HK media erase their archives amid rising arrests(asiatimes.com)
asiatimes.com
HK media erase their archives amid rising arrests
https://asiatimes.com/2021/06/hk-media-erase-their-archives-amid-rising-arrests/
344 comments
There is a Cambridge University Press / APSA study about the United States that shows populist swelling or the popular vote rarely results in any legislative change that matches the sentiment, and legislative changes come from well funded special interests that were already there. It is either purely coincidence when those changes match what the protesters want because special interests became interests, or were already interested.
You can see the desperation in trying to find an exception to this, given how much energy would be expended by protestors and those bound by the popular vote, so the we can at least concede - for their sake - that they may have gotten the attention of special interests sometimes, with one influencing the other.
I think the more efficient use of energy would be to identify the most effective special interest groups and capture them.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
You can see the desperation in trying to find an exception to this, given how much energy would be expended by protestors and those bound by the popular vote, so the we can at least concede - for their sake - that they may have gotten the attention of special interests sometimes, with one influencing the other.
I think the more efficient use of energy would be to identify the most effective special interest groups and capture them.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
cool article. really long I skimmed it so far. seems focused on comparing economic elite/interest groups to common population, which would skew the policy measured to tangible economic/business outcomes?
My first thought to your comment was an opposing example of gay rights. Sure gay marriage was SCOTUS but it first changed as policy at the state level. politicians changed because it became popular enough and strong voice in media (remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first). We're now seeing this struggle with Trans rights. Where it's >52% popular you see equality legislation, where it's a good wedge issue for Republicans they act against (e.g. DeSantis is running for president on the backs of attacking children..)
Civil Rights Act comes to mind too and interesting in that it had such strong opposition, interesting question of what are special interests if you expand beyond 'economic and business elite.' NAACP et al were very powerful.
Marijuana & decriminalization is another quick thought, though that's a bit more cloudy especially with later states with a more established business interest group. But I worked on the original campaign here in CO and our budget was pretty tiny...
My first thought to your comment was an opposing example of gay rights. Sure gay marriage was SCOTUS but it first changed as policy at the state level. politicians changed because it became popular enough and strong voice in media (remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first). We're now seeing this struggle with Trans rights. Where it's >52% popular you see equality legislation, where it's a good wedge issue for Republicans they act against (e.g. DeSantis is running for president on the backs of attacking children..)
Civil Rights Act comes to mind too and interesting in that it had such strong opposition, interesting question of what are special interests if you expand beyond 'economic and business elite.' NAACP et al were very powerful.
Marijuana & decriminalization is another quick thought, though that's a bit more cloudy especially with later states with a more established business interest group. But I worked on the original campaign here in CO and our budget was pretty tiny...
> remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first
It is worth remembering that at that time period, which was just 2008, California literally voted to change its constitution to ban gay marriage, which was purely a popular vote which was successful. If you want 55 electoral college votes, you aren't going to be saying things that ensure the opposite outcome.
I don't think it is useful to have actual opinions if you are playing that game.
It is worth remembering that at that time period, which was just 2008, California literally voted to change its constitution to ban gay marriage, which was purely a popular vote which was successful. If you want 55 electoral college votes, you aren't going to be saying things that ensure the opposite outcome.
I don't think it is useful to have actual opinions if you are playing that game.
Exactly this. To effect policy you have to get elected, and Obama knew quite well that supporting gay marriage in 2008 was a big losing proposition.
Regardless of your opinions of Obama's politics, he is not a stupid man. All this nonsense about his position "evolving" is just that, nonsense. Obama was never really against gay marriage, he just needed to have viable positions to get elected.
Regardless of your opinions of Obama's politics, he is not a stupid man. All this nonsense about his position "evolving" is just that, nonsense. Obama was never really against gay marriage, he just needed to have viable positions to get elected.
This. I don’t know why people found Obama’s position on gay marriage so difficult to understand. It was simple. In 2008, he had to win a Democratic primary. This meant echoing the stances that would be popular with Democratic primary voters. In Obama’s case, he needed all of the black vote as well. Only 60% of Democrats in 2008 supported marriage equality, compared to 80% in 2020 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...). Black voters are more likely to be religious, more likely to regularly attend church and therefore less likely to support marriage equality (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/relig...). Pleasing black voters meant taking a “safe” stance on gay rights, one shared by all mainstream national politicians at the time.
In 2012 it was different. There was no primary. Obama could afford to be less of a follower and more of a leader. Black voters might not be enthusiastic about gay rights, but there was no doubt they’d show up to vote for their guy. So Obama calculated he could get the black vote and the gay vote by “evolving” his public stance.
This is of course separate from his own personal stance, which likely hasn’t evolved in a long time. What people find difficult to understand is that public figures have public and private personas.
In 2012 it was different. There was no primary. Obama could afford to be less of a follower and more of a leader. Black voters might not be enthusiastic about gay rights, but there was no doubt they’d show up to vote for their guy. So Obama calculated he could get the black vote and the gay vote by “evolving” his public stance.
This is of course separate from his own personal stance, which likely hasn’t evolved in a long time. What people find difficult to understand is that public figures have public and private personas.
To be honest that sounds like lying and manipulating the public.
Not singling out Obama here because all politicians do it to an extent (the ones who don’t never get far).
Just calling out it’s not exactly a virtue.
Not singling out Obama here because all politicians do it to an extent (the ones who don’t never get far).
Just calling out it’s not exactly a virtue.
Is it virtuous to be truthful when that means giving up a chance to meaningfully improve the world?
Obama presided over many terrible things, but overall the amount of terrible things dropped during his tenure.
Not sure virtue is the right word but it’s more complicated than “lying bad”.
Obama presided over many terrible things, but overall the amount of terrible things dropped during his tenure.
Not sure virtue is the right word but it’s more complicated than “lying bad”.
We have a system where you get a large performance benefit from doing the tactics mentioned above.
Therefore, the system will always be moving towards more consistently acting that way. It's not right or wrong driving much of anything, just survival.
If this is bad, the incentives must be changed; you can't just wish people were nicer, cause even if you got your wish magically, they'd still lose to those that aren't
Therefore, the system will always be moving towards more consistently acting that way. It's not right or wrong driving much of anything, just survival.
If this is bad, the incentives must be changed; you can't just wish people were nicer, cause even if you got your wish magically, they'd still lose to those that aren't
Behavior follows the rewards. Personal, political, corporate, and especially in the natural world.
Not just politicians, although they are the most visible at it.
Not just politicians, although they are the most visible at it.
How else would you get change in the US (and other western democracies I guess?) Not so long ago politicians were chastised for “flip flopping”. How does one incorporate new information and update their views in such an environment?
It is interesting that our whole system is based on lying and justifying lying.
Lying? Manipulating? What?
Is it wrong for a politician to mirror the opinions of their voters? That’s literally what a representative democracy is supposed to be.
Is it wrong for a person to express their heart felt opinion to folks who like and trust them? Isn’t that what all human communication is?
Obama did the right thing, in both 2008 and 2012. If he does 2008 differently, he remains a Senator with no national platform. If he does 2012 differently and doesn’t use his national platform to advocate for gay rights, maybe it takes longer for it to reach 80% support in the general population.
If you’d like to actually understand politics, I’d suggest reading The Dictators Handbook or watching this video for the tldr- https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
Is it wrong for a politician to mirror the opinions of their voters? That’s literally what a representative democracy is supposed to be.
Is it wrong for a person to express their heart felt opinion to folks who like and trust them? Isn’t that what all human communication is?
Obama did the right thing, in both 2008 and 2012. If he does 2008 differently, he remains a Senator with no national platform. If he does 2012 differently and doesn’t use his national platform to advocate for gay rights, maybe it takes longer for it to reach 80% support in the general population.
If you’d like to actually understand politics, I’d suggest reading The Dictators Handbook or watching this video for the tldr- https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
The ends don’t justify the means, but you hear a lot of elites talk about tricking the population, because they think the average person is dumb. Then they can get elected and can really change the laws when they are in power to help their subjects who “clearly can’t help themselves”.
Electing a representative who will make decisions on your behalf is what representative democracy is.
In a representative democracy, do you have a say, control or checks in what decisions those representatives you elected make? Or do they do whatever they want and, tough luck, wait 4 years? Or do they do the opposite of what they promised and tough luck, 4 years again? And the same 2 parties which are essentially the same can get elected and none else, so... tough luck in general?
If you have a system that consistently makes better decisions and leads to better outcomes for more people across countries and eras, I'd be delighted to hear it.
Would you say the same things about John McCain during his election campaign?
Certainly. McCain had to say what would win him the primary. That’s just how a representative democracy works. You’re a follower first, a leader later. I can’t say how President McCain might have led his supporters.
I think McCain might be the ultimate example of an established political personality 180'ing their rhetoric to win an election. The maverick disappeared, and then evidently came back in a wheel chair to 'bravely' thumbs down an obamacare repeal attempt lol.
>I don’t know why people found Obama’s position on gay marriage so difficult to understand.
Because he could have just as easily STFU'd and said some mumbo jumbo without giving a real answer. As a career politician (and well spoken one at that) giving a non-answer that gives both sides hope he'll be on their side was perfectly within his capability.
Because he could have just as easily STFU'd and said some mumbo jumbo without giving a real answer. As a career politician (and well spoken one at that) giving a non-answer that gives both sides hope he'll be on their side was perfectly within his capability.
Oh you know better? He accomplished his goals - being elected twice. Marriage equality also become a reality in his tenure. A big part of that was it going on the ballot with him in 2012 and winning.
Maybe he isn't the one who needs to STFU.
Maybe he isn't the one who needs to STFU.
[deleted]
I think that kind of gets to my point though. Politicians follow what gets them elected and I think that's an argument that non-elite, non-special interest movements have made change.
Some rightfully point out below that there's always politician BS lip service, saying something during the election and not following through or doing the opposite.
But on this issue both 'sides' show the point I'm trying to make. Public sentiment, not industrial lobbyists, drove anti-queer policy (though to be fair with Prop 8 you could call the mormon's monied elites since they evidently have a ginormous secretive endowment controlled by a few white guys).
And then in just a few years popular opinion turned, laws/policy followed at a lightning fast pace. Because politicians want to get elected. Pretty amazing. I distinctly remembering talking about marrying my at the time long term boyfriend, my parents didn't realize I could get married like a year after SCOTUS opinion & they are very supportive.
i think and hope that there are many examples like this, which parent's study seems to show doesn't exist, at least affecting business/tax/money policy
Some rightfully point out below that there's always politician BS lip service, saying something during the election and not following through or doing the opposite.
But on this issue both 'sides' show the point I'm trying to make. Public sentiment, not industrial lobbyists, drove anti-queer policy (though to be fair with Prop 8 you could call the mormon's monied elites since they evidently have a ginormous secretive endowment controlled by a few white guys).
And then in just a few years popular opinion turned, laws/policy followed at a lightning fast pace. Because politicians want to get elected. Pretty amazing. I distinctly remembering talking about marrying my at the time long term boyfriend, my parents didn't realize I could get married like a year after SCOTUS opinion & they are very supportive.
i think and hope that there are many examples like this, which parent's study seems to show doesn't exist, at least affecting business/tax/money policy
I think company policies and advocacy has actually made a significant positive difference on some of these issues. In some of the big banks and other corporations, HR departments fall over themselves to promote LGBTQ representation, minority right champion programmes, inviting in diverse speakers and setting up representation forums.
Yes I know most of it is meaningless me-too bullshit and to an extent is even done cynically to make themselves look good as much as enact actual change. It's largely done to make hiring easier, but nevertheless the fact that big companies openly and publicly promote these attitudes does matter to politicians. As big employers, companies get a say in local, regional and national policy development. They comment on and influence advertising, safety, accessibility, transport and zoning regulations. They are big donors to political campaigns. Over time the fact that they have consistently and persistently pushed the same narrative has I think had a normalising effect.
Yes I know most of it is meaningless me-too bullshit and to an extent is even done cynically to make themselves look good as much as enact actual change. It's largely done to make hiring easier, but nevertheless the fact that big companies openly and publicly promote these attitudes does matter to politicians. As big employers, companies get a say in local, regional and national policy development. They comment on and influence advertising, safety, accessibility, transport and zoning regulations. They are big donors to political campaigns. Over time the fact that they have consistently and persistently pushed the same narrative has I think had a normalising effect.
[deleted]
Yes, protests are the impotent desperate cry of the unheard. I love of the free because, no matter how much corruption, we will not lose that voice of last resort. Millions of us are willing to fight to the death to preserve it.
If it doesn't make any difference, why is it important? It seems it is a security valve working directly against the average citizen that is "willing to fight to the death to preserve it". It is there to keep the status quo.
We preserve it because we don't want only powerful special interests to be allowed to speak and be heard. We are willing to die for our freedoms because we believe in the idea that we the people are our own rulers and we will fight to keep the power . If it is so useless why does China work so hard to prevent any protest?
> If it doesn't make any difference
Can you support that? History is filled with protests leading to change. Just looking at 100 years off the top of my head: Women's vote, Gandhi, civil rights, S. Korea, the fall of the Soviet Block, the Arab Spring ...
Can you support that? History is filled with protests leading to change. Just looking at 100 years off the top of my head: Women's vote, Gandhi, civil rights, S. Korea, the fall of the Soviet Block, the Arab Spring ...
As GP said, protests are scenarized. It looks like good protests are successful, but other protests are just delegitimized by inserting violent people in them and not arresting them.
In France, countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party, in addition to criminals not being arrested, should at least give you a doubt on how much the “bad vs good” show is artificial.
Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them.
In France, countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party, in addition to criminals not being arrested, should at least give you a doubt on how much the “bad vs good” show is artificial.
Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them.
> protests are just delegitimized by inserting violent people in them and not arresting them
It's an attempted tactic, though in the US I think by the political opposition (radical neo-reactionaries) and not the government. It has uneven success.
> countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party
Do we know those pictures were legitimate? Countless pictures on the Internet doesn't mean much.
> Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them.
How do you know?
It's an attempted tactic, though in the US I think by the political opposition (radical neo-reactionaries) and not the government. It has uneven success.
> countless pictures of pallets of bricks being delivered to demonstration sites in the night before the protest opposed to the leading party
Do we know those pictures were legitimate? Countless pictures on the Internet doesn't mean much.
> Many legitimate protests from people who actually are minorities in their nations, were put in bad light and you never heard of them.
How do you know?
prince781(4)
> fallacious thinking popular among westerners: the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective.
Haha, as a westerner, I believe peaceful protest is invariably futile.
Take the 2003 protests against the Iraq war for example - 3 million protested in Rome, 1.5 million in Madrid, 1 million in London, and millions more across the west. What happened? They went to war based on lies anyway. It's always the same.
Haha, as a westerner, I believe peaceful protest is invariably futile.
Take the 2003 protests against the Iraq war for example - 3 million protested in Rome, 1.5 million in Madrid, 1 million in London, and millions more across the west. What happened? They went to war based on lies anyway. It's always the same.
> Take the 2003 protests against the Iraq war for example - 3 million protested in Rome, 1.5 million in Madrid, 1 million in London, and millions more across the west. What happened? They went to war based on lies anyway. It's always the same.
The flaw is applying a binary metric: It's not that protestors don't have either absolute power or no power. Protests have influence. Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared. I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote.
The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works (though not only through protest).
Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing. Each person who shows up demonstrates to many others - people who see them, people who know them - that they too have the power, can act, and have a responsibility to do it.
The flaw is applying a binary metric: It's not that protestors don't have either absolute power or no power. Protests have influence. Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared. I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote.
The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works (though not only through protest).
Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing. Each person who shows up demonstrates to many others - people who see them, people who know them - that they too have the power, can act, and have a responsibility to do it.
> Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared.
> The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works
Did they change the scope of the war? I reckon they just did what the wanted regardless. Something like a million dead in Iraq (never mind Afghanistan), many times more wounded or maimed, vile treatment of POWs by US military, absolute evil undertaken by the CIA at Black sites, and of course, the enrichment of many a rich pocket. What real loss in "political capital" was there for fabricating evidence and using it for justification for invading Iraq? What meaningful consequences were there for any of it?
