5 ms·

As a Chinese, I think it is reasonable to arrest a leader who violated the national security law. Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the

As a Chinese, I think it is reasonable to arrest a leader who violated the national security law. Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this? Please read more media from a different standpoint and think about this event in another way.

ipsum2 6y ago
.
- chloerei 6y ago
  Thanks for replying, if my comment can bring thinking, it will be enough. Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China. I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote. Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future. I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.
mindfulhack 6y ago
> Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this? That would be a wonderful thing if my government were currently persecuting 1 million people solely based on their religious and cultural identity. The consequences would be carried by hope.
- chloerei 6y ago
  Every time we discuss China's issues, some people always raise Xinjiang. The evidence presented was nothing more than the testimony of a few people and photos of unknown time and place. Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened. Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone. About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show. In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem. [1] https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-to-hotan-xinjiang-e284934a7aab https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-...
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    One big family. But what if you don't want to be in the family? In the west we have that freedom to be different. We also have the freedom to say the equivalent of Bush did 9/11 : on June 4 1989 the CCP massacred thousands. Now the point of one big family is that the stability of the family, keeping everything going together peacefully means you don't rock the boat, you have to not speak out about how your uncle is a criminal. One big family ensures family members voluntarily censor themselves and consider those saying June 1989 Tianamen Square as literal existential threats to the stability of the family. Where in the west we can say Trump is part of a global conspiracy to X,y,z in China to do the same means attacking the very identity and stability of your own person, your bio family, your town and your nation. The story that is believed is that this stability was won through so much bloodshed. Anything must be done to stop rocking the boat. Chinese people really cannot be free as they don't know what it is. They see HK as an alcoholic daughter that needs to be treated to get well and join the rest of the family. Same with the Muslims. They are both different and in China difference is a fundamental threat. It's fascinating.
T-A 6y ago
> What are the consequences of this? His Twitter account would briefly get more clicks than Trump's, and a swarm of congress-critters would fight each other for the privilege of having him hauled in front of their panel for a grueling, multi-hour session of righteous posturing, all televised live. Then the late night shows would create condensed, only slightly exaggerated but far more entertaining versions of their performance. By day four, everybody would have moved on to the next outrage du jour.
ailun 6y ago
There would be no consequences because we have human rights. Hong Kong used to have those, and now they’ve lost them, which is a sad thing for humanity. Further, they’ve retroactively lost them - he and many others have been arrested for things they did before the national security law was in force, and so were legal at the time in their free society. China, by arresting them ex post facto, has proven them right. You’re the one who needs to read more and get a new perspective - all you are doing is repeating the very common, very boring mainstream Chinese opinion.
- chloerei 6y ago
  I don’t think you have read the National Security Law of the United States, which is broader and stricter than China... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdp2JviTDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdp2JviTDA
  - ailun 6y ago
    Guess what? I don’t agree with many of the recent infringements on constitutional rights in the US either. I can criticize my country because I’m not a blind nationalist. And the US doing something wrong doesn’t excuse what China is doing to a formerly free society. Further, it’s impossible for anything to be more vague than the HK national security law - there must be some level of maximum vagueness and China has achieved it with this law. Edit: I see you’ve linked Nathan Rich - what a horrible source. Why don’t you link the actual law you’re talking about?
    - chloerei 6y ago
      Reply to your last point first, you are right, I should quote easy-to-read material. I quote Nathan Rich because I first saw this law in his video. I extracted the link so that others can read it: > 18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided. I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.
thinkingemote 6y ago
Chinese people want stability above all. Freedom of speech, the freedom to unbalance the boat is less important than stability. The story is that China has won its stability and peace through so much blood and war, anything is better than going back to those times. In the west, we use freedoms of speech to balance the boat from one side to the other. Freedom of speech is the mechanism for stability. Freedom of speech is primarily how something is told they are wrong. Freedoms are also why I can write: Bush destroyed the twin towers on 9 11 and killed thousands but you cannot say the CCP killed thousands on June 1989 in tiannamen square. Both events in history before many users here were even born. It's not only that it's illegal for you but censorship ensures that the boat is stable and the sea is calm. for Chinese, censorship is stability, freedom is the threat. You literally, emotionally, don't want to say those things, and you don't feel bad about it. Most westerners don't understand this. Freedom and difference to China means bloodshed and instability. there are of course limits to freedom of speech in the west, direct calls to violence are out for example. However encouraging protests is not encouraging violence even if the protests become violent riots later. In China protests are illegal by default because they might upset the boat potentially.
- chloerei 6y ago
  I think Hong Kong used to be a test field to test how the democratic system will be implemented in China. However, the experience of the past few years has shown a failure. The government's work has been unreasonably opposed by the opposition parties, and the people have been incited to riot. Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China. The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
  - ailun 6y ago
    How was it shown a failure? Because one side didn’t get what they want? All while mainland security forces were kidnapping booksellers and trying to erode rights at every step? There was no failure of democracy in Hong Kong, the mainland was just too impatient and too power hungry. It’s not the purpose of the opposition to prevent democratization, that’s silly. The people were not “incited to riot”, they did their best to make their voices heard. But China didn’t actually want to hear their voices. And you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda. You haven’t tried to really empathize with the people losing their freedoms. You don’t understand what a nightmare it has been for them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spacehunt 6y ago
> a leader who violated the national security law As a Hong Konger, I'm always amused by how much influence the CCP thinks Jimmy Lai / Apple Daily / Next Media wields. Inciting riots? Really? Can you point to a single Apple Daily article that demonstrates this?
Gravityloss 6y ago
What did the people in Hong Kong want?
zanmat0 6y ago
I just want to say thank you for providing your perspective to help balance out all the uninformed China-bashing. And for taking the time to address all the points that others have brought up in their replies.

