interesting contrast. Read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism. There was lots of opposition to McCarthy. Even a noted anti-communism person such as President Truman criticized McCarthy. Most if McCarthy's victims got their day in court, and ultimately the scale (affecting hundreds of people) is dwarfed by the scale of CCP persecution of pro-democracy or those who wish to practice a religion not endorsed by the CCP, which has damaged the lives of millions.
> When is the last time CCP acknowledged wrongdoing?
I don’t know what the last time was, but I know Deng Xiaoping famously described Mao as “70% good, 30% wrong”.
For me, a small payoff a decade later to the family of a victim of a political assassination doesn’t really amount to much. Again, the established order in the US is happy to apologize and tolerate dissent and preach “free speech” as long as its rule isn’t threatened.
It was illegal for union officers in the US to be communist party members up until unions lost their political strength. The Communist Control Act is still on the books but unenforced. Would it remain that way if in the next few years an ascendant communist party like the Black Panthers emerged? I doubt it.
> CCP persecution of pro-democracy
Do you have the slightest idea of how elections work in China? Compare the National People’s Congress to the US Senate. Which is more representative? Which has more minor parties?
> those who wish to practice a religion not endorsed by the CCP
Which religion are you referring to here? Islam? Is that why China has more mosques per capita for their Muslim population than the US?
I don’t know what the last time was, but I know Deng Xiaoping famously described Mao as “70% good, 30% wrong”.
For me, a small payoff a decade later to the family of a victim of a political assassination doesn’t really amount to much. Again, the established order in the US is happy to apologize and tolerate dissent and preach “free speech” as long as its rule isn’t threatened.
It was illegal for union officers in the US to be communist party members up until unions lost their political strength. The Communist Control Act is still on the books but unenforced. Would it remain that way if in the next few years an ascendant communist party like the Black Panthers emerged? I doubt it.
> CCP persecution of pro-democracy
Do you have the slightest idea of how elections work in China? Compare the National People’s Congress to the US Senate. Which is more representative? Which has more minor parties?
> those who wish to practice a religion not endorsed by the CCP
Which religion are you referring to here? Islam? Is that why China has more mosques per capita for their Muslim population than the US?
> documentaries that criticize both the effectiveness and wisdom of our own military efforts
So the criticism is on how to carry out imperialism more effectively?
So the criticism is on how to carry out imperialism more effectively?
No. The items I linked to all criticise the entirety of the events they describe, not just how to be a better imperialist. Please point out where in the linked to items you get your interpretation.
All things considered, the Hong Kong police did what they had to given their precarious position. Compare the 2 deaths during a year of protesting to the 19 deaths within a couple weeks of the George Floyd protests. Keep in mind that they're stuck with the Hong Kong police even if they are allowed to become independent, so it doesn't make sense to demonize them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_prot... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_prot... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
> Keep in mind that they're stuck with the Hong Kong police even if they are allowed to become independent
It’s worth noting that a lot of the “Hong Kong police” that were involved in breaking up protests seemed to come from the mainland and only spoke mandarin, not cantonese.
Edit: https://twitter.com/AmyWong01217912/status/11822963227720908... is one of many sources
It’s worth noting that a lot of the “Hong Kong police” that were involved in breaking up protests seemed to come from the mainland and only spoke mandarin, not cantonese.
Edit: https://twitter.com/AmyWong01217912/status/11822963227720908... is one of many sources
This is complete hearsay. If China could so easily violate one country, two systems, they wouldn't have cared about a formal extradition bill to begin with.
There are dozens of videos. Google “hong Kong police only speak mandarin” if you want sources. Here is one of many: https://twitter.com/AmyWong01217912/status/11822963227720908...
That tweet is exactly what I mean by hearsay. A few clips cherrypicked from thousands of hours of footage, showing a police officer speaking a few words in the second most popular language in the area is not evidence that they're undercover Chinese officers.
"Second most popular language in the area" is a gross distortion of reality. It would make zero sense for a local police officer to choose to yell at local protestors or local colleagues in a non-native language that carries significant stigma in HK.
It's not a "gross distortion of reality" to question a interpretation a clip in a way that you disagree with, especially since you lack the context as well. It doesn't change how little evidence there is that Chinese officers were secretly policing Hong Kong.
Depending on what figures you look at, English may be more popular. Fairly close these days, though.
No it isn't. The people of Myanmar have been sharing lots and lots of videos and media showing china has sent police officers and soldiers to the military government to keep order. It's totally in the CCP playbook to replace local police with their own cadres.
Again, complete hearsay that China is supporting the military coup. They had good relations with incumbent government due to the belt and road initiative.
>> The people of Myanmar have been sharing lots and lots of videos...
> complete hearsay...
Um, what? How do you go from video evidence to "complete hearsay"?
> complete hearsay...
Um, what? How do you go from video evidence to "complete hearsay"?
So where are these videos?
> They had good relations with incumbent government due to the belt and road initiative.
The incumbent government of Myanmar WAS the military, just in a less overt fashion. They were the ones in charge of almost everything, the main change is now they don’t have a facade of democracy.
The incumbent government of Myanmar WAS the military, just in a less overt fashion. They were the ones in charge of almost everything, the main change is now they don’t have a facade of democracy.
CCP saw democracy in Burma as the West gaining influence in the region.
Which was correct - given that democratic Burma was a crown jewel of Obama's Asian Pivot.
Source please?
During covid a lot of people were isolated. I doubt anyone mainlanders wanted to risk life to confront the protestors. Note how docile Chinese mainlanders are when they travel around the world.
During covid a lot of people were isolated. I doubt anyone mainlanders wanted to risk life to confront the protestors. Note how docile Chinese mainlanders are when they travel around the world.
"Note how docile Chinese mainlanders are when they travel around the world." what would this have to do with Chinese police sent to stop a protest
Yes, that's the confusing part.
Where are the evidences of such government-sponsored activities? As I said, normal Chinese mainlanders usually don't have much impetus to confront others, even if they wholeheartedly stand against the counterparts, in this case, most mainlanders would be against HK protestors. Then these people are organized by CCP, then what are the evidences?
Where are the evidences of such government-sponsored activities? As I said, normal Chinese mainlanders usually don't have much impetus to confront others, even if they wholeheartedly stand against the counterparts, in this case, most mainlanders would be against HK protestors. Then these people are organized by CCP, then what are the evidences?
I disagree (but don't think your comment deserves oblivion).
The HK police force was riddled with corruption in the past (1940s to 1970s), but then (after the creation in 1974 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption) turned around and became highly professional, trusted, and respected, I'd say ("Asia's finest").
However, with the 2014 umbrella movement, they were necessarily pitted against the pro-democracy protesters, having to do the government's bidding, and things got polarised. Polarisation got worse with the 2019 (until now) Anti-Extradition Law protests: restaurants etc. declared themselves "yellow" (pro democracy, pro protesters) or "blue" (pro police, pro Beijing). [1]
And, yeah, things got so heated then that the cohesion slipped away and, I think, the HK police did more than "what they had to" while pushing back against the protesters, particularly after Chris Tang's appointment as the Commissioner of Police in November 2019.
