15 ms·
Pro-democracy HK tycoon Jimmy Lai convicted in national security trial
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoOne of the dark consequences of America losing its city-upon-a-hill aspirations is we're less able to effectively call out evil abroad. Jimmy Lai should not have been allowed to this quietly.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoGo back a couple more years, and the UK is probably more relevant to bring up (especially considering the context), they used to have similar aspirations before they learned better.
- simianparrot 10mo agoThey didn’t learn better. They lost their aspirations and decided to give up as a nation.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoThey decided to stop being a world police, and correctly so. Now we're just waiting for US to understand the same thing, which is slowly happening, finally.
- spankalee 10mo agoGreat, so every country can just smoothly descend further into tyranny with no pushback from any other country. Thankfully we won't have any world police though!
- cafard 10mo agoDuring the US's period as hegemon, its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> its influence extended only so far, and was only so often used to oppose tyranny America was a major force behind post-War decolonization. It was one of our terms of the European peace.
- greedo 10mo agoThe US provided lip service to the idea, but quickly became paranoid about the threat of world wide communism and changed its tune relatively quickly. In the places where this wasn't a factor, it wasn't altruism by any stretch, but economic interests. The US saw that a post-colonial world would be fantastic for business...
- embedding-shape 10mo ago[flagged]
- nozzlegear 10mo agoIt may not be the sole reason but it's certainly the biggest. Pax Americana isn't just a phrase that wonks made up yesterday.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoYou do realize that there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Or even created before the US was a little British colony looking for purpose in the world? It seems like Americans forget how young their country is, it's barely a blimp in history so far, although recent written history makes it seem a lot older than it is.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> there are stable countries that still exist today, that haven't been run by tyrants for very long time, and also are older than US been a country? Out of curiosity, who are you thinking of? There aren’t that many countries that made it through colonization, industrialization, WWII and then decolonization and the Cold War intact. Very, very few virtually continuously. Fewer still as democracies.
- nradov 10mo agoHow many other countries have been stable democracies since 1776? Or even since 1865?
- hervature 10mo agoI know you are using the definition of tyrant here to be "unjust ruler" as opposed to "absolute ruler". You can certainly have benevolent tyrants but I would argue that, without a constitution, you are by definition ruled by a tyrant. The USA has the oldest ratified constitution so that is a prime candidate for being considered the oldest stable non-tyrannical government. Of course, we are using different definitions of tyrant so you will not agree with my conclusion.
- dandellion 10mo agoThe world police was never really there to stop tyrants, the evidence is that they'd conveniently look the other way whenever they benefitted from it, and they would even put tyrants in place when it suited them. They did stop some tyrants, for sure, but only when it was convenient.
- mgfist 10mo agoThe world saw it's greatest peace under US hegemony. It wasn't perfect and there were bloody avoidable wars on the behest of the US, but by and large things ran smoothly and US sponsored globalism brought prosperity and peace to many.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- dandellion 10mo agoI think it's too early to make that call, considering pax romana lasted 200 years and we're not even a 100 into us hegemony.
- mgfist 10mo agoToo early to make what call? Pax Americana could end tomorrow and it wouldn't make the statement false (well, it would if whatever followed was even more peaceful).
- FlyingBears 10mo agoI would pick tyranny over "democracy" import any day. Neither US or UK have a great track record here.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- oblio 10mo agoThe US managed the assemble an alliance of the... let's count them: Based on military ranking: #5 SK, #6 UK, #7 France, #8 Japan, #9 Turkey, #10 Italy, #11 Brazil, #12 Pakistan, #14 Germany, #15 Israel, #17 Spain, #18 Australia, and if it were allowed to, #20 Ukraine. Based on economic power: I won't even bother, only China, India, Russia aren't US allies in the top 30 or so, by GDP. The US was a world police but it wasn't alone. Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. What the US is doing now is a tragedy that will unfold over many decades. [1] Based on https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-2025-ranked https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-202... (if you have a better ranking, please link it).
- mikkupikku 10mo ago> Yes, it was far bigger than all its allies taken separately, but those allies could more than double its power. This breaks down as soon as you stop looking at abstract rankings and dive into the specific logistic realities of force projection. France and to a lesser extent the UK are reasonably capable, but there's no math that adds up to anything approaching America's capabilities.