> I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote.
I admire your optimism, but the impression I get from my US friends and colleagues paints a different picture. The media seldom even covering peaceful protests, hazing of civilian populations with helicopters and patrol cars, and several months of increased police brutality (because how else would they respond to protests about police brutality?!), with insane quantities of tear gas being used, numerous people beaten, tasered and shot with rubber bullets, several people losing eyes etc. Video after video, image after image of police brutality and negligence. Police departments blatantly fabricating evidence. And of course, more killing of black men and women under the most dubious of circumstances. Some of my friends have been involved in protests, and one was badly beaten and hospitised by a violent police officer - the whole thing was caught on film, yet the police charged him! Nothing meaningful has changed as a result of all these protests. It likely won't any time soon unless something more radical happens.
> Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing.
I've done my bit, protesting on the street about things I care about. It felt good to feel like I was doing something, but eventually I came to the conclusion that I was deluding myself. None of our actions made any difference - and certainly where foreign policy, the military and war are concerned, the government are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless.
I've caved and given in, for sure; emotionally, I have nothing left to give. But I'm not criticising those who do still get out there - if you feel like it makes a difference, or even if it just makes you feel good, then more power to you.
> The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works
Did they change the scope of the war? I reckon they just did what the wanted regardless. Something like a million dead in Iraq (never mind Afghanistan), many times more wounded or maimed, vile treatment of POWs by US military, absolute evil undertaken by the CIA at Black sites, and of course, the enrichment of many a rich pocket. What real loss in "political capital" was there for fabricating evidence and using it for justification for invading Iraq? What meaningful consequences were there for any of it?
> I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote.
I admire your optimism, but the impression I get from my US friends and colleagues paints a different picture. The media seldom even covering peaceful protests, hazing of civilian populations with helicopters and patrol cars, and several months of increased police brutality (because how else would they respond to protests about police brutality?!), with insane quantities of tear gas being used, numerous people beaten, tasered and shot with rubber bullets, several people losing eyes etc. Video after video, image after image of police brutality and negligence. Police departments blatantly fabricating evidence. And of course, more killing of black men and women under the most dubious of circumstances. Some of my friends have been involved in protests, and one was badly beaten and hospitised by a violent police officer - the whole thing was caught on film, yet the police charged him! Nothing meaningful has changed as a result of all these protests. It likely won't any time soon unless something more radical happens.
> Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing.
I've done my bit, protesting on the street about things I care about. It felt good to feel like I was doing something, but eventually I came to the conclusion that I was deluding myself. None of our actions made any difference - and certainly where foreign policy, the military and war are concerned, the government are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless.
I've caved and given in, for sure; emotionally, I have nothing left to give. But I'm not criticising those who do still get out there - if you feel like it makes a difference, or even if it just makes you feel good, then more power to you.
I'm not sure why people are telling you these things, but that ain't what's happening.
> The media seldom even covering peaceful protests
George Floyd protests, including peaceful ones, dominated the news for the summer.
> hazing of civilian populations with helicopters and patrol cars, and several months of increased police brutality
There were problems, but I'm not being an 'optimist'. The great majority of protests were peaceful and uneventful. The only helicopter incident I remember was in DC.
> Nothing meaningful has changed as a result of all these protests
You should turn on the news, because it's good! Police reform laws have been passed and candidates have been elected nationwide; every Democratic candidate embraces them now, it's a necessity, and candidates who are far more progressive on these issues win; for example, look at the new mayor of Buffalo or at all the DAs elected and re-elected in major cities. Even Republicans in the Congress have voted for removing Confederate names from military bases, etc. Everyone remarked how the Thin Blue Line was finally broken, publicly and dramatically, in the Derek Chauvin trial.
Much more needs to be done, but it's just a reactionary fantasy to say nothing has changed.
> Video after video, image after image of police brutality and negligence. Police departments blatantly fabricating evidence. And of course, more killing of black men and women under the most dubious of circumstances.
Right, this is what people were protesting. It's not going to change overnight.
> None of our actions made any difference - and certainly where foreign policy, the military and war are concerned ...
You're just saying that, with no support. For the other claims of futility, where we do have clear evidence, they were clearly false. Maybe the same is true here.
I think the important question is: Why is it trendy on the Internet to claim democracy is so ineffective, when the reality is manifestly so much better? What do people gain from deceiving themselves? Who gains?
> The media seldom even covering peaceful protests
George Floyd protests, including peaceful ones, dominated the news for the summer.
> hazing of civilian populations with helicopters and patrol cars, and several months of increased police brutality
There were problems, but I'm not being an 'optimist'. The great majority of protests were peaceful and uneventful. The only helicopter incident I remember was in DC.
> Nothing meaningful has changed as a result of all these protests
You should turn on the news, because it's good! Police reform laws have been passed and candidates have been elected nationwide; every Democratic candidate embraces them now, it's a necessity, and candidates who are far more progressive on these issues win; for example, look at the new mayor of Buffalo or at all the DAs elected and re-elected in major cities. Even Republicans in the Congress have voted for removing Confederate names from military bases, etc. Everyone remarked how the Thin Blue Line was finally broken, publicly and dramatically, in the Derek Chauvin trial.
Much more needs to be done, but it's just a reactionary fantasy to say nothing has changed.
> Video after video, image after image of police brutality and negligence. Police departments blatantly fabricating evidence. And of course, more killing of black men and women under the most dubious of circumstances.
Right, this is what people were protesting. It's not going to change overnight.
> None of our actions made any difference - and certainly where foreign policy, the military and war are concerned ...
You're just saying that, with no support. For the other claims of futility, where we do have clear evidence, they were clearly false. Maybe the same is true here.
I think the important question is: Why is it trendy on the Internet to claim democracy is so ineffective, when the reality is manifestly so much better? What do people gain from deceiving themselves? Who gains?
> The only helicopter incident I remember was in DC
Residents of Minneapolis would beg to differ.
> Right, this is what people were protesting. It's not going to change overnight.
They were brutalising protesters for protesting about police brutality. Never mind changing overnight, this behaviour just beggars belief, and shows just how ingrained the problem is.
> You should turn on the news, because it's good!
What I've seen is some kind of attempt at the bare minimum (i.e. banning choke holds, which I think were already banned, and ending qualified immunity) - and IIRC, not a single Republican voted in favour, which demonstrates how polarised things are. AFAIK, nothing has actually changed yet - I'd love for meaningful changes to actually come, and hope that they do. But police unions are very powerful, and police brutality is institutionalised, so it's hard to be optimistic.
> just a reactionary fantasy to say nothing has changed.
> I think the important question is: Why is it trendy on the Internet to claim democracy is so ineffective, when the reality is manifestly so much better?
I deeply resent the insinuation that I'm somehow happy that nothing has changed, or/and that my stance isn't genuine; it's got nothing to do with being "trendy". Rather, you and I simply see things very differently.
Residents of Minneapolis would beg to differ.
> Right, this is what people were protesting. It's not going to change overnight.
They were brutalising protesters for protesting about police brutality. Never mind changing overnight, this behaviour just beggars belief, and shows just how ingrained the problem is.
> You should turn on the news, because it's good!
What I've seen is some kind of attempt at the bare minimum (i.e. banning choke holds, which I think were already banned, and ending qualified immunity) - and IIRC, not a single Republican voted in favour, which demonstrates how polarised things are. AFAIK, nothing has actually changed yet - I'd love for meaningful changes to actually come, and hope that they do. But police unions are very powerful, and police brutality is institutionalised, so it's hard to be optimistic.
> just a reactionary fantasy to say nothing has changed.
> I think the important question is: Why is it trendy on the Internet to claim democracy is so ineffective, when the reality is manifestly so much better?
I deeply resent the insinuation that I'm somehow happy that nothing has changed, or/and that my stance isn't genuine; it's got nothing to do with being "trendy". Rather, you and I simply see things very differently.
> What I've seen is some kind of attempt at the bare minimum (i.e. banning choke holds, which I think were already banned, and ending qualified immunity)
You're really missing the news. For example, look up what is happening in major cities, especially the new wave of progressive DAs.
You're really missing the news. For example, look up what is happening in major cities, especially the new wave of progressive DAs.
Protests are a legal part of the system as a blow-off valve to let average citizens get rid of their rage. It's there to keep the status quo. It makes no difference without force behind it. As long as the opposing view doesn't feel endangered it is working for them and against the average citizen. As soon as it makes a difference it is no longer protests but a rebellion, which most who will protest doesn't have the stomach for.
And barely legal at that. Right to protest is curtailed bit by bit year by year. It isn't a protest if you have to apply for a permit and have to stay in some "free speech zone."
In some places in America it’s legal to kill protestors. (Florida IIRC recently passed a law granting immunity to people to run over protestors with their car.)
> It makes no difference without force behind it.
This is simply a false, anti-democratic trope. Protests interfere with everything from traffic to economies. And much more, they express intent to the leaders: Do something or be voted out of office, because we are motivated. The history of change through protest is very long.
This is simply a false, anti-democratic trope. Protests interfere with everything from traffic to economies. And much more, they express intent to the leaders: Do something or be voted out of office, because we are motivated. The history of change through protest is very long.
However Blair's electability and legacy was fatally damage, and when Cameron next wanted to go to war, to bomb Syria, parliament did not allow it.
I rather doubt Blair cares - other than politically, there were zero meaningful consequences. He has gone one to make a lot of money since, giving highly paid keynotes (£100k!) and such.
I don't think bombing Syria was ever a particularly serious notion for the UK. If the US had pushed us to though, we obviously would have.
I don't think bombing Syria was ever a particularly serious notion for the UK. If the US had pushed us to though, we obviously would have.
> war based on lies
That's quite thick agenda for these millions, heh.
That's quite thick agenda for these millions, heh.
As I remember it, the protests were incredibly downplayed or ignored in the media, in ways I think would be impossible now.
Cellphone footage of the protests would emerge now. I don't know if this would have changed anything, but I often wonder.
I felt alone and only later learned there had been large protests basically everywhere.
Cellphone footage of the protests would emerge now. I don't know if this would have changed anything, but I often wonder.
I felt alone and only later learned there had been large protests basically everywhere.
I remember it differently. I was there in London to protest, but when I returned home and saw the sweeping overhead shots of the crowds on the BBC news, I was awestruck by just how many people there were. You wouldn't capture the scale of it with cellphone footage.
I'm not actually sure if you polled westerns that they would assume protests alone are the impetus for change, this may be a straw man.
A more generous line of thinking would be 'do peaceful protests help bring about change?', which many in the west would probably agree to, and many in HK probably not. And they'd both be right - peaceful protest likely works better in certain contexts (democracies) than others (authoritarian regimes).
A more generous line of thinking would be 'do peaceful protests help bring about change?', which many in the west would probably agree to, and many in HK probably not. And they'd both be right - peaceful protest likely works better in certain contexts (democracies) than others (authoritarian regimes).
How and why do authoritarian regimes get toppled?
Ultimately, capturing hearts and minds of people throigh peaceful protests is beneficial. The question is not whether protests always work directly and timely even. Wheteher or not special interests play a role, the result is easier reached when there's at least a larger audience that may become allied or organized better. To me, it's a fallacy to say that on the one hand ideology or protesting even doesn't play a part in political change when they can be greatly exploited by special interests or governments to gain power or better control and order.
I recently read the book The Dictator's Handbook, which discussed this topic among others. It makes the argument that for such a movement to succeed, the existing regime must be destabilized in a way that makes its key supporters lose confidence in the regime's ability to continue to reward them. Often this is because a leader is sick, or the economy collapses and the leadership runs out of money. When that happens, those key supporters hedge their bets. Army generals refuse to fire on protesters, or local officials refuse to disperse them, etc...
In the case of Hong Kong, clearly Carrie Lam never lost confidence in the PRC's ability to keep her in power, so she and the other loyalists in the HK government never put up meaningful opposition.
In the case of Hong Kong, clearly Carrie Lam never lost confidence in the PRC's ability to keep her in power, so she and the other loyalists in the HK government never put up meaningful opposition.
Who wrote the Dictator's Handbook? I haven't heard of it.
But yes, I think that's the basic idea. There are many levers to political power. Sometimes people think that authoritarians rule by fiat, like a god, but they also are balancing and managing many political factors (though not so much the free will of the people).
But yes, I think that's the basic idea. There are many levers to political power. Sometimes people think that authoritarians rule by fiat, like a god, but they also are balancing and managing many political factors (though not so much the free will of the people).
Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. I'm not familiar with either of them or with other work in this space, but I found their arguments compelling.
> How and why do authoritarian regimes topple?
Multiple overlapping reasons, some of which include:
- the military overthrows the rest of the executive/legislative powers
- Gross incompetence resulting in the government's self-destruction
- Financial collapse
- Secession
- Very strong external pressures (invasion, economic destruction, etc).
- Multiple violent insurrections straining executive resources and undermining the rule of law, allowing other groups to fill the role of the government.
Note that those necessary to take power are not always the same as those necessary to keep it; people often end up with something different than what they bargained for.
An excellent read: "The Dictator's Handbook". To say that politics is a dirty business is an understatement.
Multiple overlapping reasons, some of which include:
- the military overthrows the rest of the executive/legislative powers
- Gross incompetence resulting in the government's self-destruction
- Financial collapse
- Secession
- Very strong external pressures (invasion, economic destruction, etc).
- Multiple violent insurrections straining executive resources and undermining the rule of law, allowing other groups to fill the role of the government.
Note that those necessary to take power are not always the same as those necessary to keep it; people often end up with something different than what they bargained for.
An excellent read: "The Dictator's Handbook". To say that politics is a dirty business is an understatement.
Please take a look on Kim Jong Fat III, and his kingdom.
- multiple military mutinies, now suppressed, check
- the entirety of NK civil administration been sent to firing squad, or gulags multiple times, and rebuilt anew every time it fails
- financial collapse — you will never financially collapse if you can steal
- secession, you cannot secede in NK, even individually. They have machinegunners at the border, shooting everybody trying to run away
- NorKo been under every international sanction imaginable for 70 years.
- There are insurrections in NK almost every day. They are crushed, all, and every.
My point is, dictatorships, and monarchies do not simply topple, they have to be toppled.
- multiple military mutinies, now suppressed, check
- the entirety of NK civil administration been sent to firing squad, or gulags multiple times, and rebuilt anew every time it fails
- financial collapse — you will never financially collapse if you can steal
- secession, you cannot secede in NK, even individually. They have machinegunners at the border, shooting everybody trying to run away
- NorKo been under every international sanction imaginable for 70 years.
- There are insurrections in NK almost every day. They are crushed, all, and every.
My point is, dictatorships, and monarchies do not simply topple, they have to be toppled.
> secession, you cannot secede in NK, even individually. They have machinegunners at the border, shooting everybody trying to run away
That's not what secession means.
Sometimes in authoritarian regimes, a portion of the territory under controls realizes it is powerful enough to be its own master. The ensuing conflicts might then topple the whole thing. That's how the Ottoman Empire fell for example.
Disintegration is always a risk for large entity.
That's not what secession means.
Sometimes in authoritarian regimes, a portion of the territory under controls realizes it is powerful enough to be its own master. The ensuing conflicts might then topple the whole thing. That's how the Ottoman Empire fell for example.
Disintegration is always a risk for large entity.
>do not simply topple, they have to be toppled.
Yes, by those next in line. They fall when those one step down from power takes it. That they might use the average citizen to gain power and that it might make it better for them than before is a side effect. It's the same in democratic elections. The average citizen never get the power, it is transferred to someone who might or might not be more aligned with their wishes.
Yes, by those next in line. They fall when those one step down from power takes it. That they might use the average citizen to gain power and that it might make it better for them than before is a side effect. It's the same in democratic elections. The average citizen never get the power, it is transferred to someone who might or might not be more aligned with their wishes.
No, many are toppled and replaced by democracies. That's where all the democracies came from - they didn't start that way.
> How and why do authoritarian regimes topple?