Police brutality, excessive force, refusal to show identification (as required by law) [2], maybe even falsification of evidence have severely deteriorated trust.
Now, with the total crackdown by Beijing, using the courts and the police as their tool, things are only getting worse [3]. :-/
[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/yellow-or-blue-i...
[2] https://hongkongfp.com/2019/06/21/hong-kong-activists-compla...
[3] https://hongkongfp.com/2021/01/04/explainer-how-the-national...
The HK police force was riddled with corruption in the past (1940s to 1970s), but then (after the creation in 1974 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption) turned around and became highly professional, trusted, and respected, I'd say ("Asia's finest").
However, with the 2014 umbrella movement, they were necessarily pitted against the pro-democracy protesters, having to do the government's bidding, and things got polarised. Polarisation got worse with the 2019 (until now) Anti-Extradition Law protests: restaurants etc. declared themselves "yellow" (pro democracy, pro protesters) or "blue" (pro police, pro Beijing). [1]
And, yeah, things got so heated then that the cohesion slipped away and, I think, the HK police did more than "what they had to" while pushing back against the protesters, particularly after Chris Tang's appointment as the Commissioner of Police in November 2019.
Police brutality, excessive force, refusal to show identification (as required by law) [2], maybe even falsification of evidence have severely deteriorated trust.
Now, with the total crackdown by Beijing, using the courts and the police as their tool, things are only getting worse [3]. :-/
[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/yellow-or-blue-i...
[2] https://hongkongfp.com/2019/06/21/hong-kong-activists-compla...
[3] https://hongkongfp.com/2021/01/04/explainer-how-the-national...
I have to deal with the police on an almost daily basis in the last couple years. They've gotten infinitely worse… they're unnecessarily aggressive, confrontational, and unreasonable. Everyone (almost) hates them here, with good reason. They've basically decided that the public is their enemy and their mission is no longer to protect but to harass.
(I live in HK)
(I live in HK)
I also live in HK, and agree with everything you say. But I would change the harass to control. Disagreement and disrespect is what triggers them most. It reminds me of police in the US cities. Grandparent says it's just like they were in the 60s again.
I would be interested in seeing normalized comparisons, data allowing - e.g., X deaths per person-protest-hour, that sort of thing.
Protests in some countries might be mild and orderly, or put little pressure to the government and mostly ignored - but this wouldn't necessarily be a sign that the government is more open to protest, just that protests happen to be more "for show" than threatening.
It's also about the culture of police violence. In the US citizen life is cheaper (and one would guess, in China too), judging from the number of police shootings alone, and the excessive police force used for everything and anything, that to have deaths in a protest/riot etc is kinda taken as granted or "the way things are". This extends to protest cop behavior.
In some countries mild or even heavy violence would be tolerated, but a single death in a demonstration could cause resignations or bring down a government. So there are countries with tons of protests for decades involving 10s or 100s of thousands without a single death (mine didn't have a protest death for ages, despite tons of protests and violent clashes and supression by the police), and countries where a protest can turn into deadly suppression almost immediately (e.g. some Latin American countries).
It's also about the culture of police violence. In the US citizen life is cheaper (and one would guess, in China too), judging from the number of police shootings alone, and the excessive police force used for everything and anything, that to have deaths in a protest/riot etc is kinda taken as granted or "the way things are". This extends to protest cop behavior.
In some countries mild or even heavy violence would be tolerated, but a single death in a demonstration could cause resignations or bring down a government. So there are countries with tons of protests for decades involving 10s or 100s of thousands without a single death (mine didn't have a protest death for ages, despite tons of protests and violent clashes and supression by the police), and countries where a protest can turn into deadly suppression almost immediately (e.g. some Latin American countries).
That would likely be even more extreme, wouldn't it? As far as I remember, the protests in HK were massive (as in 5-10% of the population in a single event).
That sounds like exactly the kind of meaningful information I’d be interested in.
10s of millions of people participated in protests last summer in the US. 700k is 10% of HK population.
Both are extraordinary, it's not obvious to me who should win the "most well-behaved protest movement" award
Both are extraordinary, it's not obvious to me who should win the "most well-behaved protest movement" award
I wasn't aware that there was a single protest event that included 10s of millions of people in the US. If you count all people that were involved in any protest during the last year, I'd expect the numbers in HK to be significantly higher still.
It's also not a competition, nobody is trying to diminish the US protests, but I don't think that events of a similar magnitude would have gone down as peaceful in the US.
It's also not a competition, nobody is trying to diminish the US protests, but I don't think that events of a similar magnitude would have gone down as peaceful in the US.
coupdejarnac(2)
[deleted]
Unfortunately it's like sports teams. People's lenses are colored by which team they're on, and it's hard to be objective.
I'm actually sad that the one country two systems experiment looks like it's over, at least the political side, not the economic side. But you can't run a city if there are months of people rioting on the streets.
I'm actually sad that the one country two systems experiment looks like it's over, at least the political side, not the economic side. But you can't run a city if there are months of people rioting on the streets.
The whole point of "not splitting" is a lesson learned in 2014, to continue showing support for the goals no matter the methods seen in protest. Nobody knew whether another in the group is an agent provocateur or a genuine radical. Nobody knew who were throwing the molotovs. Nobody even thought that the protest was likely achieve any its goals. The only thing that could not be faked is the sheer volume of people showing up; nobody could pay that many people to show up at a protest.
Therefore the only thing they could do is to keep showing up in support of the demands for as long as they could personally afford to do so, and try not to pay attention to the methods of others when they already knew that all methods were probably going to fail.
Therefore the only thing they could do is to keep showing up in support of the demands for as long as they could personally afford to do so, and try not to pay attention to the methods of others when they already knew that all methods were probably going to fail.
This is the kind of content I'd like to see less of on Hacker News.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There are other platforms (Reddit) where there's plenty of discussion around topics like this.
Not to say that HN should be a bastion of blissful techie ignorance, but it would be nice to be able to filter out sad, political, or controversial content.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There are other platforms (Reddit) where there's plenty of discussion around topics like this.
Not to say that HN should be a bastion of blissful techie ignorance, but it would be nice to be able to filter out sad, political, or controversial content.
The suppression of democracy is something I'd like to see less of globally.
Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of leaving it up on Hacker News is that free speech is essential to both Hacking and News.
I hadn't known that such a film had drawn an Oscar nomination nor that the country had attempted to suppress news of the nomination within the mainland.
We may disagree here, but if wholesale suppression of the democratic rights of 7.5 million people living in the first world continues to be advanced, I'd contend that it isn't getting enough discussion.
Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of leaving it up on Hacker News is that free speech is essential to both Hacking and News.
I hadn't known that such a film had drawn an Oscar nomination nor that the country had attempted to suppress news of the nomination within the mainland.
We may disagree here, but if wholesale suppression of the democratic rights of 7.5 million people living in the first world continues to be advanced, I'd contend that it isn't getting enough discussion.
Most isn't all, and I would make the case for an exception here... at least in ideal terms. The HK protests had a vanguard element that qualifies as "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." This film captures some of that.
That said, HN (like most social media) doesn't handle this kind of content very well... in practical terms. Might be best to go with a practical "do what you can do well" approach and avoid topics you can't do well.