- eszed 10mo agoBeyond that, if you do get into the specifics of force projection (and basically anything logistical to do with NATO), you see that the entire alliance was built on the assumption that the US would contribute the capabilities that kept the whole system viable. So, $(US) + $(ALLIES) > $(US) However, $(ALLIES) - $(US) < $(ALLIES) This has been true from the beginning, and I don't think was a nefarious plot, or even mistake, for most of the alliance's history. The further we get from the Cold War alignments within which NATO was created, however, the more difficult it has become to sustain.
- greedo 10mo ago'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' was a central tenet of NATO from its founding.
- renewiltord 10mo agoThis is something that people don’t realize. America is no longer world police. If Europeans want to resolve intra-European disputes like Russia-Ukraine we should stay out of it.
- Workaccount2 10mo agoIt's going to take more than 4 years of Trump for America to disappear. Even just a few days ago congress approved $800M in funding for Ukraine.
- pbhjpbhj 10mo agoInstead, by refusing to sell weapons to Ukraine -- and lying about Europe's support -- when it didn't suit Trump, you've firmly placed your flag. Not allies in any meaningful sense.
- kenjackson 10mo agoThe US is becoming even more the world police now. But now we support the wrong people too. It’s doubly bad.
- pbhjpbhj 10mo agoMaybe 'World mafia' is a better description? They're not enforcing law and/or morality (nor ever have been?), they're just pressing countries for bribes for Trump, or to shift World markets for insider trades, or probably still for oil, AFAICT.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoLets see what happens when the invasion of Venezuela kicks off, either the world tries to prevent yet another authoritarian government from bullying those who are already on the ground, or we'll join in on the fun I suppose, if the US feels like it wanna share the future loot.
- tempest_ 10mo agoThey didnt lose aspirations. A lot of the UK seems to be struggling with their loss of Empire even 80 years later. They ran out of money, 2 world wars bankrupted them.
- bArray 10mo ago[flagged]
- iamacyborg 10mo agoIf you’re that keen, go join the reserves? https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/ https://jobs.army.mod.uk/army-reserve/
- bArray 10mo agoNobody in their right mind is keen for a war. Nobody would fight in one unless they believed they really had no other choice. I don't blame the people who would runaway to relative safety if the option is available. But. It's clearly a massive security issue. > If you’re that keen, go join the reserves? There is not currently a war, and if there was, there wouldn't be a choice but to join.
- iamflimflam1 10mo agoAnyone who thinks war might be fun should watch some of the interviews with veterans from the “great” wars on YouTube.
- jacobgkau 10mo agoThat's a valid statement that nobody in this comment chain was disputing. It is exactly why the person you're responding to is assuming anyone who can leave, will leave, in that event (and why "you should join the reserves if you're that keen" is an irrelevant comeback-- nobody was saying anyone's keen, only that people aren't keen and will leave to avoid it if able).
- lossolo 10mo agoI would like to remind you that HK was a British colony for more than 100 years, and there was no democracy or freedom then. They only allowed the first partly free elections two years before they gave it back to China, in 1995. And not because they suddenly wanted freedom and democracy for HK, but because it would be harder for China and better for their own interests. Hypocrisy all the way.
- Herring 10mo agoThat's kind of misleading. HK had a lot of civil freedoms (rule of law, independent judiciary, freedom of speech). China explicitly blocked earlier democratization. The vote only managed to get through after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown made HK panic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Hong_Kong
- lossolo 10mo agoThose freedoms were never unlimited, even under British rule (colonial era sedition laws and public order restrictions existed).
- dash2 10mo agoNo freedoms are ever unlimited, so that's not an interesting point. The question is, were they useful? A lot of HKers seem to think so.
- lossolo 10mo ago> No freedoms are ever unlimited, so that's not an interesting point. Of course no freedoms are unlimited, so I'm not sure why are you reading this literally? > The question is, were they useful? Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the lack of freedom under British rule, and you ask if it was useful for HKers? While there are a lot of people in HK who are not happy about what China is doing now, there is almost no one who would take British rule over that. I actually talked with people about it in person when I was in HK.
