3 ms·

So if HK separatists do it (challenge sovereignty, secession, threaten natsec), it's free speech and good, and it's terrible the HK government would prosecute t

So if HK separatists do it (challenge sovereignty, secession, threaten natsec), it's free speech and good, and it's terrible the HK government would prosecute them under the law, but if a Taiwanese does it ("challenge sovereignty, treason, threaten natsec" ), the sky is falling....ape brain shit doesn't need to be rational, but people still love it, they just want an excuse to fight. Yay for illogical double standards, ape brain shit and human nature... Taiwan is pretty divided on this issue, some Twese think they should reunify. It's a great emotive but substanceless issue to driving engagement and emotionality in the elections. Tribalism FTW

schoen 5y ago
Interesting point! An alternative parse might be "more polities good, fewer polities bad" (maybe an intuition of several political ideologies), or "more people under PRC rule bad, more people under PRC rule good" (based on strongly disliking the PRC, or greatly liking multiparty electoral democracy). But yeah, the "treason" or "national security" rhetoric around this isn't the best look if people want to suggest that those concepts simply shouldn't ever be deployed at all.
tootie 5y ago
That's so deliberately obtuse. There's a vast distinction between protesting a repressive government and protesting against democracy in favor of repression. I don't know anything about Taiwanese law but it seems the other distinction is that he was addressing soldiers in uniform which makes it more of an official act than just a statement of opinion.
- graderjs 5y ago
  So what you're saying is, those HK kids were fighting the good fight against the oppressive regime and it's right to support them and it is wrong to hold them to account for whatever damage they cause doing that... and this guy in uniform is trying to incite insurrection against a peaceful democratic successful country in favor of an oppressive regime? I guess if that's the situation you're absolutely right. And good point there probably is legally a distinction between addressing people in uniform and getting out there on the streets even when you have a enormous number of people. it makes sense that you would not see a double standard if that's how you see things and that your rather, um, uncharitable attempt to frame my view as obtuse would seem to hinder your ability to understand how I think about it. why would you seek to know more about something that you see is deliberately insensitive and stupid? that's okay... it's not up to me how you think about things, thanks for engaging anyway. It's good to know more about the ways other people see it.

schoen 5y ago

Interesting point! An alternative parse might be "more polities good, fewer polities bad" (maybe an intuition of several political ideologies), or "more people under PRC rule bad, more people under PRC rule good" (based on strongly disliking the PRC, or greatly liking multiparty electoral democracy). But yeah, the "treason" or "national security" rhetoric around this isn't the best look if people want to suggest that those concepts simply shouldn't ever be deployed at all.

tootie 5y ago

That's so deliberately obtuse. There's a vast distinction between protesting a repressive government and protesting against democracy in favor of repression. I don't know anything about Taiwanese law but it seems the other distinction is that he was addressing soldiers in uniform which makes it more of an official act than just a statement of opinion.

graderjs 5y ago
So what you're saying is, those HK kids were fighting the good fight against the oppressive regime and it's right to support them and it is wrong to hold them to account for whatever damage they cause doing that... and this guy in uniform is trying to incite insurrection against a peaceful democratic successful country in favor of an oppressive regime? I guess if that's the situation you're absolutely right. And good point there probably is legally a distinction between addressing people in uniform and getting out there on the streets even when you have a enormous number of people. it makes sense that you would not see a double standard if that's how you see things and that your rather, um, uncharitable attempt to frame my view as obtuse would seem to hinder your ability to understand how I think about it. why would you seek to know more about something that you see is deliberately insensitive and stupid? that's okay... it's not up to me how you think about things, thanks for engaging anyway. It's good to know more about the ways other people see it.