Maybe a "no comments" post type for topics like this?
That said, HN (like most social media) doesn't handle this kind of content very well... in practical terms. Might be best to go with a practical "do what you can do well" approach and avoid topics you can't do well.
Maybe a "no comments" post type for topics like this?
I don't even think political content is inherently not HN worthy, but the comment section just always devolves into flamewars and "x is bad" vs "y is bad". I would really like to see a filter or harder moderation on the submitters of this type of content.
[deleted]
End-user technology (as opposed to military) starts to play a broader and broader role in political events those days, and places like HN are a very good place to have people actually designing those tools realize what the implication are for real people around the world.
As an example, this video made me instantly realize how much there is a need for truely decentralized technology, that no government could shut down. I already knew it of course, but now i have the faces of those students in my mind. I happen to be working on encryption for a messaging app at the moment.
As an example, this video made me instantly realize how much there is a need for truely decentralized technology, that no government could shut down. I already knew it of course, but now i have the faces of those students in my mind. I happen to be working on encryption for a messaging app at the moment.
I know I'm contributing to the problem here by replying to you, but the guidelines also say:
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
So please, just flag and move on next time.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
So please, just flag and move on next time.
There is no doubt in my mind that Taiwan is the next target unless another axis of power comes to its aid. It's only a matter of time and the success in HK would have only bolstered CCP's conviction. Because China is hosting the winter Olympics, I don't think they will do anything of this scale before that.
There are certainly a lot of commentators predicting that some kind of military conflict will happen over Taiwan in the next decade.
If it happens, it'll be the closest we get to World War III, so hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
If it happens, it'll be the closest we get to World War III, so hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
Reminds me about another film with the same theme: winter on fire.
Film about protests in my own country Ukraine.
Horrible events
Winter on Fire | 'Filming on the Front Lines' Featurette | Netflix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m76G2K19X8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m76G2K19X8
I've been on a bit of an youtube archiving kick lately. Does anyone know of a good list of youtube videos that were uploaded during the protests (e.g. documenting the protest, police brutality, etc)? I'm probably too late to the party though, since I understand a lot of protesters took down their social media uploads in support of the protests after the national security law was enacted.
https://imgur.com/user/SavingHongKong has a lot, not just of the protests, though.
Uuuffff..
HK is 'dead in the water'.
UK abandoned HK, creating a vacuum, leaving the door open to China to step in and take over; and nobody wants to risk stepping-in to block China from absorbing HK.
China will (literally) fight anyone who will dare step their foot in HK to 'guarantee' its independence. I don't believe anyone is able to stand up to China, apart from Russia or USA. And neither are willing to go to war for HK. It's someone else's problem. Worse case scenario when the transition is complete, HK will die as a global financial centre, and its big-banks operations will move to a more USA-friendly place.
Poor HK-ers could as well replace their flag.
It's a pity, but such is the luck of the ant in front of a elephant.
HK is 'dead in the water'.
UK abandoned HK, creating a vacuum, leaving the door open to China to step in and take over; and nobody wants to risk stepping-in to block China from absorbing HK.
China will (literally) fight anyone who will dare step their foot in HK to 'guarantee' its independence. I don't believe anyone is able to stand up to China, apart from Russia or USA. And neither are willing to go to war for HK. It's someone else's problem. Worse case scenario when the transition is complete, HK will die as a global financial centre, and its big-banks operations will move to a more USA-friendly place.
Poor HK-ers could as well replace their flag.
It's a pity, but such is the luck of the ant in front of a elephant.
In the US I've been sadly unsurprised by how little coverage Hong Kong has gotten recently.
Our politicians are a disgrace. They scream about democracy when a bunch of hooligans riot at the Capitol, but when a human-rights defiling government legitimately suppresses democracy for 7M people, they stay silent.
They stay silent on organ harvesting, on the quasi-genocide of the Uighurs, and any number of other human rights abuses.
If the politicians, particularly those on the left, had an ounce of principle and even attempted to walk their talk, they would be leading the charge against China at every turn.
Here is a chance to step up for human rights and democracy in a big way, and it's crickets from our leaders.
Our politicians are a disgrace. They scream about democracy when a bunch of hooligans riot at the Capitol, but when a human-rights defiling government legitimately suppresses democracy for 7M people, they stay silent.
They stay silent on organ harvesting, on the quasi-genocide of the Uighurs, and any number of other human rights abuses.
If the politicians, particularly those on the left, had an ounce of principle and even attempted to walk their talk, they would be leading the charge against China at every turn.
Here is a chance to step up for human rights and democracy in a big way, and it's crickets from our leaders.
> to extradite criminal suspects to mainland China
I did not know that Taiwan is part of mainland China! When did the reunification happen?
In all serious though, the original bill was because HK government wanted to extradite someone who killed his pregnant girlfriend to Taiwan, I wonder when did people spin this into extradition to mainland China now?
I did not know that Taiwan is part of mainland China! When did the reunification happen?
In all serious though, the original bill was because HK government wanted to extradite someone who killed his pregnant girlfriend to Taiwan, I wonder when did people spin this into extradition to mainland China now?
> to extradite criminal suspects to mainland China
I did not know that Taiwan is part of mainland China! When did the reunification happen?
In all serious though, the original bill was because HK government wanted to extradite someone who killed his pregnant girlfriend to Taiwan, I wonder when did people spin this into extradition to mainland China now?
I did not know that Taiwan is part of mainland China! When did the reunification happen?
In all serious though, the original bill was because HK government wanted to extradite someone who killed his pregnant girlfriend to Taiwan, I wonder when did people spin this into extradition to mainland China now?
The Economist did a comprehensive piece on the future of Hong Kong [1] recently. The CPC has little to lose by crushing Hong Kong's democracy, which they are most assuredly doing. Even if HK loses a healthy proportion of its best and brightest citizens (many are moving or have moved already), Hong Kong represents only a tiny fraction of China's overall GDP. In the long time horizon of China's development, Hong Kong's health is viewed as inconsequential.
To me, the Hong Kong situation is incredibly sad. Hong Kong was always this unique bastion of feisty entrepreneurism and social liberalism. It was a great place to visit and a fountain of ideas and dynamism that other regions would do well to take notes on, if not to copy outright.
I wish there was cause to be optimistic about Hong Kong, but I don't think that there is.
[1]: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/03/20/china-is-not-j...
To me, the Hong Kong situation is incredibly sad. Hong Kong was always this unique bastion of feisty entrepreneurism and social liberalism. It was a great place to visit and a fountain of ideas and dynamism that other regions would do well to take notes on, if not to copy outright.
I wish there was cause to be optimistic about Hong Kong, but I don't think that there is.
[1]: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/03/20/china-is-not-j...
[deleted]
The rioters set fire to the bank. How is this okay. Regular people like you and I work at the bank and now their livelihoods could be lost. Violence begets more violence. I cannot sympathize with the rioters.
