4 ms·

The liberal open Hong Kong we used to know has died in 2020, the year they passed the national security law. Elites and professionals in Hong Kong are thinking

The liberal open Hong Kong we used to know has died in 2020, the year they passed the national security law. Elites and professionals in Hong Kong are thinking where to move their families to and those chose to stay have to accept they are now no difference than an ordinary mainland Chinese citizen. CCP did not and will not keep any of their promises. All the Sino-UK agreement and the promise of 'One country Two systems' are simply jokes to CCP. The world needs to realize the CCP is a truly evil party and if let uncountered, it would eventually engulf the whole liberal, democratic western socieites.

dschuler 6y ago
It really died in 2019 when the protesters started setting fire to other Hong Kongers that disagreed with them by throwing Molotov cocktails at them, or just beating a guy in head with a large steel pipe for moving a brick out of the street. The CCP taking over now vs. after 2046 was the only predictable outcome here, but the freedom to speak your mind and disagree without threat of physical harm was lost before. EDIT: The predictable downvoting without replying shows the downvoters don't refute the facts, being that protesters physically attack others who disagree. That's not democracy.
- tarboreus 6y ago
  What's to say? The protests were against China's violation of the two systems agreement. There has been violence, detention, and suppression from China at every turn. Most of the protests have been nonviolent. I think with major protest movements, the question becomes, is the cause worth the unrest? Unrest is a negative in itself, and always results in, at mnimum, damage to property and disruption of life and also more often than not injury and death. Some causes do justify some violence, but not every good cause justifies the unrest it produces. I do feel like China's illiberal and repressive attitude, including detentions, shutting down almost all forms of political speech, and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement. If you're reading this in China, or are native Chinese, I ask you...do you feel there would be consequences for you if you spoke up in defense of the protests? Put aside whether you think the protests are a good idea or not. If you defended them publicly, what would happen? Whether or not you support the protests, I think you should consider that question, and decide if you like the answer. And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves. But we're not quite there yet, and there are still people here who can speak up, and even make a career, criticizing the, I'll just say it, evil decisions of our government.
  - dschuler 6y ago
    | Most of the protests have been nonviolent. That's not true. There have been countless violent protests that have destroyed shops owned by mainland companies (like bakeries, nothing particularly nationalistic), set fire to and destroyed MTR (subway) stations, thrown petrol bombs at other unarmed civilians who disagreed and the police of course, and beat a guy in the head with a large pipe for removing bricks in the road. They even videotaped this because they were so proud of their actions. The people they severely burned were ridiculed in online forums (calling them "barbecue", etc.). Hundreds of posters chimed in and liked replies like this. At the end of the day many people on that side will argue that each case of violence against other citizens was just undercover police trying to make them look bad, or just an isolated incident. It's like saying "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" on the CNN chyron. People can't credibly claim to be "for democracy" will silencing critics with violence. Otherwise anyone can claim to be a/for democracy, and who is anyone to say they aren't? Might as well add the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the German Democratic Republic (former East Germany), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the list. | ... is the cause worth the unrest? ... and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement. I'm repeating myself here, but violence against fellow citizens is not justified in the name of democracy. Democracy would be the ideal outcome for HK, obviously, but neither the protesters nor the CCP are offering a path to that. