4 ms·

If we are collectively incapable of making any difference in this terrible transformation, then we could do the next thing CCP will hate: do a proper study of h

If we are collectively incapable of making any difference in this terrible transformation, then we could do the next thing CCP will hate: do a proper study of how population’s behavior changes as it transitions from a free mentality to the oppressed state mainland’s had been in for years. This is the chance. I'm not aware of any precedents to date, but a rigorous scientific record of this kind would be extremely valuable as a reference proof against future gaslighting and dubious arguments. The process is already under way, anecdotally some normally outgoing folks (Hongkongers and involved) are reluctant to post this on social media or discuss it with you unless they trust the channel.

erfgh 6y ago
To do a "proper study" you should be impartial, and you're not being impartial when right out of the bat you call this "a terrible transformation".
- strogonoff 6y ago
  If a scientist studying cancer calls cancer terrible in a casual conversation, they can still produce valid rigorous work about it. We'd have approximately zero research done if we disqualified everybody with a personal opinion about what they're studying. No one's unbiased, but basic science methodology helps us reveal and eliminate/compensate for our biases. It doesn't matter whether you personally think oppressing human freedom is terrible or not—your work will not be any less useful. Its results may even challenge your own subjective opinion on the matter.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > To do a "proper study" you should be impartial Why do you believe this? It is very much not true. If you wanted to study, for instance, how societies collapse, you don't need to be impartial about the notion of societal collapse. If you wanted to study war, you don't need to be impartial to war.
- nouveaux 6y ago
  All science starts with a hypothesis and many of those are rooted in partiality. The point is to have an investigative method which proves or disproves that hypothesis. The fact that science reveals truth even though it can start with partiality is why the scientific method is the gold standard.

erfgh 6y ago

To do a "proper study" you should be impartial, and you're not being impartial when right out of the bat you call this "a terrible transformation".

strogonoff 6y ago
If a scientist studying cancer calls cancer terrible in a casual conversation, they can still produce valid rigorous work about it. We'd have approximately zero research done if we disqualified everybody with a personal opinion about what they're studying. No one's unbiased, but basic science methodology helps us reveal and eliminate/compensate for our biases. It doesn't matter whether you personally think oppressing human freedom is terrible or not—your work will not be any less useful. Its results may even challenge your own subjective opinion on the matter.
mcphage 6y ago
> To do a "proper study" you should be impartial Why do you believe this? It is very much not true. If you wanted to study, for instance, how societies collapse, you don't need to be impartial about the notion of societal collapse. If you wanted to study war, you don't need to be impartial to war.
nouveaux 6y ago
All science starts with a hypothesis and many of those are rooted in partiality. The point is to have an investigative method which proves or disproves that hypothesis. The fact that science reveals truth even though it can start with partiality is why the scientific method is the gold standard.