I'll try to strictly source my remarks and refrain from commenting on the political content of the HK demonstrations to keep this purely factual, as I think this could be a rather controversial thread; however, it's interesting how different the reception to these demonstrations is to the reception to the US Capitol riots and the BLM demonstrations of last year. Hong Kong demonstrators have stormed government buildings[1], thrown gasoline bombs at police[2], attacked plainclothes police[3], and the like. In total, one pro-liberalization demonstrator died after falling from a parking garage[4], and one anti-liberalization demonstrator died after being bludgeoned with a brick by pro-liberalization demonstrators[5]. To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997[7].
If these events occurred in the United States, whose government surveils almost all telecommunications[8], what would its government do? One part of that answer is to have the military occupy a city with limited congressional representation (DC)[9]. This is clearly a much more restrictive measure than the measures taken by the HKSAR government, but its presentation by non-Chinese media has been the exact opposite. For what it's worth (zero), my opinion is that both government responses are consistent with what can be expected given their respective situations. Why are they portrayed differently? Is it ideology, or am I missing something that differentiates the two?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Legislative_Co... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50115629 [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hong-kong-... [4]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833... [5]: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-el... [6]: http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/intro/about_lc.htm [7]: http://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [9]: https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/pentagon-extends-national-guar...
If these events occurred in the United States, whose government surveils almost all telecommunications[8], what would its government do? One part of that answer is to have the military occupy a city with limited congressional representation (DC)[9]. This is clearly a much more restrictive measure than the measures taken by the HKSAR government, but its presentation by non-Chinese media has been the exact opposite. For what it's worth (zero), my opinion is that both government responses are consistent with what can be expected given their respective situations. Why are they portrayed differently? Is it ideology, or am I missing something that differentiates the two?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Legislative_Co... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50115629 [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hong-kong-... [4]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833... [5]: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-el... [6]: http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/intro/about_lc.htm [7]: http://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [9]: https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/pentagon-extends-national-guar...
Equating the two is ridiculous.
The Capitol Riots were an attempt to overturn a free and fair democratic election in favor of the rioters preferred candidate.
The HK protests are in relation to freedom from the Chinese Government's dictatorial rule.
Democracy is what is most important in both of these situations. The Capitol Riots were anti democracy. The HK protests are pro democracy.
The Capitol Riots were an attempt to overturn a free and fair democratic election in favor of the rioters preferred candidate.
The HK protests are in relation to freedom from the Chinese Government's dictatorial rule.
Democracy is what is most important in both of these situations. The Capitol Riots were anti democracy. The HK protests are pro democracy.
> Equating the two is ridiculous.
When someone wants to defend the indefensible, false equivalency seems like the go-to tactic nowadays. It's basically: "After ignoring all the extremely important differences, isn't this thing you like just like this thing you hate? Hypocrite."
When someone wants to defend the indefensible, false equivalency seems like the go-to tactic nowadays. It's basically: "After ignoring all the extremely important differences, isn't this thing you like just like this thing you hate? Hypocrite."
The classic these are "terrorists" and those are "freedom fighters" trope in real life.
At least refer to both of them as "riots" or both as "protests."
At least refer to both of them as "riots" or both as "protests."
I understand your point, but what I was asking for is a non-ideological distinction. Every point you have made is from the ideological position that supports liberal democracy, but those who support people’s democracy would levy the same accusations in reverse. I’m not interested in hearing either of those points of view, because there simply cannot be a productive discussion on those terms.
I would like to understand the empirical situation. You suggest that I’m equating the two, but I’m actually just ignorant on the _substantive_ arguments. If you would be kind enough to enlighten me on that front, I would truly appreciate it.
I would like to understand the empirical situation. You suggest that I’m equating the two, but I’m actually just ignorant on the _substantive_ arguments. If you would be kind enough to enlighten me on that front, I would truly appreciate it.
In DC, people tried to overturn the US Congress, which's elected by and representing the American people.
Where in HK, people protested against the HK government which is appointed by the CCP, and the HK legislature where half of the seats are appointed by the CCP and the rest is elected with vetting by the CCP. The HK gov (both exec. + leg. branches) don't represent the HK people, they represent the CCP.
That's the non-ideological distinction. US Congress is authorized by the people. But the HK gov (both exec. + leg. branches) are authorized by the CCP. And unlike US, people in HK have no peaceful way to influence the politics in HK by voting.
Where in HK, people protested against the HK government which is appointed by the CCP, and the HK legislature where half of the seats are appointed by the CCP and the rest is elected with vetting by the CCP. The HK gov (both exec. + leg. branches) don't represent the HK people, they represent the CCP.
That's the non-ideological distinction. US Congress is authorized by the people. But the HK gov (both exec. + leg. branches) are authorized by the CCP. And unlike US, people in HK have no peaceful way to influence the politics in HK by voting.
You can't just ignore the ideological elements of this, because they are at the heart of why people feel differently about these events. If I attack someone because I want to rob them, I'm the bad guy. If I attack someone because they are about to hurt some children, I'm the good guy. The only difference here is the intent of both parties, and you can't simply brush that aside because it isn't "empirical".
>"Democracy is what is most important in both of these situations."
That's what you said. Plenty of people might disagree about what is most important. Your message in general looks very hypocritical in my opinion.
That's what you said. Plenty of people might disagree about what is most important. Your message in general looks very hypocritical in my opinion.
To curb this type of simplistic view on Sino-US relationship, and give both sides some light equally:
> free and fair democratic election
Depending on your sources, this can be a questionable statement.
> freedom from the Chinese Government's dictatorial rule.
Depending on your sources, this can be an equally questionable statement. Case in point: most of Chinese mainlander call CCP's rule as people's democracy. And Tiger Yang, the foreign affair chief in CCP, who recently slapped Mr. Blinken, claimed "American Democracy" should not be judged by Americans only, and he believed American Democracy is not fully supported in USA.
> free and fair democratic election
Depending on your sources, this can be a questionable statement.
> freedom from the Chinese Government's dictatorial rule.
Depending on your sources, this can be an equally questionable statement. Case in point: most of Chinese mainlander call CCP's rule as people's democracy. And Tiger Yang, the foreign affair chief in CCP, who recently slapped Mr. Blinken, claimed "American Democracy" should not be judged by Americans only, and he believed American Democracy is not fully supported in USA.
That kind of comparison relies on leaving the definitions of important concepts undefined. For instance the word "democracy" in "CCP's rule as people's democracy" and "free and fair democratic election" is being used to refer to incompatible things. To an American's ear, the CCP's use is an Orwellian inversion akin to "Freedom is Slavery."
"To an American's ear, the CCP's use is an Orwellian inversion akin to "Freedom is Slavery"
Frankly speaking the US is not the only country in the world and in this context why would other countries give a f..k about how it sounds to America's ear. They could be backwards in relation to western view on human rights but you can't really tell independent country how they do their things.
Frankly speaking the US is not the only country in the world and in this context why would other countries give a f..k about how it sounds to America's ear. They could be backwards in relation to western view on human rights but you can't really tell independent country how they do their things.
> Frankly speaking the US is not the only country in the world and in this context why would other countries give a f..k about how it sounds to America's ear.
Undemocratic governments like China's don't, except to muddy the waters and troll.
Undemocratic governments like China's don't, except to muddy the waters and troll.
If you think that "democratic" countries do not troll and muddy waters I have a bridge to sell.