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Quoting another poster in this thread: "If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground." Well, guess what? Many people in HK aren't up for destroying everything in their lives and don't agree with the "protesters". Does their opinion not count, while they're claiming to care about democracy? Quoting the same person: "I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible." So these protesters want to destroy everything they can in HK, and _then leave_. Thanks for nothing I guess. Perhaps they should change the order - leave for another country, then start assaulting people and setting things on fire. Maybe elsewhere they will be prosecuted and face justice for their actions. | And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves. There needs to be an absolute standard for what's acceptable in a democracy, so it's not necessary to compare HK to the US or the US to anywhere else, but since you mention the US it's worth mentioning CHAZ in Seattle. There is absolutely zero chance that something like CHAZ could secede from the US had they wanted to do that. It's equally naive to believe that China would relinquish Hong Kong, or that any other nation would do anything other than write a strongly worded letter if the PLA were to move in and take over. Hong Kong _did_ have an agreement to have a separate way of life until 2046, but the CCP finally got the perfect excuse to move that date up by 25 years. Losing 25 years of relative autonomy with nothing to show for it was decidedly _not_ worth it.
dustinmoris 6y ago
Why is the CCP "evil"? What have they done? You might disagree with the philosophy of their political party, but they are not invading other countries like we do, they don't torture innocent people who have never had a trial on Guantanamo Bay, they don't send drones over innocent villages ripping children and women into pieces over false claims of mass destruction weapons, they don't write offensive tweets like American presidents about other nations and engage in childish name calling, they don't employ a central intelligence agency with the aim to destabilise other nations and assassinate their leaders, they don't put migrant children into cages at the border, theiy don't put a knee on black people's neck until they suffocate, they don't break into black people's homes and shoot women in their sleep. Sure the CCP does some questionable things sometimes, but put things into perspective. People in China don't die from gun violence, they don't die from terrorist attacks, they don't die from COVID-19 either. Maybe the CCP gets more things right than they get wrong and some people just don't like to admit it?
- fractallyte 6y ago
  Ugh, please! If this (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071) is not a definition of evil, I don't know what is. Heinous crimes that go all the way to the CCP top.
  - dustinmoris 6y ago
    Sure, the treating of Uighur people is very questionable. We don't have a lot of water tight evidence though, so while it doesn't look great it's also not clear cut. What I find amusing though is how everyone focuses on that one story because that is the best they can find to criticise the CCP for whilst at the same time the US commits 10000x worse crimes as I have listed above. Honestly, if China was as aggressive as the USA then they could easily pick a million human rights violations to ramp up anti USA propaganga in China and justify an invasion, but guess what, China is not as aggressive and war focused as the USA. Last time I checked it's the USA which deploys missles, war ships, tanks and troops all over the world in allied countries, not China. China's military is just sitting in China. Not sure who people (who are not American) should be more afraid of... think about...
dang 6y ago
Your last sentence broke the site guidelines and started a flamewar. Those are off topic here. Please follow https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 in the future.

