4 ms·

It's outrage-porn peddled as world news by the BCC, plain and simple. The tell-tale sign is that they didn’t bother to get both sides of the story. There are vi

It's outrage-porn peddled as world news by the BCC, plain and simple. The tell-tale sign is that they didn’t bother to get both sides of the story. There are videos of the incident readily available on Youtube [1] which show what exactly happened. There’s one group of HK/Australian pro-Hong Kong protestors on one side. There’s another group of Mainland students exercising their right to free speech by playing and singing the Chinese national anthem on the other. Was this extremely annoying to the pro-HK protestors? Definitely. Was it offensive to the Australians? Yes. Were the pro-China crowd offended by the signs saying “free Hong Kong”? Yup. You can see the ensuing minor scuffle ("violent clashes" according to the BBC) between between a tiny handful of students from both sides. I saw exactly one sign being torn down. The vast majority of the students were just standing there peacefully. The BBC article makes it seem as though the Chinese students strong-armed their way into the crowd and started beating people, which is objectively not the case. This is the narrative of the two pro-HK students who they interviewed. If there is evidence of threats and intimidation, then that evidence should be brought forth and those students should be formally reprimanded at the very least, or expelled/criminally charged/deported at worst if the complaints are proven to be valid. It’s easy to see why they’d write a story like this though when you see the emotional response elicited even from people here -one can only imagine the effect it'd have on the less educated masses. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CkH3zqoGWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CkH3zqoGWw edit: Another longer video of the "violent clashes" or "Lennon wall violence in University of Queensland" as described by the Youtube uploader (warning: extremely long and boring video where nothing happens) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiRmRPsJ-sM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiRmRPsJ-sM

LiquidSky 7y ago
>The tell-tale sign is that they didn’t bother to get both sides of the story. Why? Not every story has two sides. Here one group used violence on another that didn't. Unless you have evidence that the pro-HK protesters actually used violence first, that's the only side to the story. The mainland faction being riled up doesn't excuse violence. Just because it's not a massive riot where the streets run red with blood doesn't mean it's not a worrying instance. >The BBC article makes it seem as though the Chinese students strong-armed their way into the crowd and started beating people, which is objectively not the case. On the contrary, it objectively is the case, as the first video you yourself linked to shows: it opens with a pro-mainland student in black rushing into the pro-HK crowd and assaulting someone with a crowd screaming and advancing behind him. It's very strange that you're working so hard to downplay what happened. Not just downplaying, willfully distorting what the videos show.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  > On the contrary, it objectively is the case, as the first video you yourself linked to shows: it opens with a pro-mainland student in black rushing into the pro-HK crowd and assaulting someone with a crowd screaming and advancing behind him. Quick questions: 1. How do you know that guy is pro-mainland? I certainly don't have enough information to make a concrete determination such as that, i'd be curious to know how you did. It looks like he came from the pro-HK side of the mob as they are the ones holding the signs and the guy in the black sweater and glasses from that side is screaming "free hong kong", but I could be wrong. 2. Who hit who first? It looks like a mutual engagement to me. Your confirmation bias is really shining through here.
- echaozh 7y ago
  If not every story has two sides, why do you need to bring every case to the court? Just execute the offenders on the wrong side of the story and get it done with, why the effort?

LiquidSky 7y ago

>The tell-tale sign is that they didn’t bother to get both sides of the story. Why? Not every story has two sides. Here one group used violence on another that didn't. Unless you have evidence that the pro-HK protesters actually used violence first, that's the only side to the story. The mainland faction being riled up doesn't excuse violence. Just because it's not a massive riot where the streets run red with blood doesn't mean it's not a worrying instance. >The BBC article makes it seem as though the Chinese students strong-armed their way into the crowd and started beating people, which is objectively not the case. On the contrary, it objectively is the case, as the first video you yourself linked to shows: it opens with a pro-mainland student in black rushing into the pro-HK crowd and assaulting someone with a crowd screaming and advancing behind him. It's very strange that you're working so hard to downplay what happened. Not just downplaying, willfully distorting what the videos show.

tepidandroid 7y ago
> On the contrary, it objectively is the case, as the first video you yourself linked to shows: it opens with a pro-mainland student in black rushing into the pro-HK crowd and assaulting someone with a crowd screaming and advancing behind him. Quick questions: 1. How do you know that guy is pro-mainland? I certainly don't have enough information to make a concrete determination such as that, i'd be curious to know how you did. It looks like he came from the pro-HK side of the mob as they are the ones holding the signs and the guy in the black sweater and glasses from that side is screaming "free hong kong", but I could be wrong. 2. Who hit who first? It looks like a mutual engagement to me. Your confirmation bias is really shining through here.
echaozh 7y ago
If not every story has two sides, why do you need to bring every case to the court? Just execute the offenders on the wrong side of the story and get it done with, why the effort?