They don't topple, they are toppled.
They don't topple, they are toppled.
It's not Western though. You're right in that it generally doesn't work, but it's well known to only work in specific circumstances. Yes it's part of a political strategy, but the point of it is to demonstrate dignity, and given a state that is susceptible to shame, that greatly aids in the empowerment of blocs within the state to enact change.
In retrospect, yes, it's fallacious thinking from the protesters if they thought they could successfully press for change just via the protests. But that's in retrospect, previously it might have worked. But as you suggest, the Chinese state is in a position where it doesn't have to care and will happily exterminate the protests. Only answer then is violence, but in this situation the only actors capable of that are other states. In which case, peaceful protest, not fighting back seems the logically correct thing to do -- the protestors require the moral high ground and to focus attention on the issue, which they did very successfully. Whether that has much effect -- probably not, China is ridiculously powerful, but they couldn't do much more (I mean, taken to Gandhian logical extremes, recognition of the failure of the non-violent protest should have been followed mass suicide of all the protesters, which is grotesque but hey, that's Gandhi for you).
In retrospect, yes, it's fallacious thinking from the protesters if they thought they could successfully press for change just via the protests. But that's in retrospect, previously it might have worked. But as you suggest, the Chinese state is in a position where it doesn't have to care and will happily exterminate the protests. Only answer then is violence, but in this situation the only actors capable of that are other states. In which case, peaceful protest, not fighting back seems the logically correct thing to do -- the protestors require the moral high ground and to focus attention on the issue, which they did very successfully. Whether that has much effect -- probably not, China is ridiculously powerful, but they couldn't do much more (I mean, taken to Gandhian logical extremes, recognition of the failure of the non-violent protest should have been followed mass suicide of all the protesters, which is grotesque but hey, that's Gandhi for you).
> In retrospect, yes, it's fallacious thinking from the protesters if they thought they could successfully press for change just via the protests. But that's in retrospect, previously it might have worked.
Not exactly, it actually did work at least once. Protests in HK had been previously successful at stopping a national security law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_(Legislative.... The official protest demands were actually pretty modest, and I think even the biggest one (a fully elected government) is actually called for in the Basic Law.
> But as you suggest, the Chinese state is in a position where it doesn't have to care and will happily exterminate the protests.
It's worth noting that one of the protest anthems was "Do You Hear the People Sing?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_You_Hear_the_People_Sing%3F) from Les Misérables, which is (in part) about a crushed pro-Democracy movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_ABC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Rebellion).
Not exactly, it actually did work at least once. Protests in HK had been previously successful at stopping a national security law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_(Legislative.... The official protest demands were actually pretty modest, and I think even the biggest one (a fully elected government) is actually called for in the Basic Law.
> But as you suggest, the Chinese state is in a position where it doesn't have to care and will happily exterminate the protests.
It's worth noting that one of the protest anthems was "Do You Hear the People Sing?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_You_Hear_the_People_Sing%3F) from Les Misérables, which is (in part) about a crushed pro-Democracy movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_ABC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Rebellion).
The logical extreme here, I would think, is mass organized emigration to other countries who have offered to willingly take in HK political refugees.
Yes, that has direct precedent. And with the most obvious precedent, was the alternative taken when that group [surprisingly! /s] didn't do what Gandhi thought they should have done.
Edit: but that isn't nonviolent protest, it's just leaving your home. It doesn't cause any political change, and it's not at all the logical extreme of nonviolent protest (the logical extreme is stupid, and seems only to have ever been carried out by millenarian cults, but hey ho).
Edit: but that isn't nonviolent protest, it's just leaving your home. It doesn't cause any political change, and it's not at all the logical extreme of nonviolent protest (the logical extreme is stupid, and seems only to have ever been carried out by millenarian cults, but hey ho).
I know the Chinese government has caught a few escaping by boat, and others have made it. It seems they are against even individual migration.
I would love to give those people a home. People seeking freedom are the ones I want in my country, much more than the powerful people trying to seize more power for themselves.
I would love to give those people a home. People seeking freedom are the ones I want in my country, much more than the powerful people trying to seize more power for themselves.
I would assume China is monitoring all their Hong Kong citizens and carefully scrutinizing them for any dissident behaviour before they even think of letting them leave the country.
I think both of these points hold, in their own way, in the Western world. As Guy Debord writes in The Society of the Spectacle:
> [The Spectacle] defines the program of the ruling class and presides over its formation, just as it presents pseudo-goods to be coveted, it offers false models of revolution to local revolutionaries.
Or as Zizek once said (in paraphrase): It's not Jihad vs. McWorld, it's McJihad vs. McWorld.
Do you think that the West exported this spectacle-based theory of change?
> [The Spectacle] defines the program of the ruling class and presides over its formation, just as it presents pseudo-goods to be coveted, it offers false models of revolution to local revolutionaries.
Or as Zizek once said (in paraphrase): It's not Jihad vs. McWorld, it's McJihad vs. McWorld.
Do you think that the West exported this spectacle-based theory of change?
> Or as Zizek once said (in paraphrase): It's not Jihad vs. McWorld, it's McJihad vs. McWorld.
"Jihad and McWorld are two sides of the same coin. Jihad is already McJihad" https://www.lacan.com/zizekslovenia.htm
"Jihad and McWorld are two sides of the same coin. Jihad is already McJihad" https://www.lacan.com/zizekslovenia.htm
> the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective.
The protest itself is not effective, or at least doesn't change the current day order. But it signals an important opposition to a certain rule that a smart politician should pick up.
> The first mistake is failing to recognize that many governments (case in point) are not nearly as vulnerable to bad PR, so generating a bunch of sympathetic imagery (photos of student protestors getting gassed or whatever) might not actually be useful in swaying political outcomes.
You are wrong. China does care a lot for its image. More than you'd expect. China does give a bunch of money to improve its image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_foreign_aid); certainly less than the US but it is sizable and also smarter. They are building popular stuff (like hospitals) in the middle of nowhere and making lots of fanfare about it as well as putting their flags. And no, these are not loans, these are grants (ie: free money!).
The coronavirus and current US-led media campaign did damage the Chinese reputation a lot. But here is where you might be lost: China doesn't really care about the educated western population and the western population in general.
> The second mistake is assuming that most (putatively) peaceful protests in the western world are actually the impetus for political change, and not just part of a legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started.
It's a process. Protests are a manifestation of discontent, and are a good indicator when no transparent voting mechanism is in place. It gives the US good leverage against China by weighing discontent. Sure, it makes no changes, but that's because we live in a distorted world where democracy for small countries is possible.
Democratically, independent and small countries like New Zealand are only possible today because of the world order the US has placed. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping China from walking to New Zealand and declaring it New China.
The protest itself is not effective, or at least doesn't change the current day order. But it signals an important opposition to a certain rule that a smart politician should pick up.
> The first mistake is failing to recognize that many governments (case in point) are not nearly as vulnerable to bad PR, so generating a bunch of sympathetic imagery (photos of student protestors getting gassed or whatever) might not actually be useful in swaying political outcomes.
You are wrong. China does care a lot for its image. More than you'd expect. China does give a bunch of money to improve its image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_foreign_aid); certainly less than the US but it is sizable and also smarter. They are building popular stuff (like hospitals) in the middle of nowhere and making lots of fanfare about it as well as putting their flags. And no, these are not loans, these are grants (ie: free money!).
The coronavirus and current US-led media campaign did damage the Chinese reputation a lot. But here is where you might be lost: China doesn't really care about the educated western population and the western population in general.
> The second mistake is assuming that most (putatively) peaceful protests in the western world are actually the impetus for political change, and not just part of a legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started.
It's a process. Protests are a manifestation of discontent, and are a good indicator when no transparent voting mechanism is in place. It gives the US good leverage against China by weighing discontent. Sure, it makes no changes, but that's because we live in a distorted world where democracy for small countries is possible.
Democratically, independent and small countries like New Zealand are only possible today because of the world order the US has placed. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping China from walking to New Zealand and declaring it New China.
>Democratically, independent and small countries like New Zealand are only possible today because of the world order the US has placed. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping China from walking to New Zealand and declaring it New China.
This sounds a bit outlandish to me. I respect what your sub message might be but in real world scenario it's quite exaggerated.
This sounds a bit outlandish to me. I respect what your sub message might be but in real world scenario it's quite exaggerated.
Before World War II that was what the world was about for most of its history. Big empires expanding further. Smaller city-states existed through complex diplomatic relations. If they didn't have these, all odds are off.
Of course that's classic historic imperialism I agree, however like you said we are not in such an era anymore and no one, least likely China is to become what you suspected due to the complex economic and political ties.
I thought it's worth having an intellectual debate to encourage a better world for everyone, not just polarised opinions that's all.
I thought it's worth having an intellectual debate to encourage a better world for everyone, not just polarised opinions that's all.
> we are not in such an era anymore and no one, least likely China is to become what you suspected due to the complex economic and political ties.
A collapse of the current status-quo (pax-americana) will force a re-organization of the world map. There is a reason why some countries have disputed claims that they didn't act on (although, militarily, they are within their reach). Such an act will have consequences on the world stage (UN) unless you have a veto-friend.
But if this system is no longer enforced, we'll be back to circles of influences; and any military action that has a positive yield will be executed.
A collapse of the current status-quo (pax-americana) will force a re-organization of the world map. There is a reason why some countries have disputed claims that they didn't act on (although, militarily, they are within their reach). Such an act will have consequences on the world stage (UN) unless you have a veto-friend.
But if this system is no longer enforced, we'll be back to circles of influences; and any military action that has a positive yield will be executed.
But that's precisely my point: everyone needs everybody else to exist in the world stage. No one is exceptional even like you said when status-quo changes. Rising powers are all over the globe and they are not guaranteed to stay afloat. I cannot predict the future of course but I don't think the decision makers in China are that naive.
A little bit off-topic, but it's quite interesting how the name of the law and the intentions behind it is quite the same as in Egypt. Both were installed to actively seize means of opposition media and capture any persons involved for an indefinite period of time. For more context on the Egyptian side, it was the effective law of land during the nearly 30-year tenure of former dictator Hosni Mubarak and then got reinstated after another Coup d'etat by current dictator El-Sisi.
> The second mistake is assuming that most (putatively) peaceful protests in the western world are actually the impetus for political change, and not just part of a legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started.
This "but protests must be peaceful!!!" attitude that persists in Western countries and grew in popularity with the '68 generation is actually reproduced by (mostly conservative) politicians these days, as it's easy to simply ignore a peaceful protest.
Just compare worker protection and social security regulations in France (where unions and people literally fight, to wide approval in society and media) vs Germany (where the population is kept docile and any protest that even only looks non-peaceful gets decried in media).
This "but protests must be peaceful!!!" attitude that persists in Western countries and grew in popularity with the '68 generation is actually reproduced by (mostly conservative) politicians these days, as it's easy to simply ignore a peaceful protest.
Just compare worker protection and social security regulations in France (where unions and people literally fight, to wide approval in society and media) vs Germany (where the population is kept docile and any protest that even only looks non-peaceful gets decried in media).
Question to wyager or anyone else about that second point: what are some examples of political changes that people think were caused by protests, but in reality were already in development before the protest started? Also, who are the best-known advocates for this idea? If the answer is "I, wyager, came up with it", that's totally fine, I'm just curious if the concept has an interesting history.
Possibly Ghandi and India's independence? I would expect if British were still a major global force after WWII and were willing to project it, there would have to be a (successful) regular war for independence.
This can be probably applied on a lot of other former colonies.
Also, former Czechoslovakia in 1989 - the loss of communism. A lot of people back there think mass peaceful protests finished the era. But the fact is, the army declared 100% support of ruling communist party, and they would go with tanks to major cities if ordered and crushed the crowds. After shooting would start, there wouldn't be protests anymore, possibly civil war but highly asymmetric since civilians were not largely armed).
The reality is, eastern bloc was disintegrating due to weakening Soviet influence and its own incoming dissolution. This was in place for last 5 years and top folks knew it (albeit news blocked it all for common citizens to keep things quiet). Once the puppets lost the puppeteer, they didn't feel so confident (which is great, no need for another Yugoslavia back home).
This can be probably applied on a lot of other former colonies.
Also, former Czechoslovakia in 1989 - the loss of communism. A lot of people back there think mass peaceful protests finished the era. But the fact is, the army declared 100% support of ruling communist party, and they would go with tanks to major cities if ordered and crushed the crowds. After shooting would start, there wouldn't be protests anymore, possibly civil war but highly asymmetric since civilians were not largely armed).
The reality is, eastern bloc was disintegrating due to weakening Soviet influence and its own incoming dissolution. This was in place for last 5 years and top folks knew it (albeit news blocked it all for common citizens to keep things quiet). Once the puppets lost the puppeteer, they didn't feel so confident (which is great, no need for another Yugoslavia back home).
> Possibly Ghandi and India's independence? I would expect if British were still a major global force after WWII and were willing to project it, there would have to be a (successful) regular war for independence.
First, that's speculation about an imagined history, not evidence. Regardless, protest can be an influence without, by itself, being decisive. Protestors don't have absolute power (a horrible idea, even to most protestors!). No single factor is decisive by itself.
First, that's speculation about an imagined history, not evidence. Regardless, protest can be an influence without, by itself, being decisive. Protestors don't have absolute power (a horrible idea, even to most protestors!). No single factor is decisive by itself.
It's hard to untangle causality for these complex society-wide changes.
It's hard to organize a protest if there's not already a societal development for that cause.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/13/does-reality-drive-str...
There's also the dynamic systems viewpoint: between two "attractor states" the tipping point sits on a locally almost flat region. So a transition from one "stable" potential well to an other goes through these confusing no one's lands. Sure, the speed of transition is unknown, and obviously depends on a lot of things like how strong the attractors are (how deep the wells are), and how strong is the societal push - to push society uphill.
But just as there are no protests in North Korea, there is no need to protest for free speech in the US. (That's a crude analogy, yes. I know that free speech is a hot topic nowadays, but the point I'd like to make is that the "political speech against the state is protected by the state" is absolutely unquestioned, the debate is about how tolerant folks ought to be of racists/homophobes/xenophobes.) And between these two extremes there's a lot of countries. And somewhere in the middle it seems that protests happen, but it doesn't matter. (Eg. in Russia. Protests happen, but Putin is still king. Similarly in China [0] ... but in both cases it seems that the authoritarianism is getting stronger. But we don't know what society thinks. Are they getting completely brainwashed, like in NK? [1] In Russia and Belarus people seem to be aware that it could be better, but the current power structure is very efficient in crushing opposition, so people instead drink a lot and die early.)
[0] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/college-merger-protes...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9rLqYXTaFI&t=6m40s
It's hard to organize a protest if there's not already a societal development for that cause.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/13/does-reality-drive-str...
There's also the dynamic systems viewpoint: between two "attractor states" the tipping point sits on a locally almost flat region. So a transition from one "stable" potential well to an other goes through these confusing no one's lands. Sure, the speed of transition is unknown, and obviously depends on a lot of things like how strong the attractors are (how deep the wells are), and how strong is the societal push - to push society uphill.
But just as there are no protests in North Korea, there is no need to protest for free speech in the US. (That's a crude analogy, yes. I know that free speech is a hot topic nowadays, but the point I'd like to make is that the "political speech against the state is protected by the state" is absolutely unquestioned, the debate is about how tolerant folks ought to be of racists/homophobes/xenophobes.) And between these two extremes there's a lot of countries. And somewhere in the middle it seems that protests happen, but it doesn't matter. (Eg. in Russia. Protests happen, but Putin is still king. Similarly in China [0] ... but in both cases it seems that the authoritarianism is getting stronger. But we don't know what society thinks. Are they getting completely brainwashed, like in NK? [1] In Russia and Belarus people seem to be aware that it could be better, but the current power structure is very efficient in crushing opposition, so people instead drink a lot and die early.)
