7 ms·

This is probably not going to be a popular opinion here, but I wonder if any folks have considered what it looks like on the China side? Specifically, you are i

This is probably not going to be a popular opinion here, but I wonder if any folks have considered what it looks like on the China side? Specifically, you are in China, and the HK protestors want what to happen to China? You have HK protesters waving American and British flags. These are the countries that have started wars all over, in the last 70 years since the end of WWII, ostensibly to promote democracy, and everywhere this happens there is chaos and destruction. Add to that, China's cultural history of being invaded and exploited by various foreigners whenever it was weak or divided, and what happened to Russia in the 90s after democracy and neo-liberal capitalism were introduced, and you don't really have a good story here. So, imagine then, you are in China, and the HK protestors sound like they want what for China? The popular notion is that China would become a place friendly to Western ideals if it became successful. But even here, the West – and in particular, the US/UK – doesn't "get" China. Whatever is said here, China will bypass the US/UK, for practical purposes. But in any case, it is not as if they are representative of the West as a whole, nor can they claim to have a better human rights record – or equality record – or a fairer society.

JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
I'm not sure I understand your opinion at all here. The protesters don't want to impact Mainland Chinese citizens lives whatsoever. The demands are pretty clear and not at all an attempt to become the US/UK or fundamentally change Chinese culture. HK already views itself as culturally, economically, and politically separate from China. There is an agreement between HK and Mainland China to allow them to function independently for 50 years and that is not being upheld, or at least that is what is perceived by people in HK. The rest of the stuff you are saying is moot once you recognize those key factors. They don't want anything for China, they want HK to be allowed to do what it's supposed to be allowed to do; govern itself without interference, which was agreed to by both parties.
- umvi 7y ago
  > There is an agreement between HK and Mainland China to allow them to function independently for 50 years and that is not being upheld, or at least that is what is perceived by people in HK. Yeah because if you wait 50 years, HK isn't going to want to be a part of a dictatorship communist regime when they've been democratic for the past hundred years. China needs to ignore the agreement and ratchet down hard now if they hope to keep HK.
  - JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
    Sure, but that's not the agreement both parties entered into. You can't simply go back on an agreement because you decide halfway through you won't like the results at the end (obviously China is testing that theory, so maybe you can). It's simply not in good faith. Obviously the move from China makes logical sense from their perspective, but that means that the protests are equally logical from the HK side.
mikestew 7y ago
Specifically, you are in China, and the HK protestors want what to happen to China? So that everyone can be one the same page, how about you tell us what you think the answer to that question is?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lacker 7y ago
The Hong Kong protestors don't care about what happens to China. They are only protesting about what happens in Hong Kong.
tdb7893 7y ago
Hong Kong's demands really aren't that crazy, what you say China is worried about is somewhat valid but also out of scope of the actual demands they have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Objectives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Object...
sysashi 7y ago
I don't think they want "something" happen to China, if you take a look at any of these protests and hear what they are saying - they just want basic freedom, democracy and not living in fear. Basically what everyone else wants and fights for. sorry..
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dTal 7y ago
There's a lot to unpack here, but the things that stand out are "Hong Kong = China", "protestors = US/UK", and "US/UK = bad". You've certainly succeeded in seeing things from the CCPC's perspective - or at any rate from the perspective encouraged by their propaganda. The trouble is these are all very "truthy": - Hong Kong is meant to be an independent political system, under a treaty that PRC attempted to quietly subvert (and it blew up in their faces) - The protestors are native Hong Kongers outraged by the above, not agent saboteurs of the West no matter what flags they fly - the only "chaos and destruction" wrought by the UK's promotion of democracy in Hong Kong before the Handover has been the PRC's response to it And I don't know how you can claim that China has a better human rights record than the US or the UK. There's ongoing genocide in China right now.
dang1234throw 7y ago
I'm Chinese and can say some words explaining the perspective from where I sit. I don't think memory of historical wrongs lie at the root of Chinese reactions. They may be the reasons most commonly given, but I don't think it's psychologically operative for most Chinese people. (This as following partly from introspective observation as a Chinese, and partly from the general principle against giving much credence to reasons given in explaining one's own actions and attitudes.) I think what lies at the root of Chinese reactions is simply the perception that the all the noble moral condemnations from the West do not feel genuine at all, that they do not feel like they come from the noble place they purport to. There are so many alternative explanations of what really lies behind these moral condemnations (e.g. that they really come from a place of self-interest (the Plaza Accord theories are very popoular here), from bias and hostility, from a malevelant intention to do harm, or simply from the desire to find someone to blame) and --- I hope this is something even an American can agree with --- the West has done very very little, nothing even, by way of ruling out those explanations for China. It simply repeats the moral condemnations. It's hard not to see this as showing either gross arrogance (I don't need to prove anything to you) or that one of those explanations really is true. We can all agree that if someone criticizes us morally we should examine our behavior, so we can do better. However, what if you have reasonable suspicion that ulterior motives lie behind the critic's "criticism", that the critic is doing this only because he stands to profit from it somehow at your expenses, and that the critic doesn't really believe in the noble ideals he purport to believe in? Are you to give in to such a person so that he can get what he wants?
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Freedom of speech is a core moral principle in the United States: it is literally the first right enshrined in our constitution and for good reason. I believe much of the recent moral outrage stems from China (and Chinese companies on their behalf) using the financial threat of lost profits to force American businesses to self-censor in ways that do not uphold this value. Allowing totalitarian censorship of unpleasant truths like Tiananmen Square and organ harvesting of political prisoners gives governments the ability to continue committing similar atrocities in the future. If you look at American political discourse that is critical of the government, a significant portion of it is related to similar government suppression of information that prevents the public holding government officials responsible for the atrocities they commit: see Abu Ghraib, Wikileaks Collateral Murder, Bay of Pigs, Snowden revelations, current Trump whistleblower crackdown, etc. I would strongly encourage you to read Orwell's 1984 if you can access it: it is somewhat superlative and dated, but artfully illustrates the danger to personal freedoms that can result from totalitarian government control of discourse.

