4 ms·

As usual, rather than offer actual counterpoints, you resort to ad hominem attacks and complete misrepresentation of what I stated. - nowhere did I state issue

As usual, rather than offer actual counterpoints, you resort to ad hominem attacks and complete misrepresentation of what I stated. - nowhere did I state issues in HK are internal to HK only. There's obvious influence by interested parties outside of HK as well. - HK is under the CCP. Of course there's influence. I never stated this either. I stated that the influence is much less than what media would like you to belive. - I specifically stated that 2 of the demands are unreasonable, and a third will never be tolerated by the CCP. The protest movement certainly isn't a united cause for Hong Kong as a whole. That's what I stated. Even in the recent local elections the pro-protest candidates garnered on average less than 60% of the votes despite record turn out on their side. - There indeed is no hard and credible evidence that people are being deported out of HK into China. That's what I stated. I did not state that none have been assaulted by government forces. " personal attacks are being aimed at witnesses of events that contradict this story" umm...what personal attacks? Do you even know that the evidence of an emergency doctor saying the rapes occurred is by a "Dr. Ray" on Facebook? He also wrote in Chinese that his evidence is that "if he is lying, may the people and heavens judge him". Unfortunately most people buying into the claim don't read Chinese. Now that I've pointed out your completely unbased claims and obvious disingenuity and lack of integrity, perhaps you want to provide evidence of claims to the contrary rather than your illogical rabble. *yes I'm a brand new account. I usually only read posts here, but I'm from HK and it's an issue close to heart. I'm sick of the misrepresentation of what's actually happening being reinforced by people who have very little knowledge of Hong Kong if they have even ever visited or lived there at all.

adaml_623 7y ago
I don't think you're a real person so I'm unsure as to how to respond to the accusation of an ad hominem attack. The actions of a new participant in an online community can often be judged by what new information they contribute and whether their comments are are comprehensive and covers the entirety of the issue or whether they selectively concentrate on distractions and unimportant trivia. If you have knowledge then share it. If you have links then share them. If you're just here to say that there is no evidence other than the videos that we've seen then you'll probably be judged as a troll.
- dang 7y ago
  I only just saw this thread, unfortunately, but need to respond to this and your upthread post at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21720243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21720243. I'm afraid you violated HN's guidelines egregiously. They include the following, for extremely good reason: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html An account that happens to be new and happens to disagree with your view doesn't come anywhere close to clearing the bar for evidence that they are not "a real person" or are abusing HN. Internet users are far, far too quick to jump to bad-faith conclusions and then take their own imagination as a basis for attacking others. That's not cool and not allowed on HN. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com, as the guidelines ask, so we can investigate. What you can't do is jump to smear other users. I know it's a popular internet blood sport in lots of places, but it's possibly the single most toxic thing that users do on HN, leading to flamewars, extremely low-quality 'discussion', and outright harm to others (see the examples below). Please don't do it again. Real abuse by sockpuppets and so on exists, but on political topics we've seen extremely little of it on HN (basically zero, in fact), and I've personally spent countless hours investigating these things. Overwhelmingly the more common abuse is users posting accusations and insinuations to poison the discussion against someone whose comments they dislike. This is harmful. Innocent people, unfortunately, have been hounded out of this community this way, and some Chinese users have been treated shamefully here. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403358. Another example, which fortunately didn't have the effect of driving the user away: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194472 I'm sure that's not who you want to be or the kind of community you want to be part of. In order to prevent HN from succumbing to that ugliness, we need every user to be mindful of the difference between imagination and evidence, and not allow our strong feelings on a topic to confuse the one for the other. It's perfectly common and legitimate for a reader who hasn't posted to HN before, to create an account when they run across a topic to which they're personally connected. All evidence is that this was the case with battleangle. HN is a highly international community, and people across the world have very different perspectives on any issue, China-related or not. If we can't receive their contributions thoughtfully, and instead drive them out of town, we've not only done a shameful thing to another human being—we've deprived ourselves of an external perspective that we could have learned from. Let's not allow our strongly-felt views, which were formed in our own very specific personal and cultural and political context, to make us intolerant to people who simply have a very different background than we do. There's plenty of previous explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
sjogress 7y ago
> Even in the recent local elections the pro-protest candidates garnered on average less than 60% of the votes despite record turn out on their side. I'm interested in your source for this, do you have an English language source? I haven't seen any results per candidate, and I don't have a proper understanding of how local HK elections work, but according to SCMP: > Among the 452 seats up for grabs, the pan-democrats were victorious in 347, the independents – many of them pro-democracy – won 45, while the pro-establishment camp had to make do with 60. [1] Sounds like a pretty clear victory to me. If the elections are anything like my local elections such a result would be considered a landslide victory. 1: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039151/hong-kong-elections-tsunami-disaffection-washes-over-city https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039151...
- DonaldFisk 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections gives a breakdown of votes cast and seats won. The reason for the discrepancy between votes cast and seats won is the first-past-the-post electoral system used.
  - sjogress 7y ago
    Interesting, according to Wikipedia the results of the popular vote was: Pro-democrats (57.10%), Pro-Beijing (42.06%), Non-aligned others (0.83%) Seats were divided like this: Pro-democrats (81.00%), Pro-Beijing (18.58%), Non-aligned others (0.42%) Looks like some democratic reform is in order even if HK is able to gain universal suffrage and keep the one-country two-systems indefinitely.
    - idlewords 7y ago
      You are recommending voting reform for Hong Kong local district elections based on having studied the issue for, what, thirty seconds?
idlewords 7y ago
Thank you for posting here, and I'm sorry your first outing had to be a battle with people making silly accusations.