ipsum2 6y ago

chloerei 6y ago
Thanks for replying, if my comment can bring thinking, it will be enough. Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China. I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote. Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future. I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.

mindfulhack 6y ago

> Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this? That would be a wonderful thing if my government were currently persecuting 1 million people solely based on their religious and cultural identity. The consequences would be carried by hope.

chloerei 6y ago
Every time we discuss China's issues, some people always raise Xinjiang. The evidence presented was nothing more than the testimony of a few people and photos of unknown time and place. Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened. Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone. About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show. In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem. [1] https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-to-hotan-xinjiang-e284934a7aab https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-...
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  One big family. But what if you don't want to be in the family? In the west we have that freedom to be different. We also have the freedom to say the equivalent of Bush did 9/11 : on June 4 1989 the CCP massacred thousands. Now the point of one big family is that the stability of the family, keeping everything going together peacefully means you don't rock the boat, you have to not speak out about how your uncle is a criminal. One big family ensures family members voluntarily censor themselves and consider those saying June 1989 Tianamen Square as literal existential threats to the stability of the family. Where in the west we can say Trump is part of a global conspiracy to X,y,z in China to do the same means attacking the very identity and stability of your own person, your bio family, your town and your nation. The story that is believed is that this stability was won through so much bloodshed. Anything must be done to stop rocking the boat. Chinese people really cannot be free as they don't know what it is. They see HK as an alcoholic daughter that needs to be treated to get well and join the rest of the family. Same with the Muslims. They are both different and in China difference is a fundamental threat. It's fascinating.

T-A 6y ago

> What are the consequences of this? His Twitter account would briefly get more clicks than Trump's, and a swarm of congress-critters would fight each other for the privilege of having him hauled in front of their panel for a grueling, multi-hour session of righteous posturing, all televised live. Then the late night shows would create condensed, only slightly exaggerated but far more entertaining versions of their performance. By day four, everybody would have moved on to the next outrage du jour.

ailun 6y ago

There would be no consequences because we have human rights. Hong Kong used to have those, and now they’ve lost them, which is a sad thing for humanity. Further, they’ve retroactively lost them - he and many others have been arrested for things they did before the national security law was in force, and so were legal at the time in their free society. China, by arresting them ex post facto, has proven them right. You’re the one who needs to read more and get a new perspective - all you are doing is repeating the very common, very boring mainstream Chinese opinion.

chloerei 6y ago
I don’t think you have read the National Security Law of the United States, which is broader and stricter than China... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdp2JviTDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdp2JviTDA
- ailun 6y ago
  Guess what? I don’t agree with many of the recent infringements on constitutional rights in the US either. I can criticize my country because I’m not a blind nationalist. And the US doing something wrong doesn’t excuse what China is doing to a formerly free society. Further, it’s impossible for anything to be more vague than the HK national security law - there must be some level of maximum vagueness and China has achieved it with this law. Edit: I see you’ve linked Nathan Rich - what a horrible source. Why don’t you link the actual law you’re talking about?
  - chloerei 6y ago
    Reply to your last point first, you are right, I should quote easy-to-read material. I quote Nathan Rich because I first saw this law in his video. I extracted the link so that others can read it: > 18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided. I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.

thinkingemote 6y ago

Chinese people want stability above all. Freedom of speech, the freedom to unbalance the boat is less important than stability. The story is that China has won its stability and peace through so much blood and war, anything is better than going back to those times. In the west, we use freedoms of speech to balance the boat from one side to the other. Freedom of speech is the mechanism for stability. Freedom of speech is primarily how something is told they are wrong. Freedoms are also why I can write: Bush destroyed the twin towers on 9 11 and killed thousands but you cannot say the CCP killed thousands on June 1989 in tiannamen square. Both events in history before many users here were even born. It's not only that it's illegal for you but censorship ensures that the boat is stable and the sea is calm. for Chinese, censorship is stability, freedom is the threat. You literally, emotionally, don't want to say those things, and you don't feel bad about it. Most westerners don't understand this. Freedom and difference to China means bloodshed and instability. there are of course limits to freedom of speech in the west, direct calls to violence are out for example. However encouraging protests is not encouraging violence even if the protests become violent riots later. In China protests are illegal by default because they might upset the boat potentially.

chloerei 6y ago
I think Hong Kong used to be a test field to test how the democratic system will be implemented in China. However, the experience of the past few years has shown a failure. The government's work has been unreasonably opposed by the opposition parties, and the people have been incited to riot. Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China. The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
- ailun 6y ago
  How was it shown a failure? Because one side didn’t get what they want? All while mainland security forces were kidnapping booksellers and trying to erode rights at every step? There was no failure of democracy in Hong Kong, the mainland was just too impatient and too power hungry. It’s not the purpose of the opposition to prevent democratization, that’s silly. The people were not “incited to riot”, they did their best to make their voices heard. But China didn’t actually want to hear their voices. And you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda. You haven’t tried to really empathize with the people losing their freedoms. You don’t understand what a nightmare it has been for them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

spacehunt 6y ago

> a leader who violated the national security law As a Hong Konger, I'm always amused by how much influence the CCP thinks Jimmy Lai / Apple Daily / Next Media wields. Inciting riots? Really? Can you point to a single Apple Daily article that demonstrates this?

Gravityloss 6y ago

What did the people in Hong Kong want?

zanmat0 6y ago

I just want to say thank you for providing your perspective to help balance out all the uninformed China-bashing. And for taking the time to address all the points that others have brought up in their replies.