dschuler 6y ago

It really died in 2019 when the protesters started setting fire to other Hong Kongers that disagreed with them by throwing Molotov cocktails at them, or just beating a guy in head with a large steel pipe for moving a brick out of the street. The CCP taking over now vs. after 2046 was the only predictable outcome here, but the freedom to speak your mind and disagree without threat of physical harm was lost before. EDIT: The predictable downvoting without replying shows the downvoters don't refute the facts, being that protesters physically attack others who disagree. That's not democracy.

tarboreus 6y ago
What's to say? The protests were against China's violation of the two systems agreement. There has been violence, detention, and suppression from China at every turn. Most of the protests have been nonviolent. I think with major protest movements, the question becomes, is the cause worth the unrest? Unrest is a negative in itself, and always results in, at mnimum, damage to property and disruption of life and also more often than not injury and death. Some causes do justify some violence, but not every good cause justifies the unrest it produces. I do feel like China's illiberal and repressive attitude, including detentions, shutting down almost all forms of political speech, and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement. If you're reading this in China, or are native Chinese, I ask you...do you feel there would be consequences for you if you spoke up in defense of the protests? Put aside whether you think the protests are a good idea or not. If you defended them publicly, what would happen? Whether or not you support the protests, I think you should consider that question, and decide if you like the answer. And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves. But we're not quite there yet, and there are still people here who can speak up, and even make a career, criticizing the, I'll just say it, evil decisions of our government.
- dschuler 6y ago
  | Most of the protests have been nonviolent. That's not true. There have been countless violent protests that have destroyed shops owned by mainland companies (like bakeries, nothing particularly nationalistic), set fire to and destroyed MTR (subway) stations, thrown petrol bombs at other unarmed civilians who disagreed and the police of course, and beat a guy in the head with a large pipe for removing bricks in the road. They even videotaped this because they were so proud of their actions. The people they severely burned were ridiculed in online forums (calling them "barbecue", etc.). Hundreds of posters chimed in and liked replies like this. At the end of the day many people on that side will argue that each case of violence against other citizens was just undercover police trying to make them look bad, or just an isolated incident. It's like saying "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" on the CNN chyron. People can't credibly claim to be "for democracy" will silencing critics with violence. Otherwise anyone can claim to be a/for democracy, and who is anyone to say they aren't? Might as well add the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the German Democratic Republic (former East Germany), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the list. | ... is the cause worth the unrest? ... and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement. I'm repeating myself here, but violence against fellow citizens is not justified in the name of democracy. Democracy would be the ideal outcome for HK, obviously, but neither the protesters nor the CCP are offering a path to that. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Quoting another poster in this thread: "If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground." Well, guess what? Many people in HK aren't up for destroying everything in their lives and don't agree with the "protesters". Does their opinion not count, while they're claiming to care about democracy? Quoting the same person: "I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible." So these protesters want to destroy everything they can in HK, and _then leave_. Thanks for nothing I guess. Perhaps they should change the order - leave for another country, then start assaulting people and setting things on fire. Maybe elsewhere they will be prosecuted and face justice for their actions. | And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves. There needs to be an absolute standard for what's acceptable in a democracy, so it's not necessary to compare HK to the US or the US to anywhere else, but since you mention the US it's worth mentioning CHAZ in Seattle. There is absolutely zero chance that something like CHAZ could secede from the US had they wanted to do that. It's equally naive to believe that China would relinquish Hong Kong, or that any other nation would do anything other than write a strongly worded letter if the PLA were to move in and take over. Hong Kong _did_ have an agreement to have a separate way of life until 2046, but the CCP finally got the perfect excuse to move that date up by 25 years. Losing 25 years of relative autonomy with nothing to show for it was decidedly _not_ worth it.

dustinmoris 6y ago

Why is the CCP "evil"? What have they done? You might disagree with the philosophy of their political party, but they are not invading other countries like we do, they don't torture innocent people who have never had a trial on Guantanamo Bay, they don't send drones over innocent villages ripping children and women into pieces over false claims of mass destruction weapons, they don't write offensive tweets like American presidents about other nations and engage in childish name calling, they don't employ a central intelligence agency with the aim to destabilise other nations and assassinate their leaders, they don't put migrant children into cages at the border, theiy don't put a knee on black people's neck until they suffocate, they don't break into black people's homes and shoot women in their sleep. Sure the CCP does some questionable things sometimes, but put things into perspective. People in China don't die from gun violence, they don't die from terrorist attacks, they don't die from COVID-19 either. Maybe the CCP gets more things right than they get wrong and some people just don't like to admit it?

fractallyte 6y ago
Ugh, please! If this (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071) is not a definition of evil, I don't know what is. Heinous crimes that go all the way to the CCP top.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  Sure, the treating of Uighur people is very questionable. We don't have a lot of water tight evidence though, so while it doesn't look great it's also not clear cut. What I find amusing though is how everyone focuses on that one story because that is the best they can find to criticise the CCP for whilst at the same time the US commits 10000x worse crimes as I have listed above. Honestly, if China was as aggressive as the USA then they could easily pick a million human rights violations to ramp up anti USA propaganga in China and justify an invasion, but guess what, China is not as aggressive and war focused as the USA. Last time I checked it's the USA which deploys missles, war ships, tanks and troops all over the world in allied countries, not China. China's military is just sitting in China. Not sure who people (who are not American) should be more afraid of... think about...

dang 6y ago

Your last sentence broke the site guidelines and started a flamewar. Those are off topic here. Please follow https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 in the future.