> Depending on your sources, this can be a questionable statement.
No it's not. The 2020 election was very clearly not rigged. The Trump campaign had every opportunity to bring evidence out that something was wrong in courts, and they didn't.
The Capital Riot wasn't about people with legitimate doubts who weren't being heard, they were people who's doubts were heard, and then dismissed because they didn't have any real evidence and because their claims were clearly wrong.
No it's not. The 2020 election was very clearly not rigged. The Trump campaign had every opportunity to bring evidence out that something was wrong in courts, and they didn't.
The Capital Riot wasn't about people with legitimate doubts who weren't being heard, they were people who's doubts were heard, and then dismissed because they didn't have any real evidence and because their claims were clearly wrong.
> To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997[7].
Democratically elected ? Note that hong kong functional constituency system is fully controlled by CCP.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...
Democratically elected ? Note that hong kong functional constituency system is fully controlled by CCP.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...
So what?
A lot of government bodies are appointed by US president, and are "elected" only through some behind-curtain political exchanges.
A lot of government bodies are appointed by US president, and are "elected" only through some behind-curtain political exchanges.
Functional constituencies are part of the Hong Kong legislature. Imagine that half of the US Congress is appointed by the President of the United States.
The head of the HK government and half of the legislators are also appointed by the CCP.
The HK government is in no way any semblance of democratically elected. The majority power in all branches of government lies with Beijing appointees.
> To keep this in context, the current Hong Kong SAR government is democratically elected[6] according to the provisions of an international treaty signed by the PRC and the UK which took effect in 1997
No, this's misinformation. The HK government isn't democratically elected. The CEO of the HK government is selected by a committee appointed by the CCP. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Committee_(Hong_Kong)
Quote: The Election Committee is a Hong Kong electoral college, the function of which is to select the Chief Executive (CE).
No, this's misinformation. The HK government isn't democratically elected. The CEO of the HK government is selected by a committee appointed by the CCP. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Committee_(Hong_Kong)
Quote: The Election Committee is a Hong Kong electoral college, the function of which is to select the Chief Executive (CE).
Many countries, including the US and UK, have indirect elections for high offices. Are they also non-democratic?
Personally, my answer to that question is yes, but I’m willing to apply principles equally. Again, this is beside the point of what I was asking, as I’m not trying to get into an ideological debate.
Personally, my answer to that question is yes, but I’m willing to apply principles equally. Again, this is beside the point of what I was asking, as I’m not trying to get into an ideological debate.
Indirect elections imply that the members who could vote are elected by the people.
In HK, the people who could "vote" are appointed by the CCP. This isn't indirect election. This's indirect appointment.
The obvious difference is that US citizens elected its Congress representatives, while the PRC 'assigns' the majority of the electors in the Hong Kong parliament.
Also while the official death count is low, there are many protestors who simply vanished from HK.
Also while the official death count is low, there are many protestors who simply vanished from HK.
> simply vanished
Source?
Source?
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/hong-kong-china-prot...
One of the most striking things I have witnessed has been the letters that young protesters have been writing in case they are arrested or disappeared by security services. These “last letters,” to be read in the event that they don’t return from the protests, explain to their families why they are protesting, and also serve as a “no-suicide declaration.” Nine thousand, two hundred, and sixteen people have been arrested during the 12 months of protests, a figure much larger than the total prison population of 7,023. This discrepancy, combined with a series of mysterious deaths and disappearances that have been explained as suicides or accidents, has made protesters wary of their own safety. So the letters serve to say, “I will not be another suicide statistic.” As one young person wrote in their letter, “I have no regrets, not for a moment; even though missing or dead, I will never stay silent in the face of injustice”
One of the most striking things I have witnessed has been the letters that young protesters have been writing in case they are arrested or disappeared by security services. These “last letters,” to be read in the event that they don’t return from the protests, explain to their families why they are protesting, and also serve as a “no-suicide declaration.” Nine thousand, two hundred, and sixteen people have been arrested during the 12 months of protests, a figure much larger than the total prison population of 7,023. This discrepancy, combined with a series of mysterious deaths and disappearances that have been explained as suicides or accidents, has made protesters wary of their own safety. So the letters serve to say, “I will not be another suicide statistic.” As one young person wrote in their letter, “I have no regrets, not for a moment; even though missing or dead, I will never stay silent in the face of injustice”
Mostly social media conspiracy theories.
From US State Department itself on the situation in Hong Kong [0].
>There were no credible reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.
This is China-Hawk Mike Pompeo's state department BTW, report released in 2020 well after protests ended. If Pompeo couldn't find mystery murders, it probably doesn't exist.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-... [0]
From US State Department itself on the situation in Hong Kong [0].
>There were no credible reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.
This is China-Hawk Mike Pompeo's state department BTW, report released in 2020 well after protests ended. If Pompeo couldn't find mystery murders, it probably doesn't exist.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-... [0]
Protestors who simply vanished such as this [1]?
[1] “Activist resurfaces to clear 'mystery death'”
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/22246...
[1] “Activist resurfaces to clear 'mystery death'”
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/22246...
Difference:
US riot - citizens who enjoy democratic freedom protested against republic/democratic government. protest got violent, government handled it.
Hong Kong riot - citizens who enjoy(ed) democratic freedom protested against encroaching dictatorship. protest was peaceful, but then turned violent when police faking as protestors started violence. protest got violent, government handled it (openly and in secret). The dictatorship increased its power at the end.
US riot - citizens who enjoy democratic freedom protested against republic/democratic government. protest got violent, government handled it.
Hong Kong riot - citizens who enjoy(ed) democratic freedom protested against encroaching dictatorship. protest was peaceful, but then turned violent when police faking as protestors started violence. protest got violent, government handled it (openly and in secret). The dictatorship increased its power at the end.
I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong.
This is all about american interests and destabilizing china ir other countries.
I wonder what will happen in q few years. Will americans accept that another super power will dictate them what to do like the US currently does to their allies: europe cant build a pipeline to russia, in order to protect american interests in ukraine and poland. Europe cant use chinese hardware, while its proven that just a few years ago the americans listened to all communication of angela merkel, europe cant do business with the russians because they are sanctioned, nor with iran, etc...
This is all about american interests and destabilizing china ir other countries.
I wonder what will happen in q few years. Will americans accept that another super power will dictate them what to do like the US currently does to their allies: europe cant build a pipeline to russia, in order to protect american interests in ukraine and poland. Europe cant use chinese hardware, while its proven that just a few years ago the americans listened to all communication of angela merkel, europe cant do business with the russians because they are sanctioned, nor with iran, etc...
> I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong.
This is a tiring argument. China has only 1 ally - North Korea. The rest of the countries in the proximity of China are adversarial and aligned with US - Japan, SK particularly. If Canada and Mexico were close allies of China, you betchya there would be a lot more going on along the east and west coast of US.
In fact, Japan and SK are counting on US to defend them. Does Canada and Mexico have such relationship with China? No. Instead, the US+Canada have NORAD.