- jimbob45 10mo agoWhy is this evil? Most countries draw the line at aiding and abetting foreign harm to your own country, no matter how justified. I would expect no different if it happened in America or Europe.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago[flagged]
- mikkupikku 10mo ago> Most countries draw the line at aiding and abetting foreign harm to your own country, no matter how justified On the books maybe. But for instance, America defines treason so narrowly that nobody has been convicted of it since WW2. Americans are free to sing praise of China, Russia, North Korea, whoever they like no matter how unjustified. Unless Congress has declared a war, which hasn't happened since WW2, you can talk as much smack about America or praise opposing regimes as much as you like.
- waffleiron 10mo agoIt doesn’t matter if its called Treason, for example the Rosenbergs were executed for espionage. Aiding and abetting what the US saw was foreign harm.
- BurningFrog 10mo agoNot just any espionage. They gave the Soviets the atomic bomb designs, permanently changing the global power balance!
- greedo 10mo agoThe Soviets would have developed the atomic bomb (and eventually the hydrogen bomb). This simply accelerated their development. And considering that for the first decade after the end of WW2 the US considered and threatened the USSR with nuclear annihilation frequently, this is probably a good development...
- beepbooptheory 10mo agoOh yes, I'm sure we all can easily enumerate the times America has effectively called out the "evil abroad." And such instances have all indeed survived the scrutiny of history/retrospection no less!
- colejhudson 10mo agoYou’re literally just restating OPs point but with heavy sarcasm.
- beepbooptheory 10mo agoYep! It's meant to indicate the absurdity of the point. Probably not my best form, but for a state that murdered literally millions of people the first two decades of this millennium, I would of hoped the intent would have been more obvious here.
- GuinansEyebrows 10mo agoevery president who ever invoked the "city on a hill" metaphor was simultaneously responsible for acts of unprecedented evil in foreign countries; from JFK in southeast asia, to reagan in the middle east and central america, to obama's drone strikes in the middle east.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- paganel 10mo agoBy “calling out” you mean invading, or what, exactly? And haven’t you guys had enough of fighting “evil” while causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? See Iraq.
- mikkupikku 10mo agoAssuming that somebody is implying something as insane as an invasion of China when they say something as mellow as "call out" is certainly.. a take.
- netbioserror 10mo agoSo then what use is any other approach than simply letting it happen? Words are just that. If violence is out, then the only other approach is escalating the trade war and Chinese isolation, at great cost.
- mikkupikku 10mo agoIf your only plan is invading China, you don't have a plan.
- netbioserror 10mo agoPrecisely, and I'm saying there is no other good plan. If the cost of defending democratic values worldwide is starting WW3, we simply can't defend democratic values worldwide anymore.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- colejhudson 10mo agoObviously not. As in the 20th century, it means to cultivate moral, and thereby political, opposition to imprisoning activists. It’s a soft power the US has gradually lost.
- HSO 10mo agonever was it was always BS now everybody can see thats the only difference
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoThe aspiration was always BS? I think we have fairly concrete historical records showing the opposite.
- throwaw12 10mo ago[flagged]
- ericmay 10mo agoDang, you're right. America is evil, so we might as well keep doing evil stuff since we're already evil. :)
- throwaw12 10mo ago@ericmay, you are not wrong, its already doing a lot of evil, I am from one of those countries destroyed by the US. its less evil when country economically destroyed (with sanctions), but its another thing when some of your relatives killed because some people wanted to play with their gun and shoot real people, for sport.
- barfoure 10mo ago“As the HN poster proudly clicks on the reply button having delivered a blow to the vast ignorance of a stranger, a train arrives somewhere deep in rural China carrying Uyghurs ready for their re-education.”
- FlyingBears 10mo agoIf we just admit to it and do it anyway, we won't have to masquerade with democracy theatrics.
- leptons 10mo agoAlready happened - they renamed "Department of Defense" to "Department of War".
- throwaway29812 10mo agoYou didn't define evil, which I think was on purpose. The United States does a lot of things with its military. But it does not jail elderly political opponents and sentence them to death for being a threat to the regime.