[0] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/college-merger-protes...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9rLqYXTaFI&t=6m40s
This is why I scoff at the people criticizing the BLM protests and associated riots. We should have learned this lesson wrt the anti-war protests during the Bush years: when the person whose actions you need to change are absolutely intransigent, attempting to convince them directly is not an effective strategy, because they will not be convinced. Instead, the most immediate goal must be to liquify the set status quo; changes can be insisted upon more easily when the illusion of stability has been broken and there is less friction.
Marginalized people usually serve as a sink for the rage and violence of people who are in power but are still bitter because an imperfect world remains perfect. Usually, these marginalized people simply eat those injuries, protecting society's stability. With riots; with graphic images of police beatings and murders plastered on TV and the internet; with infrastructure shutdowns; with resumed talk of things like police reform, social justice, and reparations, these people instead conserve and then redirect that rage and violence back out to the larger society to deal with. It's understandable that many do not like this disturbance of their peace, but that's kind of the point. And BLM et al. are not manufacturing it out of whole cloth; it's simply the intolerable oppression of an imperfect society, visited upon people who are used to shuffling it off onto lessers.
Marginalized people usually serve as a sink for the rage and violence of people who are in power but are still bitter because an imperfect world remains perfect. Usually, these marginalized people simply eat those injuries, protecting society's stability. With riots; with graphic images of police beatings and murders plastered on TV and the internet; with infrastructure shutdowns; with resumed talk of things like police reform, social justice, and reparations, these people instead conserve and then redirect that rage and violence back out to the larger society to deal with. It's understandable that many do not like this disturbance of their peace, but that's kind of the point. And BLM et al. are not manufacturing it out of whole cloth; it's simply the intolerable oppression of an imperfect society, visited upon people who are used to shuffling it off onto lessers.
This comment made me very very mad, very strongly strongly to the point I made this account even though I don't usually comment on HN.
You must be one example of somebody that live mostly in peaceful democratic society. You've never seen actual blood, war, limbs, raped girls, beheaded people? heads rolling and kicked down like a soccer ball? girls with vaginas stuck by sticks? I've seen a few, and it happened in a city, in.a.fucking.riot You wanna know how many people died? 1500 fucking people you fucking idiot. In a big fucking city. The army had to come down to quell the riot.
BLM can protest peacefully, otherwise we normal people don't give a fuck about their message is. There are many people out there than just Black people. A lot of immigrants for example, don't generally give a shit about what happened this past 2 years about BLM this BLM that. They just want their stores not to be burned by these uncivilized people. No they don't have fucking insurance you fucking idiot.
BLM can protest peacefully, otherwise be prepared to be gunned down. I don't care who he/she/it. Travel my property, burn my property, get ready for a lead in the head.
I am not a Trump supporter, and as a matter of fact a Democrat, voted for Biden. but I'll lick Trump's boots and vote hard hard hard right if it means that I can prevent of defunding the police and keep the order.
The politicians that do not condemn the riot and supporting defunding the police are simply out there for political points. They need to go down!
You must be one example of somebody that live mostly in peaceful democratic society. You've never seen actual blood, war, limbs, raped girls, beheaded people? heads rolling and kicked down like a soccer ball? girls with vaginas stuck by sticks? I've seen a few, and it happened in a city, in.a.fucking.riot You wanna know how many people died? 1500 fucking people you fucking idiot. In a big fucking city. The army had to come down to quell the riot.
BLM can protest peacefully, otherwise we normal people don't give a fuck about their message is. There are many people out there than just Black people. A lot of immigrants for example, don't generally give a shit about what happened this past 2 years about BLM this BLM that. They just want their stores not to be burned by these uncivilized people. No they don't have fucking insurance you fucking idiot.
BLM can protest peacefully, otherwise be prepared to be gunned down. I don't care who he/she/it. Travel my property, burn my property, get ready for a lead in the head.
I am not a Trump supporter, and as a matter of fact a Democrat, voted for Biden. but I'll lick Trump's boots and vote hard hard hard right if it means that I can prevent of defunding the police and keep the order.
The politicians that do not condemn the riot and supporting defunding the police are simply out there for political points. They need to go down!
All I'll say is that your viewpoint is incredibly ignorant of American history, which I can understand if you're not from here, because we don't make a habit of exporting much other than propaganda. You're forgiven for this ignorance but I expect you to make an effort to correct your misunderstandings.
You've seen some horrible things; I'm sorry; I've read about things like that and made a point of not turning my head, of being a (very limited) witness, but I can't imagine.
The very good news is that those aren't realistic risks in the U.S.. Beyond mass lynchings in the South (e.g., Tulsa) - a major exception - they haven't happened in US history, and even then I haven't heard of horrors that extreme. And note that those mass lynchings (and individual lynchings) were conducted by the people in power, not protestors against it.
We can't gun people down because we are afraid. Someone breaking a bottle or a window shouldn't be killed - that would be murder. The people in power often are the worst threat to order.
Consider the disorder people suffer when they are oppressed and abused, often physically, by the state, for example when police beat, shoot, and arrest them for things they didn't do, and they are imprisoned for much of their life. Do those people deserve justice and order like you and I do? Should they be able to walk down a street and conduct their lives in peace? If you get assaulted by a police officer or a mugger, what's the difference? (In fact the former is worse - you can't fight back, and the consequences are imprisonment.)
> A lot of immigrants for example, don't generally give a shit ...
Can you back this up, both that immigrants have opinions that differ from the public and that they match what you say?
Immigrants are also targets of police brutality, and have a whole division of government, ICE, that under Trump seemed to embrace cruelty toward them.
The very good news is that those aren't realistic risks in the U.S.. Beyond mass lynchings in the South (e.g., Tulsa) - a major exception - they haven't happened in US history, and even then I haven't heard of horrors that extreme. And note that those mass lynchings (and individual lynchings) were conducted by the people in power, not protestors against it.
We can't gun people down because we are afraid. Someone breaking a bottle or a window shouldn't be killed - that would be murder. The people in power often are the worst threat to order.
Consider the disorder people suffer when they are oppressed and abused, often physically, by the state, for example when police beat, shoot, and arrest them for things they didn't do, and they are imprisoned for much of their life. Do those people deserve justice and order like you and I do? Should they be able to walk down a street and conduct their lives in peace? If you get assaulted by a police officer or a mugger, what's the difference? (In fact the former is worse - you can't fight back, and the consequences are imprisonment.)
> A lot of immigrants for example, don't generally give a shit ...
Can you back this up, both that immigrants have opinions that differ from the public and that they match what you say?
Immigrants are also targets of police brutality, and have a whole division of government, ICE, that under Trump seemed to embrace cruelty toward them.
In my ethics if you don't give a fuck about all the injustices that happen to black people when they aren't protesting then your morals are evil.
I remember a good thought experiment. Gandhi's peaceful protests were successful because they impressed the British public via free press, and the public opinion affected the British government.
Now imagine that instead of post-war British, the colonial regime were held by their contemporary Stalin. How much would a peaceful protest achieve?
Now imagine that instead of post-war British, the colonial regime were held by their contemporary Stalin. How much would a peaceful protest achieve?
It's obviously multifactorial, and I do not diminish Gandhi's efforts, but it would be hard to ignore Britain's diminished capabilities after WW2 as having a role in Britain letting go of India.
They simply had no capacity to control a country like India on the other side of the world in their state at the end of WW2, so might as well save as much face while they can.
They simply had no capacity to control a country like India on the other side of the world in their state at the end of WW2, so might as well save as much face while they can.
Not just a question of capacity. The British Empire almost fell to Hitler's ambitions and while Great Britain was never invaded it definitely looked a lot weaker than what it was supposed to. This meant that the British Empire was far from invincible and definitely led the path to decolonisation.
There were also violent protests in India.
It does seem like opposing nonviolent and violent factions who reject each other works better than just one.
Northern Ireland, Malcolm X/MLK, etc.
It does seem like opposing nonviolent and violent factions who reject each other works better than just one.
Northern Ireland, Malcolm X/MLK, etc.
Interesting point of view, never thought about the irish liberation, even though it was a recent development.
My opinion is that the fear of marxism permeating the civil right movement (especially the BPP) and starting to reach the Latino and disfavored white people (the "rainbow movement" if i remember correctly) did strike fear into the US government (hence the assassination of Fred Hampton, who really started this). This fear allowed to Civil right movement to be successful, because ethnic tension, while useful to exploit a minority, is not worth the danger to the social order.
My opinion is that the fear of marxism permeating the civil right movement (especially the BPP) and starting to reach the Latino and disfavored white people (the "rainbow movement" if i remember correctly) did strike fear into the US government (hence the assassination of Fred Hampton, who really started this). This fear allowed to Civil right movement to be successful, because ethnic tension, while useful to exploit a minority, is not worth the danger to the social order.
There are many reasons other than the choice of peaceful strategy. The movement doesn't have any clear achievable goals, lacks united leadership. There is a strong opinion the movement is designed to fail. The real goal of the movement is to humiliate CPP. An the violence stage of the protest. My HK relatives, political refuges from cultural revolution time, are more scared of the protester than CCP.
I'm wondering why most of the comments here are not discussing the content of the article but rather the general HK protest.
Most of people in China understand the value of rule of law. And we never deny that the environment there is far from any democratic western society. But if you read the article and are the readers of the mentioned media outlets you would agree a bit that those are a little dubious (Post852, Winandmac Media etc, Apple Daily included). It's definitely not good to have a sweeping ban, but pretending all non-mainland chinese media is pro democracy and liberal values and not populist (sometimes provocative and radicalised) to attract viewers is a little naive in my humble opinion.
Most of people in China understand the value of rule of law. And we never deny that the environment there is far from any democratic western society. But if you read the article and are the readers of the mentioned media outlets you would agree a bit that those are a little dubious (Post852, Winandmac Media etc, Apple Daily included). It's definitely not good to have a sweeping ban, but pretending all non-mainland chinese media is pro democracy and liberal values and not populist (sometimes provocative and radicalised) to attract viewers is a little naive in my humble opinion.
> But if you read the article and are the readers of the mentioned media outlets you would agree a bit that those are a little dubious (Post852, Winandmac Media etc, Apple Daily included). It's definitely not good to have a sweeping ban, but pretending all non-mainland chinese media is pro democracy and liberal values and not populist (sometimes provocative and radicalised) to attract viewers is a little naive in my humble opinion.
Well, you can express your point of view, but don't tell everyone else what they think. If imperfection were a sin to deny rights and power, then who would have rights and power? Certainly not the Chinese government!
Well, you can express your point of view, but don't tell everyone else what they think. If imperfection were a sin to deny rights and power, then who would have rights and power? Certainly not the Chinese government!
That's quite an elevated take of my comment. I never implied they are 'sin' or telling people what to think (it would be a compliment as I'm usually not very persuasive). I'm just stating that I have limited sympathy for them as they are not as credible as you think. Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement. There are plenty of good media being punished in mainland China that got people angry and people protested and reversed their ban but the ones in the articles are not those.
> they are not as credible as you think
Again, how do you know what I think? I'm not as dumb as you think.
> Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement.
It's not my judgement, it's a matter of human rights. Whether I judge it so or not, those people have a right to act and speak freely. It's not up to me (or you or the CCP).
Again, how do you know what I think? I'm not as dumb as you think.
> Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement.
It's not my judgement, it's a matter of human rights. Whether I judge it so or not, those people have a right to act and speak freely. It's not up to me (or you or the CCP).
Sorry I didn't mean that. Yes I agree individuals should be able to speak freely. But also we need a bit collectivism and responsibility for a better society. They are not mutually exclusive. It's up to you and me that's right (but I don't know what is the chinese party to do with me).
Can you define “dubious” and “crossing a redline” (so that they need to be shut) according to HK laws?
Without a precise definition we cannot have a fruitful discussion.
Without a precise definition we cannot have a fruitful discussion.
It is quite obvious they belong to a more sensationalism type of tabloid media. I refer them as 'dubious' due to this credibility issue. I may be wrong but there are definitely evidence of misinformation https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/hong-...
Sure in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest). But once it gets a lot of attention and an influencer status then the authoritarian gov won't let it grow further without consequences for sure. 'Redline' is a bad term but it's usually separatist, discrimination speech etc. Not all 'pro-democracy' media are targeted because they are simply not big enough yet.
Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily defending any side, just want to discuss more nuances.
Sure in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest). But once it gets a lot of attention and an influencer status then the authoritarian gov won't let it grow further without consequences for sure. 'Redline' is a bad term but it's usually separatist, discrimination speech etc. Not all 'pro-democracy' media are targeted because they are simply not big enough yet.
Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily defending any side, just want to discuss more nuances.
> in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest)
If you mean that in a democracy, publications need "at least some alignment with party interest", that's certainly not the case. However, given the multitude of political interests, the publication is bound to align somewhat with someone.
(Also, I disagree with the term "western democracy": Taiwan is Chinese and has a thriving democracy, as did Hong Kong until recently, plus there's Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia, India, Chile, Benin, etc etc. Democracy hasn't been 'western' for generations.)
However, I wonder a bit if this thread is becoming overly critical. I am aware that in any dictatorship, they allow some outlets - as long as they don't grow too powerful, as you say.
If you mean that in a democracy, publications need "at least some alignment with party interest", that's certainly not the case. However, given the multitude of political interests, the publication is bound to align somewhat with someone.
(Also, I disagree with the term "western democracy": Taiwan is Chinese and has a thriving democracy, as did Hong Kong until recently, plus there's Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia, India, Chile, Benin, etc etc. Democracy hasn't been 'western' for generations.)
However, I wonder a bit if this thread is becoming overly critical. I am aware that in any dictatorship, they allow some outlets - as long as they don't grow too powerful, as you say.
Oh absolutely Sorry for the poor choice of words, I agree with you whole heartily. Again my english is probably too bad to convey the meaning 'any press will align with someone given that there are so many parties and he multitude of political interests'.
Sorry, I should be more cognizant that not everyone's English is perfect. Yours is far better than my Cantonese!
So just to be clear you actually believe that media being populist justify abitrary detentions, jailing people from indefinite duration without ever putting them to trial while threatening them with life in prison if not straight murder?
I doubt anyone with the right mind would support that, wouldn't you agree? But I'm afraid nobody has perfect information. People in mainland China read anything with filters and are aware of what's really going on, so I don't think it should be that different elsewhere.
> I'm afraid nobody has perfect information. People in mainland China read anything with filters and are aware of what's really going on, so I don't think it should be that different elsewhere.
That's a false equivalency, like saying 'people in Pyonyang aren't perfectly free, nor are people in New York, so it's basically the same.' It's not at all the same.
That's a false equivalency, like saying 'people in Pyonyang aren't perfectly free, nor are people in New York, so it's basically the same.' It's not at all the same.
I didn't equate anything to anything. I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false (maybe exaggerated) information. I'm not even comparing different population. If I wasn't clear then I apologise.
> I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false (maybe exaggerated) information.
Unless you are drawing an equivalency between the CCP censored and created information on one hand, and the New York Times and Jonathan Spence on the other, I don't see what the point is.
'No information is perfect'? A similar claim is, 'no composer writes flawless music', but that tells us nothing about anything; it fails even to distinguish between Bach and me.
Unless you are drawing an equivalency between the CCP censored and created information on one hand, and the New York Times and Jonathan Spence on the other, I don't see what the point is.
'No information is perfect'? A similar claim is, 'no composer writes flawless music', but that tells us nothing about anything; it fails even to distinguish between Bach and me.
Sorry again, I meant 'no one knows all the correct information'. I don't understand why you are so fond of comparison. Fine, I'll attempt one. What you read on New York Times about China could be high recall but low precision; and what I read from chinese sources (not necessarily press) may be high precision but low recall (not sure if I got it right...laugh).
We're kinda going in circles. 'no one knows all the correct information' isn't more meaningful than any other statement about perfection. Some people have far better information than others. Some people believe the earth is flat, others know astrophysics, neither has perfect information but that statement tells us nothing about the information they do have.
I do realise that I'm not contributing much more details or concrete examples so I should probably stop (besides I do have a small child who tends wake up early). Thanks for the discussion and all points taken.