adaml_623 7y ago

I don't think you're a real person so I'm unsure as to how to respond to the accusation of an ad hominem attack. The actions of a new participant in an online community can often be judged by what new information they contribute and whether their comments are are comprehensive and covers the entirety of the issue or whether they selectively concentrate on distractions and unimportant trivia. If you have knowledge then share it. If you have links then share them. If you're just here to say that there is no evidence other than the videos that we've seen then you'll probably be judged as a troll.

dang 7y ago
I only just saw this thread, unfortunately, but need to respond to this and your upthread post at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21720243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21720243. I'm afraid you violated HN's guidelines egregiously. They include the following, for extremely good reason: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html An account that happens to be new and happens to disagree with your view doesn't come anywhere close to clearing the bar for evidence that they are not "a real person" or are abusing HN. Internet users are far, far too quick to jump to bad-faith conclusions and then take their own imagination as a basis for attacking others. That's not cool and not allowed on HN. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com, as the guidelines ask, so we can investigate. What you can't do is jump to smear other users. I know it's a popular internet blood sport in lots of places, but it's possibly the single most toxic thing that users do on HN, leading to flamewars, extremely low-quality 'discussion', and outright harm to others (see the examples below). Please don't do it again. Real abuse by sockpuppets and so on exists, but on political topics we've seen extremely little of it on HN (basically zero, in fact), and I've personally spent countless hours investigating these things. Overwhelmingly the more common abuse is users posting accusations and insinuations to poison the discussion against someone whose comments they dislike. This is harmful. Innocent people, unfortunately, have been hounded out of this community this way, and some Chinese users have been treated shamefully here. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403358. Another example, which fortunately didn't have the effect of driving the user away: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194472 I'm sure that's not who you want to be or the kind of community you want to be part of. In order to prevent HN from succumbing to that ugliness, we need every user to be mindful of the difference between imagination and evidence, and not allow our strong feelings on a topic to confuse the one for the other. It's perfectly common and legitimate for a reader who hasn't posted to HN before, to create an account when they run across a topic to which they're personally connected. All evidence is that this was the case with battleangle. HN is a highly international community, and people across the world have very different perspectives on any issue, China-related or not. If we can't receive their contributions thoughtfully, and instead drive them out of town, we've not only done a shameful thing to another human being—we've deprived ourselves of an external perspective that we could have learned from. Let's not allow our strongly-felt views, which were formed in our own very specific personal and cultural and political context, to make us intolerant to people who simply have a very different background than we do. There's plenty of previous explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

sjogress 7y ago

> Even in the recent local elections the pro-protest candidates garnered on average less than 60% of the votes despite record turn out on their side. I'm interested in your source for this, do you have an English language source? I haven't seen any results per candidate, and I don't have a proper understanding of how local HK elections work, but according to SCMP: > Among the 452 seats up for grabs, the pan-democrats were victorious in 347, the independents – many of them pro-democracy – won 45, while the pro-establishment camp had to make do with 60. [1] Sounds like a pretty clear victory to me. If the elections are anything like my local elections such a result would be considered a landslide victory. 1: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039151/hong-kong-elections-tsunami-disaffection-washes-over-city https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039151...

DonaldFisk 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections gives a breakdown of votes cast and seats won. The reason for the discrepancy between votes cast and seats won is the first-past-the-post electoral system used.
- sjogress 7y ago
  Interesting, according to Wikipedia the results of the popular vote was: Pro-democrats (57.10%), Pro-Beijing (42.06%), Non-aligned others (0.83%) Seats were divided like this: Pro-democrats (81.00%), Pro-Beijing (18.58%), Non-aligned others (0.42%) Looks like some democratic reform is in order even if HK is able to gain universal suffrage and keep the one-country two-systems indefinitely.
  - idlewords 7y ago
    You are recommending voting reform for Hong Kong local district elections based on having studied the issue for, what, thirty seconds?

idlewords 7y ago

Thank you for posting here, and I'm sorry your first outing had to be a battle with people making silly accusations.