JakeTheAndroid 7y ago

I'm not sure I understand your opinion at all here. The protesters don't want to impact Mainland Chinese citizens lives whatsoever. The demands are pretty clear and not at all an attempt to become the US/UK or fundamentally change Chinese culture. HK already views itself as culturally, economically, and politically separate from China. There is an agreement between HK and Mainland China to allow them to function independently for 50 years and that is not being upheld, or at least that is what is perceived by people in HK. The rest of the stuff you are saying is moot once you recognize those key factors. They don't want anything for China, they want HK to be allowed to do what it's supposed to be allowed to do; govern itself without interference, which was agreed to by both parties.

umvi 7y ago
> There is an agreement between HK and Mainland China to allow them to function independently for 50 years and that is not being upheld, or at least that is what is perceived by people in HK. Yeah because if you wait 50 years, HK isn't going to want to be a part of a dictatorship communist regime when they've been democratic for the past hundred years. China needs to ignore the agreement and ratchet down hard now if they hope to keep HK.
- JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
  Sure, but that's not the agreement both parties entered into. You can't simply go back on an agreement because you decide halfway through you won't like the results at the end (obviously China is testing that theory, so maybe you can). It's simply not in good faith. Obviously the move from China makes logical sense from their perspective, but that means that the protests are equally logical from the HK side.

mikestew 7y ago

Specifically, you are in China, and the HK protestors want what to happen to China? So that everyone can be one the same page, how about you tell us what you think the answer to that question is?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lacker 7y ago

The Hong Kong protestors don't care about what happens to China. They are only protesting about what happens in Hong Kong.

tdb7893 7y ago

Hong Kong's demands really aren't that crazy, what you say China is worried about is somewhat valid but also out of scope of the actual demands they have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Objectives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests#Object...

sysashi 7y ago

I don't think they want "something" happen to China, if you take a look at any of these protests and hear what they are saying - they just want basic freedom, democracy and not living in fear. Basically what everyone else wants and fights for. sorry..

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dTal 7y ago

There's a lot to unpack here, but the things that stand out are "Hong Kong = China", "protestors = US/UK", and "US/UK = bad". You've certainly succeeded in seeing things from the CCPC's perspective - or at any rate from the perspective encouraged by their propaganda. The trouble is these are all very "truthy": - Hong Kong is meant to be an independent political system, under a treaty that PRC attempted to quietly subvert (and it blew up in their faces) - The protestors are native Hong Kongers outraged by the above, not agent saboteurs of the West no matter what flags they fly - the only "chaos and destruction" wrought by the UK's promotion of democracy in Hong Kong before the Handover has been the PRC's response to it And I don't know how you can claim that China has a better human rights record than the US or the UK. There's ongoing genocide in China right now.

dang1234throw 7y ago

I'm Chinese and can say some words explaining the perspective from where I sit. I don't think memory of historical wrongs lie at the root of Chinese reactions. They may be the reasons most commonly given, but I don't think it's psychologically operative for most Chinese people. (This as following partly from introspective observation as a Chinese, and partly from the general principle against giving much credence to reasons given in explaining one's own actions and attitudes.) I think what lies at the root of Chinese reactions is simply the perception that the all the noble moral condemnations from the West do not feel genuine at all, that they do not feel like they come from the noble place they purport to. There are so many alternative explanations of what really lies behind these moral condemnations (e.g. that they really come from a place of self-interest (the Plaza Accord theories are very popoular here), from bias and hostility, from a malevelant intention to do harm, or simply from the desire to find someone to blame) and --- I hope this is something even an American can agree with --- the West has done very very little, nothing even, by way of ruling out those explanations for China. It simply repeats the moral condemnations. It's hard not to see this as showing either gross arrogance (I don't need to prove anything to you) or that one of those explanations really is true. We can all agree that if someone criticizes us morally we should examine our behavior, so we can do better. However, what if you have reasonable suspicion that ulterior motives lie behind the critic's "criticism", that the critic is doing this only because he stands to profit from it somehow at your expenses, and that the critic doesn't really believe in the noble ideals he purport to believe in? Are you to give in to such a person so that he can get what he wants?

cwkoss 7y ago
Freedom of speech is a core moral principle in the United States: it is literally the first right enshrined in our constitution and for good reason. I believe much of the recent moral outrage stems from China (and Chinese companies on their behalf) using the financial threat of lost profits to force American businesses to self-censor in ways that do not uphold this value. Allowing totalitarian censorship of unpleasant truths like Tiananmen Square and organ harvesting of political prisoners gives governments the ability to continue committing similar atrocities in the future. If you look at American political discourse that is critical of the government, a significant portion of it is related to similar government suppression of information that prevents the public holding government officials responsible for the atrocities they commit: see Abu Ghraib, Wikileaks Collateral Murder, Bay of Pigs, Snowden revelations, current Trump whistleblower crackdown, etc. I would strongly encourage you to read Orwell's 1984 if you can access it: it is somewhat superlative and dated, but artfully illustrates the danger to personal freedoms that can result from totalitarian government control of discourse.