I suggest some reading regarding military alliances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances
This is a tiring argument. China has only 1 ally - North Korea. The rest of the countries in the proximity of China are adversarial and aligned with US - Japan, SK particularly. If Canada and Mexico were close allies of China, you betchya there would be a lot more going on along the east and west coast of US.
In fact, Japan and SK are counting on US to defend them. Does Canada and Mexico have such relationship with China? No. Instead, the US+Canada have NORAD.
I suggest some reading regarding military alliances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_alliances
> I think the main difference is that the chinese would not dare to dock their aircraft carrier in new york, while the US did so to provoke the chinese communust party in hong kong.
So it's the US's fault that China tried to impose an extradition law in HK? Because the USN ... had a port visit in Hong Kong? You know China approved that port visit, right?
So it's the US's fault that China tried to impose an extradition law in HK? Because the USN ... had a port visit in Hong Kong? You know China approved that port visit, right?
2m out of 7.5m showed up to protest the loss of Hong Kong Sovereignty, that’s more than 1 in 4 of the entire pop
The storming of the capital was by a crowd of a couple thousand in a pop of 350m. So something like .0057% of the entire pop
In response to the HK protests individuals running for democratic office were thrown in jail on abstract and vague clauses from the new National Security Law, which coincidentally is a treaty violation to the original Sino-British agreement
In response to the Capitol riots, Trump lost his Twitter and Parler was shut down by private tech companies
It’s not the same.
The storming of the capital was by a crowd of a couple thousand in a pop of 350m. So something like .0057% of the entire pop
In response to the HK protests individuals running for democratic office were thrown in jail on abstract and vague clauses from the new National Security Law, which coincidentally is a treaty violation to the original Sino-British agreement
In response to the Capitol riots, Trump lost his Twitter and Parler was shut down by private tech companies
It’s not the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/hong-kong-huge...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48656471
At many different times in 2019, 1.7M-2M Hong Kong citizens, or 25% of the population, proudly protested in the streets and requested for their freedom. If only something good had came out of it.
Now it's sunk to what China's best at:
false arrests: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/mc5bah/young_man_...,
arrest for accessing online information https://restofworld.org/2021/hong-kong-journalist-on-trial-f...
brainwashing https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/23/hong-kong-will-distribute-...
removal of religious freedom https://hk.appledaily.com/news/20210322/ZUYEZROAIFB4NK2274RB...
fake democratic system https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/16/why-and-how-i-ended-my-par...
Imagine if you were a proud free parisian, and all of a sudden, you now live under nazi regime with concentration camps. That's probably what it feels like.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48656471
At many different times in 2019, 1.7M-2M Hong Kong citizens, or 25% of the population, proudly protested in the streets and requested for their freedom. If only something good had came out of it.
Now it's sunk to what China's best at:
false arrests: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/mc5bah/young_man_...,
arrest for accessing online information https://restofworld.org/2021/hong-kong-journalist-on-trial-f...
brainwashing https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/23/hong-kong-will-distribute-...
removal of religious freedom https://hk.appledaily.com/news/20210322/ZUYEZROAIFB4NK2274RB...
fake democratic system https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/16/why-and-how-i-ended-my-par...
Imagine if you were a proud free parisian, and all of a sudden, you now live under nazi regime with concentration camps. That's probably what it feels like.
Regarding arrest for accessing online information, I have become fascinated lately with the concept of legal warfare. It is the use of legal constructions to align other governments or subordinate bureaucracies to your strategic goals. For example, when Russia invaded Ukraine, they used the pretext that only volunteers from Russia were traveling to Ukraine to support a legal separatist movement.
Now none of these claims withstand any sort of legal scrutiny, but that's not the point. In the year or so it takes the Hague to spell out the obvious, that the Russian military in coordination with the Russian presidency created a bogus legal argument that aligns with their strategic goal of annexing as much of Eastern Europe as possible, the invasion is already completed and Donetsk is effectively a Russian vassal in the middle of Ukranian territory.
Just like in the time of the American Revolution guerilla tactics were innovations to the stodgy preconceptions of war that the British had, where they believed a gentleman's war should be fought by squares of men taken broadsides at regular intervals, we must recognize that armed conflicts today are always accompanied by legal warfare, the legal activities that support broader strategic objectives.
Now none of these claims withstand any sort of legal scrutiny, but that's not the point. In the year or so it takes the Hague to spell out the obvious, that the Russian military in coordination with the Russian presidency created a bogus legal argument that aligns with their strategic goal of annexing as much of Eastern Europe as possible, the invasion is already completed and Donetsk is effectively a Russian vassal in the middle of Ukranian territory.
Just like in the time of the American Revolution guerilla tactics were innovations to the stodgy preconceptions of war that the British had, where they believed a gentleman's war should be fought by squares of men taken broadsides at regular intervals, we must recognize that armed conflicts today are always accompanied by legal warfare, the legal activities that support broader strategic objectives.
Not taking a side here, just pointing out the fact that the tactic was known and used well before the Crimean events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King...
The current difference is that now it's happenning during a live broadcast, and the actions are being tried to be justified (as "justice") through existing legal frameworks.
That's one of the ways Empires grow their periphery regions. Another way is when an Empire spreads its culture and abundance to orbiting regions, so that inhabitants of the periphery get a personal interest in becoming the part of the Empire and bringing a change to their governing bodies to align with the metropolis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King...
The current difference is that now it's happenning during a live broadcast, and the actions are being tried to be justified (as "justice") through existing legal frameworks.
That's one of the ways Empires grow their periphery regions. Another way is when an Empire spreads its culture and abundance to orbiting regions, so that inhabitants of the periphery get a personal interest in becoming the part of the Empire and bringing a change to their governing bodies to align with the metropolis.
> The current difference
Just as a point of comparison (not justifying russia or the US), the region of donetsk (and crimea) was supermajority ethnically russian, and by the time the US overthrew the hawaiian kingdom, ethnic hawaiians were a minority within the (mostly imported) population, so in the case of both russia and the US's actions the majority of local populace gained political power in the aftermath of the takeovers:
https://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/info-census1890.shtml
By comparison if you consider HKers ethnically distinct from mainland chinese (on cultural bases), the situation is dramatically different.
Just as a point of comparison (not justifying russia or the US), the region of donetsk (and crimea) was supermajority ethnically russian, and by the time the US overthrew the hawaiian kingdom, ethnic hawaiians were a minority within the (mostly imported) population, so in the case of both russia and the US's actions the majority of local populace gained political power in the aftermath of the takeovers:
https://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/info-census1890.shtml
By comparison if you consider HKers ethnically distinct from mainland chinese (on cultural bases), the situation is dramatically different.
fair point, my reference to "the current difference" was more about the ongoing Crimea situation rather than the HK situation, I should have been more clear in that regard. I still believe that in the HK case there's a vested interest of certain political elite (rather than economic) strata to be aligned with Beijing.
is this not just propaganda by another name?