- 10mo ago
- mytailorisrich 10mo agoIn the "good old days" it was like that: "The colonial government used the Control of Publications Consolidation Ordinance (1951) to regulate publications and suppress freedom of the press. One notable case resulted in the suppression of the newspaper Ta Kung Pao for six months (later reduced to 12 days) for its criticism of the colonial government's deportation of the Federation of Trade Unions-backed fire relief organisation officials and use of live fire against protestors. Deportation was also used as a method to control politics in education. Lo Tong, a principal at a pro-Beijing, patriotic middle school, had been deported in 1950 for raising the People's Republic of China (PRC) flag and singing the national anthem at his school." [1] Now of course we'd all prefer Western-style freedoms but the narrative on HK is highly skewed and hypocritical, with HK used as a pawn in the broader anti-China narrative. Even Singapore isn't exactly rosy but it is a friend of the West so it's fine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Hong_Kong
- xbmcuser 10mo ago"Most of it is a lie that they tell their own citizens, though, as America and the West only want democracy and promote it for their own ends. They destroy any democracy that might not align with their worldview or serve their interests. The current administration is overtly doing what was previously done covertly. Dictators are acceptable as long as it is politically convenient. One of the most recent cases is Pakistan, where the army has taken over, and EU and Commonwealth election monitors did not issue even election monitor report even after two years. Instead, they have facilitated the murder and killing of Pakistani civilians. But maybe Pakistanis are brown-skinned, so for them, democracy is not allowed. Pakistan should be under sanctions, but it is not, as it is providing ammunition for Ukraine. That is the biggest problem of the West: their hypocrisy. They are calling for democracy in Hong Kong, as that serves their own agendas, but will say nothing about an apartheid state like Israel." "Imran Khan, the former prime minister, has been jailed without trial for the last two-plus years and has been kept in solitary confinement for months out of those. How many newspapers mention it in the West or make it a news topic? But this Hong Kong (HK) Jimmy Lai conviction will be the headlines in most of the Western media a clear example of propaganda to rile up the population against China and socialism. This is why I laugh when people here on Hacker News mention China's control of media and its propaganda, when the Western media is no better than them. At least many Chinese citizens know they are being propagandized against and can filter it out."
- xyzal 10mo agoCan you imagine a Chinese person writing like you just did on Weibo? Democracy/liberalism/civil liberties etc. isn't 100% or not at all.
- benmmurphy 10mo agoThat reminds me of an old cold war joke. In China you are free to criticise western governments on Weibo. What is the problem?
- snapcaster 10mo agoThis feels very dismissive. The comment you responded is about the very real killing of a lot of people and your response is "at least we can talk about it?" Being free to talk about the horrible things happening doesn't appear to stop them from happening so what exactly is your point here?
- lacy_tinpot 10mo agoIt's not our aspirations that we've lost. It's the entrenchment of a particular kind of parasitic elite. The logic that made them into "elites" has turned in on itself and is now self-cannibalizing. The saving grace is only the capacity for the American people to see through this, but with the derangement of information pathways we're increasingly at the behest of these people and their narratives that only serve their aggrandizement. All the talk about "saving the west" or "individualism" or the some other talk of spirit that these preachers sermon about, is only to serve themselves and no one else. "Calling out evil" is another one of those victims to their self-serving motivations. Along with "climate change", "environmentalism", "democracy", "freedom", or a whole host of otherwise genuinely noble causes.
- glenstein 10mo agoExactly right. And what's more, I think this is cynically exploited by apologists who want to defend evil by resorting to whataboutisms. State sponsored troll farms are real and the market for buying and selling, and mobilizing accounts is increasingly mature. And even, dare I say, strategically and intellectually sophisticated in some ways while simultaneously being intellectually and ethically bankrupt. But I actually don't think it's that hard to understand that (1) the US has significantly compromised moral authority, but also (2) China bad and (3) there's important differences of scale of moral offense depending on what you are talking about. You can land a perfectly coherent point about, say, China's hostile takeover of Hong Kong being bad, it's military ramp up to seize Taiwan by 2027 being bad. But too often, I think bad faith actors will intentionally exploit the complexity to try and muddy the waters, and the only reason it seems like it's hard to articulate the distinction online is because of motivated performances. Of course there Poe's law element too, which is that you should never underestimate the ability of people online becoming confused about politically charged topics, but in this case I think it's a bit of column a, a bit of column b synergistically amplifying one another.