> I think HK is a perfect case study of a line of fallacious thinking popular among westerners: the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective.
It's not fallacious. It has worked in the past and continue to work even to this day. Peaceful protests are proven to work more than violence; when they are allowed in the first place. Violet uprisings rarely lead to positive change and mostly end up in either worse conditions or disaster.
Most Western governance are inheritors of violent revolutions of some sort, which people tend to be aware of but take for granted. The US has made it a point to elevate the right to bear arms as a natural right. The UK on the other hand arrest people for tweets. HK never had guns to begin with.
It's not fallacious. It has worked in the past and continue to work even to this day. Peaceful protests are proven to work more than violence; when they are allowed in the first place. Violet uprisings rarely lead to positive change and mostly end up in either worse conditions or disaster.
Most Western governance are inheritors of violent revolutions of some sort, which people tend to be aware of but take for granted. The US has made it a point to elevate the right to bear arms as a natural right. The UK on the other hand arrest people for tweets. HK never had guns to begin with.
> Peaceful protests are proven to work more than violence;
Are they? Remember, a successful violent "protest" is often just retroactively called by a different name, like "revolution" or "coup d'état", it's not as if they're fundamentally different things. How do you compare those to successful peaceful protests?
Are they? Remember, a successful violent "protest" is often just retroactively called by a different name, like "revolution" or "coup d'état", it's not as if they're fundamentally different things. How do you compare those to successful peaceful protests?
There are many fundamental difference between standing armies and/or organized militias and violent mobs in terms of scale, martial effectiveness, negotiations, treaties and post-conflict continuation.
Mobs don't win wars, they merely destroy and the rest is left to fate, often with disastrous results(see Libya as an example).
Mobs can't sit at the negotiation table
Mobs can't agree to treaties and enforce them
Mobs can't form proper functioning and recognized government.
Mobs don't win wars, they merely destroy and the rest is left to fate, often with disastrous results(see Libya as an example).
Mobs can't sit at the negotiation table
Mobs can't agree to treaties and enforce them
Mobs can't form proper functioning and recognized government.
> Mobs don't win wars, they merely destroy and the rest is left to fate
You seriously can't think of any counterexamples to that? Like maybe some French (contemporary and historical), German or Russian counterexamples?
You seriously can't think of any counterexamples to that? Like maybe some French (contemporary and historical), German or Russian counterexamples?
In all three of your examples, mobs didn’t win any wars. Organized political factions won wars, which usually came after a period of chaos.
People always forget that the Russian Revolution was followed by war between the Whites and the Reds.
People always forget that the Russian Revolution was followed by war between the Whites and the Reds.
"Mobs don't win, organized political factions win" also characterizes the outcomes of peaceable protest, so what's your point?
I was replying to the parent comment.
> fallacious thinking popular among westerners: the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective.
First, it's not 'westerners'. Democracy and peaceful protest are embraced throughout the world: All of North and South America, with few exceptions; almost all of Europe; Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines to extents, India, countries in Africa, etc. And protests happen outside democracy and go back long before it. Gandhi was protesting in a dictatorship; MLK was too, in many ways (it was in many ways a dictatorship for African-Americans).
But what an odd world we have become, where people go out of their way to tell each other these things contrary to what is all around them. As a simple example, look at all the policing and legal reforms, all the social changes, that have happened in response to the George Floyd protests. The Arab Spring happened not long before that. People invest enormous amounts of time and effort in changing public opinion, and causing/stopping protest. Despair seems like a dumb, unpleasant trend.
The people in power want you to think you are powerless; it obviously suits them for you to believe it. Similarly, to suppress votes they say 'your vote doesn't count' - something I've encountered in poor communities. The power is actually yours. History is filled with protests changing the world.
Governments have power only from the consent of the governed. Like the fiat power behind currency, the government's power comes from people giving them that authority - the government says you must do X, and people choose to listen. They don't have nearly enough other power to survive without it, including - or especially including - non-democratic governments. If nobody listens to them, who are they? Just some people talking (ironically, similar to what authoritarians try to say about protestors - nobody listens). What is their authority? And if people don't go to work, if the streets are filled with protest, then it affects many more interests than those in office. You can see why some in power try to spread this idea that you have none.
Protests also demonstrate and galvanize public opinion. People sitting home and feeling alone and powerless are no threat; other people telling them that that they are powerless are ideal. When people see others taking action, when they see they are not alone, then they act.
Sure, life is more complicated than that. Few things happen only because of a protest, but that's just because the world is too complicated for simple solutions. But to say protests aren't a huge factor is really a fantasy of authority, and they push it for a reason. The world is yours.
First, it's not 'westerners'. Democracy and peaceful protest are embraced throughout the world: All of North and South America, with few exceptions; almost all of Europe; Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines to extents, India, countries in Africa, etc. And protests happen outside democracy and go back long before it. Gandhi was protesting in a dictatorship; MLK was too, in many ways (it was in many ways a dictatorship for African-Americans).
But what an odd world we have become, where people go out of their way to tell each other these things contrary to what is all around them. As a simple example, look at all the policing and legal reforms, all the social changes, that have happened in response to the George Floyd protests. The Arab Spring happened not long before that. People invest enormous amounts of time and effort in changing public opinion, and causing/stopping protest. Despair seems like a dumb, unpleasant trend.
The people in power want you to think you are powerless; it obviously suits them for you to believe it. Similarly, to suppress votes they say 'your vote doesn't count' - something I've encountered in poor communities. The power is actually yours. History is filled with protests changing the world.
Governments have power only from the consent of the governed. Like the fiat power behind currency, the government's power comes from people giving them that authority - the government says you must do X, and people choose to listen. They don't have nearly enough other power to survive without it, including - or especially including - non-democratic governments. If nobody listens to them, who are they? Just some people talking (ironically, similar to what authoritarians try to say about protestors - nobody listens). What is their authority? And if people don't go to work, if the streets are filled with protest, then it affects many more interests than those in office. You can see why some in power try to spread this idea that you have none.
Protests also demonstrate and galvanize public opinion. People sitting home and feeling alone and powerless are no threat; other people telling them that that they are powerless are ideal. When people see others taking action, when they see they are not alone, then they act.
Sure, life is more complicated than that. Few things happen only because of a protest, but that's just because the world is too complicated for simple solutions. But to say protests aren't a huge factor is really a fantasy of authority, and they push it for a reason. The world is yours.
>The first mistake is failing to recognize that many governments (case in point) are not nearly as vulnerable to bad PR,
I mean we're talking about the same government on the bad side of the Tank Man photo. I think that's kind of obvious.
The difference is in HK I don't think people were anticipating China to completely break the Basic Law and the handover agreement. They were protesting the elected HK government, not Beijing directly.
I mean we're talking about the same government on the bad side of the Tank Man photo. I think that's kind of obvious.
The difference is in HK I don't think people were anticipating China to completely break the Basic Law and the handover agreement. They were protesting the elected HK government, not Beijing directly.
> They were protesting the elected HK government, not Beijing directly.
I don't think it's ever been correct to say the HK government was elected. It had some elected elements, but they were never in the majority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Ko....
IIRC, one of the five protest demands was for a fully elected government.
I don't think it's ever been correct to say the HK government was elected. It had some elected elements, but they were never in the majority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Ko....
IIRC, one of the five protest demands was for a fully elected government.
The FCs are elected, but by people in the function it sounds like. That's an election, a weird one, but still an election. I'm sure Beijing was pulling the strings but it's not like they were directly appointed.
> That's an election, a weird one, but still an election. I'm sure Beijing was pulling the strings but it's not like they were directly appointed.
IIRC, they're structured so Bejing's allies would control those seats, with few exceptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_(constituency)). I think most of the "voters" are representatives of industry associations and the like.
IIRC, they're structured so Bejing's allies would control those seats, with few exceptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_(constituency)). I think most of the "voters" are representatives of industry associations and the like.
> They were protesting the elected HK government, not Beijing directly.
HK government was never elected. Beijing was always pulling strings from behind
HK government was never elected. Beijing was always pulling strings from behind
[deleted]
Over 1 million marched against the 2nd Gulf war in London and it was pointless. Anyone who was paying attention knew the wmd evidence was most likely fabricated. It's the same all over the world.
> They were protesting the elected HK government, not Beijing directly
This wasn't case in later stages of the protest, or even early stages. The protestors were gambling against Beijing in the first place, since they clearly didn't trust the local governance nor its ability to meet their demands. And it kinda made it obvious for the latter stage of the protest, that the attack was focus on CCP directly.
This wasn't case in later stages of the protest, or even early stages. The protestors were gambling against Beijing in the first place, since they clearly didn't trust the local governance nor its ability to meet their demands. And it kinda made it obvious for the latter stage of the protest, that the attack was focus on CCP directly.
Not to discount China's horrible authoritarianism in Hong Kong or elsewhere, but the tank man photo is a selective propaganda edit. Watch the whole video (as captured by CNN):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFzeNAHEhU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFzeNAHEhU
Your two points are only true when there is no democracy.
doesthismean(3)
jawkx(2)
Thank you for your perspective.
> the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective.
I understand you are making a stylized appeal for liberal political change via violence. China's leadership has peaks and troughs of liberalism, and violence there, in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and in many other places around the world was followed more often by a hardening, not a softening, of daily life.
Violence in Hong Kong would delay liberalization and usher a vicious and oppressive crackdown.
> legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started.
Here you appear to know that the real strategy is waiting. Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize.
I understand you are making a stylized appeal for liberal political change via violence. China's leadership has peaks and troughs of liberalism, and violence there, in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and in many other places around the world was followed more often by a hardening, not a softening, of daily life.
Violence in Hong Kong would delay liberalization and usher a vicious and oppressive crackdown.
> legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started.
Here you appear to know that the real strategy is waiting. Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize.
> Here you appear to know that the real strategy is waiting. Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize.
What leads you to think this will be the case?
The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others. There doesn't seem to be magic formula, and as technology disrupts human interactions it feels like existing liberal democracies are at risk.
I want to share your optimism. Orwell's vision of the future being a boot stomping on a person's head forever feels a little too close to being a reality.
I don't think passively waiting for more benevolent masters is a winning strategy.
What leads you to think this will be the case?
The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others. There doesn't seem to be magic formula, and as technology disrupts human interactions it feels like existing liberal democracies are at risk.
I want to share your optimism. Orwell's vision of the future being a boot stomping on a person's head forever feels a little too close to being a reality.
I don't think passively waiting for more benevolent masters is a winning strategy.
> The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others.
I think success largely depends on how democracy arrives - we've seen time and time again that forcing it upon a country (whether by military force or the more skullduggerous, CIA kind of force) is doomed to failure. I believe it needs to come naturally, slowly, over time.
I think success largely depends on how democracy arrives - we've seen time and time again that forcing it upon a country (whether by military force or the more skullduggerous, CIA kind of force) is doomed to failure. I believe it needs to come naturally, slowly, over time.
It's hard to deliver democracy and freedom by oppressive means; the means undermine the ends.
However, it's also a common error of the privileged to consign the suffering to wait for a slow, gradual process that results in their entire lives passing by, and those of their children and grandchildren, etc.
However, it's also a common error of the privileged to consign the suffering to wait for a slow, gradual process that results in their entire lives passing by, and those of their children and grandchildren, etc.
> Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize
It is more likely there will be a contest for power.
It could become violent, though that is unlikely. In that event, I see no reason to ensure like-minded Chinese are sufficiently armed, or at the very least informed. China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift.
It is more likely there will be a contest for power.
It could become violent, though that is unlikely. In that event, I see no reason to ensure like-minded Chinese are sufficiently armed, or at the very least informed. China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift.
I think eventually something is going to break with the CCP system. But that could easily take another 50 years or more. Something many of us will not live to see.
The Chinese government sustains itself in power through economic growth and nationalism. That then leads to the two most likely factors (in my opinion) to lead to its eventual downfall – (i) if economic growth gets replaced by stagnation or even decline; (ii) a national military humiliation, such as if an attempt to conquer Taiwan turns into a costly failure. And I think either or both factors is likely to happen eventually, but still that could be many decades away. 10 or 20 years from now, the CCP will most likely still be going strong.
The Chinese government sustains itself in power through economic growth and nationalism. That then leads to the two most likely factors (in my opinion) to lead to its eventual downfall – (i) if economic growth gets replaced by stagnation or even decline; (ii) a national military humiliation, such as if an attempt to conquer Taiwan turns into a costly failure. And I think either or both factors is likely to happen eventually, but still that could be many decades away. 10 or 20 years from now, the CCP will most likely still be going strong.
Nationalism is a reaction of Chinese society that predates the CCP. The CCP is a product of it, not the cause. Indeed they know that they have to show achievements in that area because that's what the people want. As a matter of fact that have actually being successful in that regards when the Nationalists had failed.
On the world stage the focus is on the CCP and China's political regime because it makes selling anti-China campaigns and measures to the public much easier but it is a red herring. If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change, the difference would be that the US would have a harder time explaining to us why China is "evil" (the reason being simply that they are getting too powerful for the West).
On the world stage the focus is on the CCP and China's political regime because it makes selling anti-China campaigns and measures to the public much easier but it is a red herring. If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change, the difference would be that the US would have a harder time explaining to us why China is "evil" (the reason being simply that they are getting too powerful for the West).
The West and India seem to get along much better than the West and China.
Is that simply because India is weaker? Or is it because India and the West are closer in values? India has a pluralist political system; China doesn't.
(There are of course some doubts about what direction India is going in given the Modi government, but even given those concerns, India still has far more of a pluralist political system than China does – BJP is in opposition in 7 state legislatures. In China, opposition is illegal.)
Is that simply because India is weaker? Or is it because India and the West are closer in values? India has a pluralist political system; China doesn't.
(There are of course some doubts about what direction India is going in given the Modi government, but even given those concerns, India still has far more of a pluralist political system than China does – BJP is in opposition in 7 state legislatures. In China, opposition is illegal.)
I'm not sure that the West and India are closer in values than the West and China if you take a comprehensive look. And we could also look at the closeness between India and China vs them and the West. After all, neither of them are Western cultures and they have a long history of interactions.
But this is irrelevant. In general political regimes hardly matter. The US are best friends with some of the most backward and repressive regimes on the planet, and ruthlessly torpedoed democratic regimes.
It's a matter of interests. India is much weaker than China and is not assertive as a global power. It's not a threat. It also shares interests with the West, not least containing China, with fewer competing interests.
I'm sure that India and the Indian understand China and the Chinese when it comes to the struggle of freeing yourself from foreign imperialism and of fighting your corner.
But this is irrelevant. In general political regimes hardly matter. The US are best friends with some of the most backward and repressive regimes on the planet, and ruthlessly torpedoed democratic regimes.
It's a matter of interests. India is much weaker than China and is not assertive as a global power. It's not a threat. It also shares interests with the West, not least containing China, with fewer competing interests.
I'm sure that India and the Indian understand China and the Chinese when it comes to the struggle of freeing yourself from foreign imperialism and of fighting your corner.
> In general political regimes hardly matter. The US are best friends with some of the most backward and repressive regimes on the planet
I think the contemporary US does have a political preference for democratic regimes all else being equal. When the US gets cozy with non-democratic regimes – for example, Middle Eastern states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States – there is usually some other motivation which is felt as more pressing than the desire for democracy – oil, containment of Iran, keeping Israel safe and secure, fears of religious radicalism and terrorism, the fear that if the general populace were allowed to vote for whatever government they want, they'd elect Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. It is not that the US doesn't care about democracy at all, it is just that sometimes it cares about other things more.
> India is much weaker than China and is not assertive as a global power
The Chinese government has attempted to interfere with Australian domestic politics [0]. Obviously that upsets the Australian government (and many people in Australia), and sustaining the US-Australia alliance requires that the US take Australian upset seriously. Some Australians find it particularly offensive given China's hypocritical preaching about "non-interference". The Indian government doesn't make any comparable attempts to interfere with the domestic affairs of US allies, which is part of why the US and its allies have much better relations with India than with China.