Seems to me that everyone wants to cast their war as a just war [0]. If that means deniable approaches or false flag operations [1] then so be it. In particular I found this excerpt from [1] ironic in the context of your comment:
> Russo-Swedish War
In 1788, the head tailor at the Royal Swedish Opera received an order to sew a number of Russian military uniforms. These were then used by the Swedes to stage an attack on Puumala, a Swedish outpost on the Russo-Swedish border, on 27 June 1788. This caused an outrage in Stockholm and impressed the Riksdag of the Estates, the Swedish national assembly, who until then had refused to agree to an offensive war against Russia. The Puumala incident allowed King Gustav III of Sweden, who lacked the constitutional authority to initiate unprovoked hostilities without the Estates' consent, to launch the Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Seems to me that everyone wants to cast their war as a just war [0]. If that means deniable approaches or false flag operations [1] then so be it. In particular I found this excerpt from [1] ironic in the context of your comment:
> Russo-Swedish War
In 1788, the head tailor at the Royal Swedish Opera received an order to sew a number of Russian military uniforms. These were then used by the Swedes to stage an attack on Puumala, a Swedish outpost on the Russo-Swedish border, on 27 June 1788. This caused an outrage in Stockholm and impressed the Riksdag of the Estates, the Swedish national assembly, who until then had refused to agree to an offensive war against Russia. The Puumala incident allowed King Gustav III of Sweden, who lacked the constitutional authority to initiate unprovoked hostilities without the Estates' consent, to launch the Russo-Swedish War (1788–1790).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
We can define propaganda in contrast to psychological warfare. Whereas psychological warfare is the dissemination of cultural products by a military to the population of a foreign adversary in pursuit of a strategic objective, propaganda is the dissemination of cultural products by a government to their own people in the pursuit of strategic objectives. This definition serves the discussion of propaganda in the broader context of warfare well.
Where in your classification would you place outlets like RT or Voice of America then?
That would be considered propaganda. I was too strict by claiming propaganda can only be done to a government's own citizens.
In contrast a good example of psychological warfare would be when Russia organized a protest and an attendant counter-protest in Texas that were made to appear "organic."[0] So the difference between the two is that one proudly has an official "Russia" label on it and the other is clandestine.
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-pag...
In contrast a good example of psychological warfare would be when Russia organized a protest and an attendant counter-protest in Texas that were made to appear "organic."[0] So the difference between the two is that one proudly has an official "Russia" label on it and the other is clandestine.
[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-pag...
So you might consider acts such as arresting journalists for accessing public databases as a form of legal warfare, where the strategic goal is to incapacitate any sort of democratic activity in Hong Kong, and abusing the legal system to criminalize the behavior of democracy activists ex post facto can then be considered a sort of "weapon" in an extremely broad sense of the word.
Some classification of these new forms of interventions:
Ukraine is more hybrid warfare.
HK is more lawfare.
Chinese maritime disputes is more gray zone warfare.
Ukraine is more hybrid warfare.
HK is more lawfare.
Chinese maritime disputes is more gray zone warfare.
In all cases, the goal is to establish a truth on the ground independent of political posturing. Of course, someone can call your bluff on it!
IMO the political posturing is paramount. Ultimate goal is to provide an sufficient truth calibrated to deter bluff calling. Fundamentally most countries don't want to or have capability to intervene, so the purpose is to give competing parties a credible "out" with manageable political cost, i.e. reduce bluff calling to angry letters / sanctions versus hard military retaliation. Gain objective while deter / mitigate the most unwanted responses.
[deleted]
tasogare(3)
The irony is that HK is being used as a model to get rid of peaceful protest in the U.K. - 10 years in jail for peacefully walking up the road with a sign that annoys an MP.
What are you referring to?
I think he was referring to this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-outlaw-protest...
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-outlaw-protest...
The US is doing similar things, via a combination of long sentences for petty crimes and abuse of arrest and pretrial detention powers.
I live in HK. 1.7M-2M is a really large exaggeration.
It is not an exaggeration. I was there, joining several protests including the CHRF 2M protest. In addition, the police estimates is always wrong (of course they want the numbers to be as low as possible). One example was a protest around Victoria Park. According to “official police figures” it was 180k attending - but they only counted the people in the limited Victoria Park square, it was completely PACKED. They didn’t count the hundreds of thousands of people outside the square who couldn’t fit in, they also didn’t count the people stuck in the MTR next to the park, who couldn’t even fit on the streets. The “official police statistics” is always off by a magnitude of x.
I was also there, but in my opinion 1.7M was an exaggeration. Don’t get me wrong, there were A LOT of people, the whole area from Victoria Park to Tamar Park was packed with people. There was also a constant flow of people coming in from North Point, a good 20 minute walk to the starting point.
Police estimates were definitely wrong, but the estimates from organisers are also always exaggerated, for the same reasons you mentioned the police estimates are wrong.
Police estimates were definitely wrong, but the estimates from organisers are also always exaggerated, for the same reasons you mentioned the police estimates are wrong.
What is your estimate, and how did you measure it?
I live in Paris where most of French demonstrations take place (including the yellow vest movement) but I can't pretend to have better estimates than all local and global media sources and public observers.
I live in Paris where most of French demonstrations take place (including the yellow vest movement) but I can't pretend to have better estimates than all local and global media sources and public observers.
Historically, HK protestors grossly over exaggerate for optics, but MSM usually endorses organizer headcount uncritically. Reality consistently closer to police (under)estimates. Professionals at crowd control are better at estimating crowd sizes. Study from HKU of pre 2019 protests:
https://graphics.reuters.com/HONGKONG-EXTRADITION-PROTESTS/0...
Another analysis with machine learning, about 1/2 protestor estimates.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/03/world/asia/ho...
And another, estimates protesters had to occupy 18 miles of streets to pack 1M protestors, actual protests occupied 1 mile. Acknowledges not exact science, but leans towards conservative estimate of 250k... incidentally close to police estimates.
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/how-many-marched-protests-hong-...
IMO just average protestor and police reports for ball park figure.
https://graphics.reuters.com/HONGKONG-EXTRADITION-PROTESTS/0...
Another analysis with machine learning, about 1/2 protestor estimates.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/03/world/asia/ho...
And another, estimates protesters had to occupy 18 miles of streets to pack 1M protestors, actual protests occupied 1 mile. Acknowledges not exact science, but leans towards conservative estimate of 250k... incidentally close to police estimates.
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/how-many-marched-protests-hong-...
IMO just average protestor and police reports for ball park figure.
The articles you are referring to doesn’t show the full picture. In all protests only a part of the crowd is visible on the streets, the majority of the day is spent trying to get up to the streets from the MTR.
HKU has 15 years of data points on HK protests. There is reliable pattern of protestor organizers significantly overestimating and police mildly underestimating. Overall HKU and Police estimates are much more aligned. These two parties are actual subject matter experts vs protest organizers, ergo based on historic data and expertise, organizer estimates should be presumed to be less reliable / credible. Doesn't mean 2019 protests weren't massive. They're just likely half as massive as what makes for good headlines.
So what source do we trust on the numbers?
Satellite imagery is likely the best way to estimate.
The massive crowds in slow march peaceful protest videos I saw were astonishing.
However if we extrapolate that not everyone who'd support it or are silently supporting it - what % of people available to protest/march were out?
Edit to add: downvoting a question asking for trustworthy, quantifiable sources - you're failing.
Satellite imagery is likely the best way to estimate.
The massive crowds in slow march peaceful protest videos I saw were astonishing.