[0] see e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dastyari#Chinese_influence... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/beijing-controls-chi... https://www.csis.org/analysis/countering-chinas-influence-op...
I think the contemporary US does have a political preference for democratic regimes all else being equal. When the US gets cozy with non-democratic regimes – for example, Middle Eastern states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States – there is usually some other motivation which is felt as more pressing than the desire for democracy – oil, containment of Iran, keeping Israel safe and secure, fears of religious radicalism and terrorism, the fear that if the general populace were allowed to vote for whatever government they want, they'd elect Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. It is not that the US doesn't care about democracy at all, it is just that sometimes it cares about other things more.
> India is much weaker than China and is not assertive as a global power
The Chinese government has attempted to interfere with Australian domestic politics [0]. Obviously that upsets the Australian government (and many people in Australia), and sustaining the US-Australia alliance requires that the US take Australian upset seriously. Some Australians find it particularly offensive given China's hypocritical preaching about "non-interference". The Indian government doesn't make any comparable attempts to interfere with the domestic affairs of US allies, which is part of why the US and its allies have much better relations with India than with China.
[0] see e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dastyari#Chinese_influence... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/beijing-controls-chi... https://www.csis.org/analysis/countering-chinas-influence-op...
>If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change
No idea why you would say that. China's policy focus would immediately change. Domestically it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages. The transparency of the decision making would also cause a lot of domestic policies to be revisited. Currently these decisions are made with the public in the dark. That would no longer be acceptable in a democracy.
On foreign policy and the geopolitical front, China will almost certainly pursue a reset with their neighbours. Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west, or continued antagonism remains to be seen. The Chinese military isn't in the same position as the USSR back in the 90s, and China will not inherit the position as the superpower heading the communist regimes. In any case, it will translate to real changes in how China deals with border issues and military expansion in the South China Sea.
No idea why you would say that. China's policy focus would immediately change. Domestically it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages. The transparency of the decision making would also cause a lot of domestic policies to be revisited. Currently these decisions are made with the public in the dark. That would no longer be acceptable in a democracy.
On foreign policy and the geopolitical front, China will almost certainly pursue a reset with their neighbours. Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west, or continued antagonism remains to be seen. The Chinese military isn't in the same position as the USSR back in the 90s, and China will not inherit the position as the superpower heading the communist regimes. In any case, it will translate to real changes in how China deals with border issues and military expansion in the South China Sea.
> No idea why you would say that.
I was focussing on foreign policy and geopolitics, which really hasn't changed much since before the PRC.
For instance their policy in the South China Sea is not something dreamt up by the CCP. The "9-dash line" predates the CCP and the PRC. It dates back to the ROC and as such is still the official policy in Taiwan as well (they keep quiet because they are too weak and don't want to piss off neighbours). What's happened is that China is no longer weak and is now able to reassert itself. In a democratic China it's almost certain that nothing would change in the South China Sea, and that has the full support of the Chinese public.
> Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west
This would not because, as I mentioned, the political regime is a red herring here. The antagonisms are caused by China's growing strength and power. China asserts its interests, which are not aligned with the West's. This is not caused by the CCP, this is the profound geopolitical reality.
What's happening is that a superpower that is not Western (in a general sense of European, Christian culture) is appearing, this is more profound than political regimes, which are actually quite superficial. This has not happened for centuries. People have been conditioned to believe that everyone will align with the West and that being a democracy means aligning with the US, but why would that be? That's just propaganda dating from the Cold War, really.
> it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages
They are already doing a lot to "appease" the poorest. Economic growth has benefited them a lot and the government is also doing more to alleviate growing inequalities because they know very well that they have to. They are certainly not focussing on "middle/upper-class growth".
I was focussing on foreign policy and geopolitics, which really hasn't changed much since before the PRC.
For instance their policy in the South China Sea is not something dreamt up by the CCP. The "9-dash line" predates the CCP and the PRC. It dates back to the ROC and as such is still the official policy in Taiwan as well (they keep quiet because they are too weak and don't want to piss off neighbours). What's happened is that China is no longer weak and is now able to reassert itself. In a democratic China it's almost certain that nothing would change in the South China Sea, and that has the full support of the Chinese public.
> Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west
This would not because, as I mentioned, the political regime is a red herring here. The antagonisms are caused by China's growing strength and power. China asserts its interests, which are not aligned with the West's. This is not caused by the CCP, this is the profound geopolitical reality.
What's happening is that a superpower that is not Western (in a general sense of European, Christian culture) is appearing, this is more profound than political regimes, which are actually quite superficial. This has not happened for centuries. People have been conditioned to believe that everyone will align with the West and that being a democracy means aligning with the US, but why would that be? That's just propaganda dating from the Cold War, really.
> it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages
They are already doing a lot to "appease" the poorest. Economic growth has benefited them a lot and the government is also doing more to alleviate growing inequalities because they know very well that they have to. They are certainly not focussing on "middle/upper-class growth".
You asserted that key policies will not change. Policy entails a course of action, specifying how aims are achieved. So it isn't a matter of the existence of the 9 dash or 11 dash line, but the route that they would go in pursuing it.
I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). That just smacks of neo-orientalist sinicism. China's development is modelled on the same export model as Japan's and South Korea's. The difference being whether other advanced economies are willing to absorb and support that model for the remainder of the time that China needs to pivot before succumbing to the middle income trap.
And to your last point, China's GINI coefficient bottomed out in 2015. It has since been rising.
I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). That just smacks of neo-orientalist sinicism. China's development is modelled on the same export model as Japan's and South Korea's. The difference being whether other advanced economies are willing to absorb and support that model for the remainder of the time that China needs to pivot before succumbing to the middle income trap.
And to your last point, China's GINI coefficient bottomed out in 2015. It has since been rising.
> but the route that they would go in pursuing it.
They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They would not abandon their newly built bases or stop Navy patrols. That would be contrary to their sovereignty claim.
There's a lot of propaganda on this topic and people are falling for it. But the reality is that China is only following a standard, tried and tested, way to assert sovereignty claims: They occupy the place.
The neighbouring countries, including democracies, are doing exactly the same.
> I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan).
It's obviously different because China is a superpower. Japan and South Korea are not, they are too small, they both fell under the US's dominance, in part by military means. China is directly challenging US's dominance because it's actually larger than the US are and the Us cannot bully them into submission. That's what's new. The US are used to be in charge, like the Europeans used to be before them. A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They would not abandon their newly built bases or stop Navy patrols. That would be contrary to their sovereignty claim.
There's a lot of propaganda on this topic and people are falling for it. But the reality is that China is only following a standard, tried and tested, way to assert sovereignty claims: They occupy the place.
The neighbouring countries, including democracies, are doing exactly the same.
> I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan).
It's obviously different because China is a superpower. Japan and South Korea are not, they are too small, they both fell under the US's dominance, in part by military means. China is directly challenging US's dominance because it's actually larger than the US are and the Us cannot bully them into submission. That's what's new. The US are used to be in charge, like the Europeans used to be before them. A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
> They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change.
They can stop expanding military bases in contested areas for a start. That's already a big change in policy.
> A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
What makes China a superpower and Japan not? What economic indicators are you using? Or the UK, France, and India for that matter? Nuclear powers that are able to flatten the population centres of countries on command.
Treating 'The West' as a monolithic entity is just the mirror image of neo-orientalism. In terms of alignment, the ideological chasm between the 1st World / 2nd World during the cold war was larger than the gap between China and the other advanced economies currently. China, having reformed its economy, is more similar to Spain, which resolved a lot of its geopolitical problems after the transition to democracy in the late 70s and early 80s.
The only baggage that China has in terms of geopolitics is the constant navel gazing at the 1800s and Qing's humiliation by the colonial powers. This is a Chinese nationalist narrative that is stoked by the party, but one that doesn't resonate at all with the younger generations.
They can stop expanding military bases in contested areas for a start. That's already a big change in policy.
> A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
What makes China a superpower and Japan not? What economic indicators are you using? Or the UK, France, and India for that matter? Nuclear powers that are able to flatten the population centres of countries on command.
Treating 'The West' as a monolithic entity is just the mirror image of neo-orientalism. In terms of alignment, the ideological chasm between the 1st World / 2nd World during the cold war was larger than the gap between China and the other advanced economies currently. China, having reformed its economy, is more similar to Spain, which resolved a lot of its geopolitical problems after the transition to democracy in the late 70s and early 80s.
The only baggage that China has in terms of geopolitics is the constant navel gazing at the 1800s and Qing's humiliation by the colonial powers. This is a Chinese nationalist narrative that is stoked by the party, but one that doesn't resonate at all with the younger generations.
The inability to unilaterally impose another Plaza accord speaks volumes.
Not holding the office for life was relatively new changes in the 90s when Deng Xiaoping stepped down (just a bit, he was the paramount leader despite never hold the two highest positions in China. So the step down from Central Military Commission was mostly ceremonial for the next few years or so.)
If you believe that Xi Jinping has Chinese’s best interest at heart, and he believes that in 2018 China was still under turmoil that only he can manage to get them through, and that he was still (relatively) young even now. Then it is conceivable he would step down in a few years or so in his 70s. Yes, it’s best if your President can’t change the constitution at will, but that has never been China and the situation might not be that big of a shift
If you believe that Xi Jinping has Chinese’s best interest at heart, and he believes that in 2018 China was still under turmoil that only he can manage to get them through, and that he was still (relatively) young even now. Then it is conceivable he would step down in a few years or so in his 70s. Yes, it’s best if your President can’t change the constitution at will, but that has never been China and the situation might not be that big of a shift
> China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift.
It didn't change. It's foolish to not to acknowledge that communists been in power in China all along.
Hu, and Wen were just very convenient fronts the party let the West, and its populace see, while it was pulling strings from behind, and bidding time for the comeback in force.
The West, its politicians, its generals, its intelligence analysts, and its civil society, have been completely bought into that laughably trivial deception.
It didn't change. It's foolish to not to acknowledge that communists been in power in China all along.
Hu, and Wen were just very convenient fronts the party let the West, and its populace see, while it was pulling strings from behind, and bidding time for the comeback in force.
The West, its politicians, its generals, its intelligence analysts, and its civil society, have been completely bought into that laughably trivial deception.
When was Obama's contain China strategy declared? The only thing the West didn't predict to happen is that with the development of living standard, Chinese people become more supportive of their government. It has shown again only sanction works: make people suffer, then they will overthrown your enemy.
In 50 years it's as likely to be China that can sanction the US into submission as the US can sanction China. IMO much more likely. The US (and everyone that follows their contain evil strategy) is shooting themselves in the foot.
I think many people are seeing the world at where they stand, not taking into consideration of others' position. China and US are at different development stage. The idea of political system is very misleading.
I don't think sanction is right, and I don't think sanction does anything good to countries being sanctioned. And I believe when people's living standard rise, every country will be more democratic and fair.
Is China's political system the reason US is not happy about? I don't think so. It was the same political system 10 years ago, 20 years ago. The reason is that China is stronger now. Unless US has a direct influence on China, it will not tolerate a competitor regardless the political system.
I don't think sanction is right, and I don't think sanction does anything good to countries being sanctioned. And I believe when people's living standard rise, every country will be more democratic and fair.
Is China's political system the reason US is not happy about? I don't think so. It was the same political system 10 years ago, 20 years ago. The reason is that China is stronger now. Unless US has a direct influence on China, it will not tolerate a competitor regardless the political system.
>In 50 years it's as likely to be China that can sanction the US into submission as the US can sanction China.
Neither country can cripple the economy of the other through sanctions without broad international support. I suspect that in the decades to come, neither nation will command the level of respect required to garner said international support.
Neither country can cripple the economy of the other through sanctions without broad international support. I suspect that in the decades to come, neither nation will command the level of respect required to garner said international support.
>Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize.
Based on what evidence?
Based on what evidence?
Supposedly, there were even handbooks on how to crush these protests. Look at Belarus, Myanmar and Iran. So far the oppressors are winning.
Hong Kong’s Police Violence Is Stamped ‘Made in U.K.’
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/18/hong-kongs-police-viole...
Bonus:
> the techniques were on full display in British police violence against miners during the 1984-1985 strike
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/18/hong-kongs-police-viole...
Bonus:
> the techniques were on full display in British police violence against miners during the 1984-1985 strike
Are you implying that the current Chinese government should be forgiven for abusing its citizens because the British did something similar 35 years ago?
I don’t mean to offend, but your comment is so short that I can tell what kind of context you are trying to add.
I don’t mean to offend, but your comment is so short that I can tell what kind of context you are trying to add.
I am implying that the current Chinese government simply kept the colonial style police force, probably unchanged for another 50 years.
No, they are criticizing the UK.
Ah, got it. I had thought they were relying on moral relativism to downplay the actions of the Chinese government.
Narh, the Chinese government's actions are unforgivable. As are the actions of others who did the same thing.
It's almost tautological but "nice" oppressors are not going to win. They will be "taken advantage of" The opposition will duly detect the weakness and attack it. That's just the way it is and these regimes know that.
If you're in the oppression business you have to be a bad one.
We all wish there weren't oppressive regimes, but there are.
If you're in the oppression business you have to be a bad one.
We all wish there weren't oppressive regimes, but there are.
[deleted]
[deleted]
i like the French approach. whenever shit does not work they start building a guillotine: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6477953/Yellow-Vest...
It's a very powerful symbol that if things don't work out violence is on the table and people are going to be held accountable. For those who know a little French history, you know that those French people don't fuck around.
It's a very powerful symbol that if things don't work out violence is on the table and people are going to be held accountable. For those who know a little French history, you know that those French people don't fuck around.
The French Revolution was mostly a tale of radical actors taking control of the government and then using it to violently get rid of competitors.
Absolutely nothing to do with "the people" holding "government" accountable.
Absolutely nothing to do with "the people" holding "government" accountable.
[deleted]
But violent protests made it worse. The gov removed the extradition law at first but we gave them the opportunity to do worse to restore order and Im forced to back it because I prefer the national security law and some order than no law and no order which it was starting to look like...
However you re so very right: protests movements in the west are barely responsible for change. What s responsible for change is slow and long discussion among the population, progressive education, love of the debate rather than pursuit of efficiency, and in general the acceptance we re all part of the nation, not just a minority group.
When most chinese will see us as them and we ll see them as us, then it ll get better. Until then, we cant even start a debate: we're trators, they're invaders.
However you re so very right: protests movements in the west are barely responsible for change. What s responsible for change is slow and long discussion among the population, progressive education, love of the debate rather than pursuit of efficiency, and in general the acceptance we re all part of the nation, not just a minority group.
When most chinese will see us as them and we ll see them as us, then it ll get better. Until then, we cant even start a debate: we're trators, they're invaders.
No, the government did not remove the extradition law until September 2019, after proposing it in February 2019.
By then, many Hong Kongers had been protesting, arrested, beaten and worse. The reason we Hong Kongers did not and have not stopped is because there has been no justice for them.
That's the principle behind 5 demands, not 1 less.
By then, many Hong Kongers had been protesting, arrested, beaten and worse. The reason we Hong Kongers did not and have not stopped is because there has been no justice for them.
That's the principle behind 5 demands, not 1 less.
All forms of government no matter how big or small are fcorrupt. That’s how it works—they/them who bends the will of the masses wins. Either that’s done by manipulating folks into believing the next candidate will “take their pain away”, or by inflicting pain for non-compliance. Or they change the rules: voter suppression, censorship, etc and pretend they “won the election.” Or they just murder the opposition and blame it on Santa Claus.
It's plainly fallacious to say there is no difference in corruption, conduct, and outcomes of different governments and different forms of government. To say 'all governments are corrupt' is the same as saying 'all people are violent'; but some are murderers, some got in shoving matches with their siblings when they were 12, and there is the entire range in between.
Well it’s hard to say at the scope of world powers. Maybe small, local governments there’s less. But let’s be honest here, and consider the atrocities of yesteryear. They span the gamut, and they span democracy through authoritarian regimes. The only difference is how it’s conveyed/portrayed to citizens, and how quickly /easily it is for any single party to gain control of a nation.
I agree that some systems are better than others, and there is still hope for better ones to come. But let’s not kid ourselves into believing China has done anything terrible that the USA has not already done in spades.
I agree that some systems are better than others, and there is still hope for better ones to come. But let’s not kid ourselves into believing China has done anything terrible that the USA has not already done in spades.
These 'it's all the same' arguments are obviously false, beyond the meaningless truism that 'nobody's perfect!'.
> it’s hard to say at the scope of world powers
No it's not, at all. Some governments and forms of government are far more corrupt than others. Nobody compares Sweden or the US with Russia or Nigeria.
> They span the gamut, and they span democracy through authoritarian regimes. The only difference is how it’s conveyed/portrayed to citizens ... let’s not kid ourselves into believing China has done anything terrible that the USA has not already done in spades.
Nobody's kidding anyone; unless you look back centuries, China does things - such as in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Tienanmen Square - that the USA never does. There's no comparison. The USA is not about to round up the populace of a region and put them in torture and reducation camps.
> it’s hard to say at the scope of world powers
No it's not, at all. Some governments and forms of government are far more corrupt than others. Nobody compares Sweden or the US with Russia or Nigeria.
> They span the gamut, and they span democracy through authoritarian regimes. The only difference is how it’s conveyed/portrayed to citizens ... let’s not kid ourselves into believing China has done anything terrible that the USA has not already done in spades.
Nobody's kidding anyone; unless you look back centuries, China does things - such as in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, Tienanmen Square - that the USA never does. There's no comparison. The USA is not about to round up the populace of a region and put them in torture and reducation camps.
Empty words and token sanctions are not going to stop the CCP's blatant takeover of HK and trashing of the '1 country 2 systems' agreement.
Real action - offer US citizenship to Hong Kong era that want it. Then go recognize the Republic of Taiwan as an independent country.
Unfortunately the CCP is probably right in their assumption that our politicians are to greedy and spineless to make anything beyond a soundbite gesture. They'll keep expanding their borders, putting minorities in concentration camps, forced organ harvesting and researching interesting new viruses.
We're all complicit, sickening really.
Real action - offer US citizenship to Hong Kong era that want it. Then go recognize the Republic of Taiwan as an independent country.
Unfortunately the CCP is probably right in their assumption that our politicians are to greedy and spineless to make anything beyond a soundbite gesture. They'll keep expanding their borders, putting minorities in concentration camps, forced organ harvesting and researching interesting new viruses.
We're all complicit, sickening really.
>offer US citizenship to Hong Kong era that want it.
Can someone fill me in on how this would causally improve the prospects for Hong Kong's freedom?
Can someone fill me in on how this would causally improve the prospects for Hong Kong's freedom?
>> offer US citizenship to Hong Kong era that want it.
> Can someone fill me in on how this would causally improve the prospects for Hong Kong's freedom?
It would improve the prospects for individual Hongkongers' freedom, but it would certainly doom it in Hong Kong itself, and speed its assimilation into mainland China.
Asylum policies seem like a tough call sometimes: you help individuals at the cost tightening the grip of those who oppressed them. Who knows, maybe the PRC could end up democratic in 50 years if enough pro-democracy Hongkongers manage to worm themselves into the PRC political system and find themselves in a position to exploit some future opportunity.
> Can someone fill me in on how this would causally improve the prospects for Hong Kong's freedom?
It would improve the prospects for individual Hongkongers' freedom, but it would certainly doom it in Hong Kong itself, and speed its assimilation into mainland China.
Asylum policies seem like a tough call sometimes: you help individuals at the cost tightening the grip of those who oppressed them. Who knows, maybe the PRC could end up democratic in 50 years if enough pro-democracy Hongkongers manage to worm themselves into the PRC political system and find themselves in a position to exploit some future opportunity.
The local government in Taiwan still claims all of China as its territory, why would they want to be an independent country with only one island?
First off disputed borders are a very common occurrence in geo politics. It rarely prevents country C from recognizing both country A and country B. Outside of the Taiwan case I can't think of a situation where a border claim dispute effectively locked a country out of nearly all international forums (or crippled it to the point of having no significant voice). The situation is very unique to say the least, but let's be frank it is dysfunctional.
Secondly reunification by any method along any short or long time frame has only a small amount of public support in Taiwan. (Recent polling: https://jamestown.org/program/taiwanese-public-opinion-on-ch...). It has been on a downward trend for quite awhile. Anyone suggesting Taiwan is going to make a forceful play to establish Taiwanese control over mainland china is beyond delusional. Very sadly the likelihood of the inverse happening grows higher day by day (both in CCP leaders talking points and military displays).
Tldr I chose the words Republic of Taiwan very deliberately. :).
Secondly reunification by any method along any short or long time frame has only a small amount of public support in Taiwan. (Recent polling: https://jamestown.org/program/taiwanese-public-opinion-on-ch...). It has been on a downward trend for quite awhile. Anyone suggesting Taiwan is going to make a forceful play to establish Taiwanese control over mainland china is beyond delusional. Very sadly the likelihood of the inverse happening grows higher day by day (both in CCP leaders talking points and military displays).
Tldr I chose the words Republic of Taiwan very deliberately. :).
The trouble seems to be that Taiwan is a government in exile, having lost to the CCP. Recognizing a government in exile is very different from recognizing the independence of state. If they do maintain claims to the rest of Chinese territory they would have to renounce those before being recognized.
> If they do maintain claims to the rest of Chinese territory they would have to renounce those before being recognized.
Which is a PRC red line, oddly enough. Taiwan renouncing its claims would be interpreted as rejecting the one China policy.
Which is a PRC red line, oddly enough. Taiwan renouncing its claims would be interpreted as rejecting the one China policy.
The PRC also claims the entirety of China, including the island of Taiwan. It’s not at all surprising that two sides of a civil war would claim the same territory. The one thing both the PRC and the KMT agree on is the definition of China.
The idea of Taiwan as separate from China is fairly recent and not widespread within Taiwan, at least so far.
The idea of Taiwan as separate from China is fairly recent and not widespread within Taiwan, at least so far.
> The one thing both the PRC and the KMT agree on is the definition of China
Nit: Republic of China (Taiwan) actually claims more territory than PRC, including the whole country of Mongolia, and some other territories gifted away to the Soviet Union, among others
Nit: Republic of China (Taiwan) actually claims more territory than PRC, including the whole country of Mongolia, and some other territories gifted away to the Soviet Union, among others
In this article, I was surprised to read that anyone thought "freedom of the press" still existed in HK at all.
Once they took the boss of Apple Daily it was pretty clear. HK is governed by one system.
Once they took the boss of Apple Daily it was pretty clear. HK is governed by one system.
It is, but what ramp up here is that they arrested people for having published opinion in the opinion section of newspapers hence why newspaper are removing their archive.
dirtyid(2)
The most interesting idea I heard about the hand-over of HK is that UK should have offered a UK permanent resident (or even a citizen) status to all HK residents, once China started the pressure.
Of course, HK's population is 11% of UK, not a small deal, likely such a bill won't pass anyway. But I also see it as a missed opportunity to bring in some world-class human capital.
Of course, HK's population is 11% of UK, not a small deal, likely such a bill won't pass anyway. But I also see it as a missed opportunity to bring in some world-class human capital.
BNO citizens (i.e most HK people born before the handover) can get a UK visa [1] with a direct route to citizenship.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/british-national-overseas-bno-visa
[1] https://www.gov.uk/british-national-overseas-bno-visa
They can now. At the time this was not offered because the CCP was so against it.
In order to get the 1 country 2 systems deal the UK had to shelve the idea at the time. It was a massive gamble but it was probably worth trying for a peaceful hand over.
Since the CCP have broken their side of the agreement there's no longer a reason not to offer BNO citizens a route to UK citizenship now.
In order to get the 1 country 2 systems deal the UK had to shelve the idea at the time. It was a massive gamble but it was probably worth trying for a peaceful hand over.
Since the CCP have broken their side of the agreement there's no longer a reason not to offer BNO citizens a route to UK citizenship now.
They have. At least for the HK residents which predate the '97 handover and therefore have British Overseas National status. This is about 1/3 of the HK population which is now allowed to settle and work in the UK on a track towards permanent residency. If they can get the permission to leave, that is.
It is notable that very few seem to have taken this path.
Yet many seem to be protesting, despite it really looking like they have hardly any chance of their protests getting anything they want.
There must be more to the story that I'm not seeing...
Yet many seem to be protesting, despite it really looking like they have hardly any chance of their protests getting anything they want.
There must be more to the story that I'm not seeing...
About as many as can are decamping for less oppressive climes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/27/uk-receives-34...
The professional class in Hong Kong is steadily dwindling with families going where they can or methodically planning to. Canada is most desired, then the UK, and Australia.
It takes time to find employment, a place to live, and schooling for your kids.
But the biggest factor is Covid. Politics aside, Hong Kong has been a great place to ride out the pandemic while the UK handled it abysmally. After the Delta variant and Covid as a whole subsides expect emigration to pick up.
Curiously the job market in Hong Kong is booming and I've seen an uptick in western expats arriving, so there's an appeal if you stay apolitical. Which is easy enough when it's not your home getting wiped out.
The professional class in Hong Kong is steadily dwindling with families going where they can or methodically planning to. Canada is most desired, then the UK, and Australia.
It takes time to find employment, a place to live, and schooling for your kids.
But the biggest factor is Covid. Politics aside, Hong Kong has been a great place to ride out the pandemic while the UK handled it abysmally. After the Delta variant and Covid as a whole subsides expect emigration to pick up.
Curiously the job market in Hong Kong is booming and I've seen an uptick in western expats arriving, so there's an appeal if you stay apolitical. Which is easy enough when it's not your home getting wiped out.
It doesn’t seem to me that there’s no reason for standing up for own freedom if the alternative is moving halfway across the world and abandoning beloved home for a country where, frankly, climate is worse, the chance of getting mugged is real, and where one would belong to a minority.
Hong Kong culture is in no small part traditional Chinese culture, which existed in that area for many years. The other part is the British cultural influence. Unfortunately, HK’s “parent entity” prior to British rule technically no longer exists; there is now a new communist country to the north. Becoming absorbed by it entails giving up valuable parts of HK’s unique culture (which includes freedom of speech); assimilating in the UK would mean giving up other parts of it. It is only natural to want neither of these outcomes.
Hong Kong culture is in no small part traditional Chinese culture, which existed in that area for many years. The other part is the British cultural influence. Unfortunately, HK’s “parent entity” prior to British rule technically no longer exists; there is now a new communist country to the north. Becoming absorbed by it entails giving up valuable parts of HK’s unique culture (which includes freedom of speech); assimilating in the UK would mean giving up other parts of it. It is only natural to want neither of these outcomes.
I wouldn't say it's "very few", all flights from HKG to LHR are fully booked despite the ongoing pandemic.
“ If they can get the permission to leave, that is.”
Also there’s the no-small-matter of how they get to the UK in the middle of a pandemic with restricted flights and transit visas.
Also there’s the no-small-matter of how they get to the UK in the middle of a pandemic with restricted flights and transit visas.
I like the idea floated by an acquaintance of mine, which sounds more or less like “the British could just give us some island they don’t need, and we’d build another city there”.
HK is wealthy because of where it is. Good luck trying to replicate that in the Falklands or on some rock in the Caribbeans.
Historically that might have been the case, today HK is rich because of its (financial) regulations that was mainly inherited from the british. HK is still one of the incorporation centers of the the world (akin to Delaware in US) as well as a major financial hub.
This is because it's the main route for money going in and out of China. Pretty much all of the commercial activity in Hong Kong is either trading/investing activities with China or facilitating trade/investment in China
Clearly, once HK loses the remnants of its autonomy and becomes literally a part of China rather than some external middle ground, it would no longer reap these benefits of its geography.
Geographical influences do exist, but the exceptions are quite significant.
Britain was once considered a backward periphery of Europe. Japan is so geographically peripheral that it could successfully close itself off the rest of the world for 250 years.
On the other hand, there is no Yemeni/Somali equivalent of Singapore even though a lot of the world traffic must pass around them. Gibraltar is rich, but Spanish Andalusia all around it has pretty stagnant economy oriented on tourism. Panama kinda works, but nowhere near as well as, say, California or Florida.
Britain was once considered a backward periphery of Europe. Japan is so geographically peripheral that it could successfully close itself off the rest of the world for 250 years.
On the other hand, there is no Yemeni/Somali equivalent of Singapore even though a lot of the world traffic must pass around them. Gibraltar is rich, but Spanish Andalusia all around it has pretty stagnant economy oriented on tourism. Panama kinda works, but nowhere near as well as, say, California or Florida.
There are obviously legal and cultural variables allowing for the geography to be leveraged, as @iheartlife fairly pointed out.
But you still need something to leverage. Distance from population centers matters, trading routes matter, topography matters immensely as well.
Britain rose in conjunction with Trans-Atlantic trade. And so did Japan with Trans-Pacific trade and the development of the American West coast.
HK is an I/O hub for one of the largest economies in the world, it doesn't get much better.
An hypothetical Neo-HK somewhere would have to forcefully re-route the world's economy to have a chance at getting the same standing.
But you still need something to leverage. Distance from population centers matters, trading routes matter, topography matters immensely as well.
Britain rose in conjunction with Trans-Atlantic trade. And so did Japan with Trans-Pacific trade and the development of the American West coast.
HK is an I/O hub for one of the largest economies in the world, it doesn't get much better.
An hypothetical Neo-HK somewhere would have to forcefully re-route the world's economy to have a chance at getting the same standing.
Previously significant, geographical constraints matter less in today’s globally connected world. Arguably, becoming more important in relative terms are mindset, creative and strategic thinking, willingness to work both smart and hard—and those would be in abundance.
Admittedly, Hong Kong benefitted a lot from being the convenient middle ground where major deals between entities in mainland China and other countries could happen. However, it can also be argued that meeting in person to shake hands might not remain a given going forward.
Admittedly, Hong Kong benefitted a lot from being the convenient middle ground where major deals between entities in mainland China and other countries could happen. However, it can also be argued that meeting in person to shake hands might not remain a given going forward.
> the British could just give us some island they don’t need
What about the people who are already living on that island, what if they dont want foreigners?
What about the people who are already living on that island, what if they dont want foreigners?
It wouldn't be the first time a local population were forcibly evicted from a British colonial possession and a bunch of foreign nationals moved in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
There exist uninhabited islands, but climate is harsh.
This isn’t exactly a realistic proposal for many other reasons as well, but it’s interesting to contemplate.
[deleted]
"Who control the past controls the future". Same is happening in Belarus at that moment. Most popular portal "TUT.BY" is removing everything from their Telegram channel.
But the rate of increasing connectivity between a population has never been greater.
I wouldn't bet against the trend toward net-freedom.
I wouldn't bet against the trend toward net-freedom.
If you are in HK and you're able, I'd recommend leaving and bring as much family with you as you can. It's not going to get better there, at this point.
Does it seem weird to anyone else that a foreigner would say this? Surely someone else living there would understand their own situation better.
Looking at memoirs of Central European Jews in the late 1930s, lots of them were unwilling to admit that it won't end with "Jewish only" post office hours. Things like real property weigh you down and lead you to wishful thinking.
We all generally underestimate risks of many types of behavior. For example, sedentary behavior is pretty bad for your health, but how many smart commenters on HN find a reason not to exercise?
We all generally underestimate risks of many types of behavior. For example, sedentary behavior is pretty bad for your health, but how many smart commenters on HN find a reason not to exercise?
Yeah I mean they're not wrong but I cannot picture who this is aimed at. Every resident of Hong Kong will already be acutely aware of the situation and will likely be weighing up the options at their disposal.
> Does it seem weird to anyone else that a foreigner would say this? Surely someone else living there would understand their own situation better.
Yeah, it should be phrased as a welcome (e.g. come here, we want to take you), not a warning (flee now).
Yeah, it should be phrased as a welcome (e.g. come here, we want to take you), not a warning (flee now).
I'd like to welcome the people of HK into my own country but it seems presumptuous to speak for an entire country myself.