However if we extrapolate that not everyone who'd support it or are silently supporting it - what % of people available to protest/march were out?
Edit to add: downvoting a question asking for trustworthy, quantifiable sources - you're failing.
newbie578(5)
Context_free(2)
f430(5)
varispeed(1)
In DC, it was a riot, but in Hong Kong it was merely a protest, right?
And only in one of those cities were there gasoline bombs thrown on the street.
And only in one of those cities were there gasoline bombs thrown on the street.
In Hong Kong it was a revolution. They weren't fighting for ambiguous policy change, they were fighting for independence.
wumaodang(1)
One more film(VR). One more democracy under attack by former communists.
Dnipro – outpost of Ukraine - VR version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AS1cOAm6gI
This one is one step further - with millitary forces and war. Can those communists be former really ...
Dnipro – outpost of Ukraine - VR version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AS1cOAm6gI
This one is one step further - with millitary forces and war. Can those communists be former really ...
[deleted]
[deleted]
anyone else have family/friends working/born and raised in hk and have zero care about the "protests" ? yeah most people go about their lives while the media bread and circus blasted this to western audiences when it was trendy.
extremely amusing to watch internet nobodies absolutely nuke reddit with hk posts when chances are they have no idea how to locate hk on a map
extremely amusing to watch internet nobodies absolutely nuke reddit with hk posts when chances are they have no idea how to locate hk on a map
Well, it's hardly surprising that media reports about the integration of a fairly liberal city into a very repressive dictatorship.
Honestly, how do you feel about anything that isn't local news? Most of national news will be reporting about people you will never meet and don't know too.
Honestly, how do you feel about anything that isn't local news? Most of national news will be reporting about people you will never meet and don't know too.
Liberal yes. But they insist on "democracy" which is ridiculous, as it didn't happen under the British. They "almost" instated it shortly before the handover, but didn't succeed for some reason. Extremely amusing indeed.
And HK people's lives were almost unbearable under the tycoons' feudalism, which has nothing to do with Beijing.
And HK people's lives were almost unbearable under the tycoons' feudalism, which has nothing to do with Beijing.
> They "almost" instated it shortly before the handover, but didn't succeed for some reason. Extremely amusing indeed.
Perhaps because China declared that they'd invade if HK was allowed to self-govern?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
"documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
"The documents, part of a batch of typewritten diplomatic dispatches requested by reporters from two Hong Kong newspapers, reveal that Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo."
Perhaps because China declared that they'd invade if HK was allowed to self-govern?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
"documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
"The documents, part of a batch of typewritten diplomatic dispatches requested by reporters from two Hong Kong newspapers, reveal that Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo."
Grantham convinced London to scrap all plans for political reform on the basis that it did not "interest the British electorate". Later, when confronted by the Hong Kong public, he blamed London.[12] All major democratic reforms for Hong Kong were dropped by British Cabinet decision. In October 1952, the British Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttelton announced that the time was "inopportune for...constitutional changes of a major character".[16]
Of course, British has its own interests, while China also has its own interests. In the end, HK is part of China, and it should be returned to China fully. If British consider Hong Kong's freedom is more important, maybe they should went to war with China instead.
Of course, British has its own interests, while China also has its own interests. In the end, HK is part of China, and it should be returned to China fully. If British consider Hong Kong's freedom is more important, maybe they should went to war with China instead.
Those numbers in brackets look like citations.[12, 16] What are you citing?
The phrase "All major democratic reforms for Hong Kong were dropped by British Cabinet decision." does not lead to any credible source, only some mentions on a small number of websites or Reddit.
Compare the Google searches:
- "the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing."
[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22All+major+democratic+refo...
Compare the Google searches:
- "the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing."
[1] leads to the New York Times article, which I can follow its references.
[2] does not lead to any credible source. In fact, some of the sites appear to be disinformation campaigns (don’t take my words, judge for yourself).
[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22All+major+democratic+refo...
> But they insist on "democracy" which is ridiculous, as it didn't happen under the British.
What is your argument here? They did not had democracy before so they should not complain to not have it now? How twisted is that.
Also, I don't think claiming your constitutional right to democracy can be tagged as "ridiculous". Universal suffrage and democratic election are parts of the "Basic law", the equivalent of the constitution, that the PRC signed as part of the handover "deal".
What is your argument here? They did not had democracy before so they should not complain to not have it now? How twisted is that.
Also, I don't think claiming your constitutional right to democracy can be tagged as "ridiculous". Universal suffrage and democratic election are parts of the "Basic law", the equivalent of the constitution, that the PRC signed as part of the handover "deal".
Democracy has never existed (except on paper) and never will. How twisted is the US system whose main goal is to separate people and control them more easily?
This comparison presumes a false choice between either close governance by China, or governance that resembles the old British order ("tycoon feudalism").
Why can't it be something else entirely?
Why can't it be something else entirely?
Sure it can. But that's not the protesters' rhetoric.
In 1967 under the British, dozens of Chinese protesting against British rule and for representation were killed in Hong Kong.
> In 1967 under the British, dozens of Chinese protesting against British rule and for representation were killed in Hong Kong.
This comment is context free: missing critical historical contexts (if not outright misleading).
1967 was at the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, when it was spreading to Hong Kong [1], Macau [2], and elsewhere.
Notably, the local communists (CCP supporters) planted roadside bombs during the 1967 Riots [1], causing 15 deaths and 800+ injuries in Hong Kong.
The Wikipedia articles [1][2] have more details.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-3_incident
This comment is context free: missing critical historical contexts (if not outright misleading).
1967 was at the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, when it was spreading to Hong Kong [1], Macau [2], and elsewhere.
Notably, the local communists (CCP supporters) planted roadside bombs during the 1967 Riots [1], causing 15 deaths and 800+ injuries in Hong Kong.
The Wikipedia articles [1][2] have more details.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-3_incident
I do have family/friends in HK and they very much did care.
There has also been large numbers of people moving from HK because “[they] don’t want to be stuck in HK after mainland China has taken control”.
There has also been large numbers of people moving from HK because “[they] don’t want to be stuck in HK after mainland China has taken control”.
Yeah I'm interested to know if OP actually has any first-hand experience of this, because when I was there it was not difficult to find people who were despondent about the situation, even though none of them were directly involved with the protests anymore.
My impression was the general populace can't see a way out of this. That's pretty far from not caring though.
My impression was the general populace can't see a way out of this. That's pretty far from not caring though.
My friends in Hong Kong care a lot. They were born and raised there. They're all making plans to leave because they don't want their children to grow up in a CCP-dominated Hong Kong.
Good luck not getting your comment reported.
Any comment that is contrary to 'CCP dogs/propaganda' etc just gets downvoted/reported.
Any comment that is contrary to 'CCP dogs/propaganda' etc just gets downvoted/reported.
Even people who are pro-CCP care as the protest affects them.
I watched it recently and thought it didn't go nearly far enough in highlighting the abuses by the HK police, and even glossed over or omitted some very important events that triggered the continued protests. I actually felt it was far too fair to the HKSAR government and police.
The fragility of the CPC and its fear in being portrayed in any negative light knows no limits.