At least the UK government has made public overtures indicating a path to citizenship for HK people.
At least the UK government has made public overtures indicating a path to citizenship for HK people.
Vancouver, for one, is bracing itself for the post-protest/covid influx of hong kongers.
I love seeing a lotta freedom fighting hong kong folks in vancouver.
I love seeing a lotta freedom fighting hong kong folks in vancouver.
HongKonger here. We all know they are bullshitting but we just can't do anything.
They got guns, the law or even backed by the court (yeah new judges post 1997 were appointed by the Chief Executive).
People who did tried to resist are arrested, beaten or maybe even killed (of course no one is dead according to the official records).
There is an epic tv show to be made about underground freedom fighters in HK and what they do to subvert the gestapo. Just like there is a genre now of how different groups tried to subvert the nazis, it’s pretty clear that China is the modern-day fascist state, where disagreeing with the official party line risks your career and possibly your freedom. The only permitted disagreement is whisper-networks, and the moment any speech rises above low-level chatter it’s subdued with the iron fist. Interesting times. Hard to believe in 2021 over a billion people live like this, so sad.
Disney won’t even make gay characters in their animated films, so they can make lots of China dollars. So good luck finding funding for your TV show to deeply hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.
Apple TV+ is claimed to have a policy to never do two things: hardcore nudity, and China.
Report[0] by CBS gives hope that the industry is waking up. HBO announced a series about COVID in which they claim to not go soft on anyone, including the Chinese government.
However, even presuming there is a channel that would be willing to air or stream the show, a series about HK freedom fight would be very hard to shoot in a realistic fashion. If it is to be released while the fight is ongoing, exposing actual people or even techniques that CCP doesn’t know about could very tangibly cost lives. Tangentially, such a show would give more ammunition for CCP’s propaganda that it’s the interference of the West that is causing the unrest (as opposed to Hongkongers themselves wanting freedom). The only way to shoot on location while the events are unfolding is if there’s solid trust between the participants and the crew that release will not happen in a way that would put individual fighters or the movement in even more of a jeopardy than there’s already. A mere contract is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee, given who they’re dealing with.
There is a film about HK protests (banned in China, of course), but it mostly concerned itself with what was happening visibly on the streets.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgeRQkE3ED0
Report[0] by CBS gives hope that the industry is waking up. HBO announced a series about COVID in which they claim to not go soft on anyone, including the Chinese government.
However, even presuming there is a channel that would be willing to air or stream the show, a series about HK freedom fight would be very hard to shoot in a realistic fashion. If it is to be released while the fight is ongoing, exposing actual people or even techniques that CCP doesn’t know about could very tangibly cost lives. Tangentially, such a show would give more ammunition for CCP’s propaganda that it’s the interference of the West that is causing the unrest (as opposed to Hongkongers themselves wanting freedom). The only way to shoot on location while the events are unfolding is if there’s solid trust between the participants and the crew that release will not happen in a way that would put individual fighters or the movement in even more of a jeopardy than there’s already. A mere contract is unlikely to be enough of a guarantee, given who they’re dealing with.
There is a film about HK protests (banned in China, of course), but it mostly concerned itself with what was happening visibly on the streets.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgeRQkE3ED0
>So good luck finding funding for your TV show to deeply hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.
'to deeply hurt the feelings of Chinese people'... why would you say that?
And why would you jump into assuming malice?
This is what I see 10 year olds do when cranky.
'to deeply hurt the feelings of Chinese people'... why would you say that?
And why would you jump into assuming malice?
This is what I see 10 year olds do when cranky.
Disney+ also got rid of Love Victor. now on Hulu we get at least some semblance of normative sexuality of queer people.
though your comment sounds more like a threat, maybe just the standard CCP tinged thread though lol
though your comment sounds more like a threat, maybe just the standard CCP tinged thread though lol
I'm thinking in terms of 50+ years. The optimist in me thinks freedom-oriented people will win - eventually. But historically speaking the US is an anomaly, and the older I get the more impressed I am that people in the 1700's wrote the US constitution, considering every few decades serious threats to its core ideals erupt but are ultimately quashed.
What's even more crazy is 2 years ago saying the comment I did about China would have made me worried about my tech career in America. But now, people who previously supported and defended China need to back-pedal lest they are called out for supporting human rights abuses in the name of profit. It reinforces my belief that you should have principles that you stick with in all situations.
What's even more crazy is 2 years ago saying the comment I did about China would have made me worried about my tech career in America. But now, people who previously supported and defended China need to back-pedal lest they are called out for supporting human rights abuses in the name of profit. It reinforces my belief that you should have principles that you stick with in all situations.
I'm wondering why this was downvoted.
It certainly is a nightmare to think a billion people live under such a government.
It certainly is a nightmare to think a billion people live under such a government.
The CCP isn't going to stop with Hong Kong. The US needs to get its act together, stop flagellating itself about race, and present a viable opposition before it's too late.
The CCP does not represent Chinese people and its sickening that they are so hell bent on controlling all of them.
You can swap out CCP/China in your comment with pretty much any government/country though.
For all its flaws, the US government does not try to control US citizens to the degree that the CCP tries to control Chinese citizens.
According to Chairman Xi speech, Taiwan is next target.
The best way to put pressure on the Chinese Communist Party and help pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong (and the reduce Uygher genocide) is to avoid buying Made in China goods where possible.
This means buying Western, Korean and Japanese brands that aren't manufactured in China. Eg, a Samsung phone over Apple (made in Vietnam than Made in China), a Western Digital hard drive (made in Thailand) etc.
There are an increasing number alternatives to Made in China, across all product lines as manufacturing moves to Vietnam (and the rest of South East Asia), India, Bangladesh etc as wages in China rise.
This means buying Western, Korean and Japanese brands that aren't manufactured in China. Eg, a Samsung phone over Apple (made in Vietnam than Made in China), a Western Digital hard drive (made in Thailand) etc.
There are an increasing number alternatives to Made in China, across all product lines as manufacturing moves to Vietnam (and the rest of South East Asia), India, Bangladesh etc as wages in China rise.
I don't know why the parent is getting voted down, not buying PRC is good advice. Cheap slave labor is the main factor that allowed PRC to grow into a superpower. Ironically, they developed using Taiwan as their model (with the Taiwanese corporate helping -- Foxconn).
Since the tariffs a lot of goods that used to be made in PRC are now (at least assembled) made in Vietnam. I personally regularly pay more just to avoid PRC goods. And PRC goods only seem like a bargain at first glance. I only buy PRC when there does not appear to be an alternative, but it still feels shameful and dirty.
I only wish that the government keeps raising the tariffs on PRC higher and higher. It is truly a shame it was not done immediately post Tienanmen Square massacre.
Since the tariffs a lot of goods that used to be made in PRC are now (at least assembled) made in Vietnam. I personally regularly pay more just to avoid PRC goods. And PRC goods only seem like a bargain at first glance. I only buy PRC when there does not appear to be an alternative, but it still feels shameful and dirty.
I only wish that the government keeps raising the tariffs on PRC higher and higher. It is truly a shame it was not done immediately post Tienanmen Square massacre.
> Cheap slave labor is the main factor that allowed PRC to grow into a superpower.
Developed countries used the same model as well.
Developed countries used the same model as well.
I don't buy the argument that economic sanctions/boycotts lead to overthrown governments, but I'll assume it does.
The result of that strategy would be crippling poverty for hundreds of millions of people, with results likely to last for decades.
The result of that strategy would be crippling poverty for hundreds of millions of people, with results likely to last for decades.
This policy would simply shift the economic gains of China to India and Africa.
Hundreds of millions of people living under more palatable governments are currently being denied the chance to lift themselves out of poverty because the default choice for investment is China.
Hundreds of millions of people living under more palatable governments are currently being denied the chance to lift themselves out of poverty because the default choice for investment is China.
On the other hand opening up economically to China didn't bring the Democracy we envisioned either.
Nobody really envisioned it would, people just wanted an excuse to interact with China so soon after the second red scare.
It's almost like we can't force them to do things our way.
the idea of democracy thru trade isn't to force CCP to do anything in anyway.
its to have free flow of information that CCP might block which they did with firewall.
its to have free flow of information that CCP might block which they did with firewall.
Or prevent them from forcing other people to do it their way.
I agree, just look at North Korea.
Economic sanctions and boycotts lead to overthrow of governments all the time, that's how USSR collapsed.
And when hundreds of millions of people are living in what is effectively just a very large concentration camp that can harvest anybody's organs at anytime then that's the worst kind of "crippling poverty" there is.
And when hundreds of millions of people are living in what is effectively just a very large concentration camp that can harvest anybody's organs at anytime then that's the worst kind of "crippling poverty" there is.
someperson(2)
> The best way to put pressure on the Chinese Communist Party and help pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong (and the reduce Uygher genocide) is to avoid buying Made in China goods where possible.
Decoupling could be helpful on several fronts, but it's not going to happen via individualist boycotts. Those are useless, and just too many things are made in China without realistic alternatives. If it's going to happen, it'll be through increasing tariffs (preferably slowly over time) and other government policy.
Decoupling could be helpful on several fronts, but it's not going to happen via individualist boycotts. Those are useless, and just too many things are made in China without realistic alternatives. If it's going to happen, it'll be through increasing tariffs (preferably slowly over time) and other government policy.
Yes, individual boycotts are not the only way.
Government policy is certainly required too. Both punitive (increasing tariffs), requiring made outside China sourcing, and also investing in supply chains outside of China.
Also there actually aren't that many things made in China that don't have some kind of alternative. Production is moving out of China across all sectors, not because of politics but due to increasing wages.
Government policy is certainly required too. Both punitive (increasing tariffs), requiring made outside China sourcing, and also investing in supply chains outside of China.
Also there actually aren't that many things made in China that don't have some kind of alternative. Production is moving out of China across all sectors, not because of politics but due to increasing wages.
Sanctions don’t work on hardline autocratic governments. If anything, they just double down on their oppression and use the sanctions as an excuse and something to blame all problems on.
Individual boycotts go together with individual voting for better politicians who will build better policies regarding PRC.
northwest65(4)
Trump tried to raise 25% tariffs on all Chinese goods, and that is about the most effective way to implement the boycott with scale that can't be matched.
And it didn't work really. China's export to US and the world is at all-time high, and guess who is paying for those tariffs?
And it didn't work really. China's export to US and the world is at all-time high, and guess who is paying for those tariffs?
> And it didn't work really. China's export to US and the world is at all-time high, and guess who is paying for those tariffs?
Trump had the kernel of the right idea, but the actual goal in his mind was stupid (get a better "deal") and his execution sloppy and haphazard.
A better implementation would be to ratchet up tariffs slowly, and send the certain message: "policy has changed, go all in towards adjusting your supply chains now or be fucked."
Trump had the kernel of the right idea, but the actual goal in his mind was stupid (get a better "deal") and his execution sloppy and haphazard.
A better implementation would be to ratchet up tariffs slowly, and send the certain message: "policy has changed, go all in towards adjusting your supply chains now or be fucked."
And now the tariffs tool is gone for good.
There is little room to raise the tariff again without hurting US itself.
There is little room to raise the tariff again without hurting US itself.
> And now the tariffs tool is gone for good.
> There is little room to raise the tariff again without hurting US itself.
How so?
> There is little room to raise the tariff again without hurting US itself.
How so?
> A better
For what goal?
For what goal?
Taiwan is next, in 10 years.
The government of Taiwan does not report into the Chinese Central Government like in Hong Kong. It's controlled by an independent government on disputed land.
What matters is CCP wants it. The disputed land status will be used as a pretense. The US won't dare to start a war and will write off the loss. Other countries won't even dare to comment on the situation.
"The US won't dare to start a war and will write off the loss."
This kind of thinking gave us the First World War.
If the US stops protecting Taiwan and allows China to take it by force, it can kiss their credibility worldwide goodbye, dismantling its entire network of allies built over decades in one fell swoop.
Not impossible, but world empires do not generally do such things unless they are very, very weakened.
This kind of thinking gave us the First World War.
If the US stops protecting Taiwan and allows China to take it by force, it can kiss their credibility worldwide goodbye, dismantling its entire network of allies built over decades in one fell swoop.
Not impossible, but world empires do not generally do such things unless they are very, very weakened.
> The US won't dare to start a war and will write off the loss.
Isnt Taiwan too valuable right now for the US specially TSMC. US will need to step in to protect Taiwan to protect US interests.
Isnt Taiwan too valuable right now for the US specially TSMC. US will need to step in to protect Taiwan to protect US interests.
The US can't do much about this today and in ten years it will be too busy with internal squabbles about which admiral is more politically correct. CCP has personal reasons to axe Taiwan. When the CCP fought the original "feudal" government, leaders of the latter fled to Taiwan. The island reminds CCP about its past. The capitalist nature of Taiwan is another reason: it's undermining the CCP ideology. TSMC is a distant third economic reason.
The US starts wars all the time. The CCP would have made a grave error in judgement if it thought this would be any different. If the US walked away from Taiwan that puts South Korea, Japan and other allies in SE Asia at risk. Not going to happen.
The US rarely starts wars with anyone who can hurt it. Even a conventional war with China would be extremely different than anything the US has seen since WW2 and in some ways this would be worse. Do you think the modern US has the stomach for multiple sunken aircraft carriers, WW2 or Korean war style casualties, etc. all the while with the US home front without products it cannot live without? It would completely destroy the US as we know it, with a ruined economy and a many decades setback. Not much of a victory compared to the loss of Taiwan.
You say this like China wouldn’t suffer. Their economy will come to a screeching halt when they have no one to export their goods to. The CCP would lose whatever faith their citizens have left in them.
That is you reading something in it I didn't write. The point is that a won war will utterly destroy the winner too. Sure, the looser wil loose. That isn't surprising and I didn't think it needed saying.
They said the same thing about HK: "If the US walked away from HK that puts Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and other allies in SE Asia at risk. Not going to happen"
Look at where we are now :|
Look at where we are now :|
That's a bit different. While China did for all intents and purposes violate the agreement it had signed in the 90s nobody would question the legitimacy of the handover itself. Hong Kong of course doesn't have the American military machine deployed within its borders either. Having driven by some of those bases I'm kind of in awe - and that's just the stuff on public roads.
It doesn't really matter in the big picture. How would the US look in a month or six if we by war stopped all products from China today? The US would become unrecognisable. The economy would be so destroyed it would hardly be a victory no matter what casualties says on the two sides. Even if we nuked some of our own cities we would be better off than after winning a conventional war against China. No, a war against China is unwinnable if the US of today needs to be there post-war.
How would china look with no money coming in for six months? China is incapable of standing on their own. Propped up by IT theft and copycat companies funded by the CCP. Dry up the money and it’ll be the USSR pt 2 in China.
What is your point? That if the US wins a war with China then China looses by loosing? What is surprising in that?
The point is that a war won by the US will destroy the winner too. Did you just downvote and comment without even reading the post or what?
The point is that a war won by the US will destroy the winner too. Did you just downvote and comment without even reading the post or what?
elisbce(1)
Taiwan was like this 40 years ago.
Taiwan is not easy to invade.
Neither was Ukraine.
Taiwan is an island, Ukraine shares a flat plateau border with Russia and has a large separatist population. Taiwan is also uniquely important to the west in a way that Ukraine wasn't. Taiwan is a LOT harder to invade than Ukraine. Not comparable at all.
Huh? What feature of the steppe Ukraine lays on makes it difficult to invade?
It's hard to walk on. You have to watch your... steppe.
Right, I'll show myself out...
Right, I'll show myself out...
the grass ;)
I think HK is a perfect case study of a line of fallacious thinking popular among westerners: the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective.
This is wrong for at least two reasons. The first mistake is failing to recognize that many governments (case in point) are not nearly as vulnerable to bad PR, so generating a bunch of sympathetic imagery (photos of student protestors getting gassed or whatever) might not actually be useful in swaying political outcomes.
The second mistake is assuming that most (putatively) peaceful protests in the western world are actually the impetus for political change, and not just part of a legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started.