- erxam 10mo agoEvil? Rooting out traitors and compradors is evil now? I guess it is, since it goes against American interests. I don't really know why everyone is crying for him, he knew exactly who he was playing for.
- hearsathought 10mo ago[flagged]
- testdelacc1 10mo agoReally weird bringing religion into this discussion. Don’t be weird.
- hearsathought 10mo ago[flagged]
- jandrese 10mo agoSomeone can be and asshole and still be right. It will be harder to convince other people to go along with you if you are an asshole, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't call out wrongdoing when you see it.
- maxglute 10mo agoSomething less effective about ass holes doing wrong things complaining about other assholes doing wrong things, a while insisting they're not assholes. Ultimately the "damage" isn't being called out as a hypocritic asshole, it's the world realize there's nothing wrong with said wrong things. Although to some that's not damage but nature healing.
- ngruhn 10mo agoBut you're word doesn't really have weight, if you did the same thing 10min ago.
- glenstein 10mo agoWhich is a fair charge of ethical character, but not of truth. What makes whataboutism a fallacious rhetorical move is not that it fails to identify someone's ethical shortcomings, but that it tries to substitute them for subject matter. The logic of whataboutism is fascinating, because as long as someone is deemed a bad enough actor, their statements have the effect of dynamically rewriting reality in real time to be the opposite of whatever Bad Actor says. Which, to my mind, gives them too much power. It's simpler to just believe in objective reality, believe that language works roughly according to a correspondence theory of truth and that statements are or are not legitimate on account of their corresponding to reality, which isn't something you can determine based on character alone. But I admit on some level this might be a misunderstanding of whataboutism, because it's holding it to a standard of intellectual consistency that it's not aspiring to.
- pandaman 10mo agoA "whataboutism" defense only works in an argument that goes like this: A:"You should stop doing X because X is wrong and evil and you are wrong and evil if you continue doing X!" B:"But you beat your wife." Where X != "beating one's wife". Here the B's argument is: "But you do X yourself!". This is not an attack on moral character but a direct refutation of A's argument. If A really thought X is wrong and evil then A would not be doing X. And if A really considers itself wrong and evil then it should be figuring a way to stop doing X first, or, at least, concurrently with demanding that from B. Either way, A is not very persuasive.
- BurningFrog 10mo agoNot everything is about Trump!
- IAmBroom 10mo agoTrue. But he will somehow find a way to make it about him.
- SilverElfin 10mo agoAmerica was on the decline for a while already. Look at how forgotten Tibet is. Why would HK be any different when a treaty was signed to hand it over? It’s more official than Tibet which was just annexed through force. Although it’s worth remembering that China has violated the terms of the HK treaty as well. Also as a reminder, back in 1993 Richard Gere was banned from the Oscars for 20 years for advocating for Tibet (https://www.foxnews.com/media/richard-gere-speaks-out-nearly-20-year-oscars-absence-controversial-tibet-comments https://www.foxnews.com/media/richard-gere-speaks-out-nearly...). American institutions have been declining/corrupted for a lot longer than the current administration.
- angry_octet 10mo agoTibet is clear-cut annexation of a sovereign country. HK / New Territories was only leased, and it wasn't going to be practical to keep it longer. The problem is that Beijing no longer needed HK as a gateway, the US/EU had already embraced going directly to the mainland to do deals by the early 2000s. The HK I knew was already gone by 2014.
- brazukadev 10mo ago> America was on the decline for a while already. Look at how forgotten Tibet is. First, look how forgotten Puerto Rico is.
- ta20240528 10mo agoA healthy reminder that Hawaii became a US state AFTER Tibet became a Chinese province. An lest one suggest that it was the result of a peaceful referendum, know that the US congres apologised for the entire project, including the migration of mainland Americans who helped swing the referendum.
- jameslk 10mo ago> One of the dark consequences of America losing its city-upon-a-hill aspirations is we're less able to effectively call out evil abroad. "City-upon-a-hill" is marketing and has never been grounded in fact. It’s hubris and arrogance. The US is viewed as that place if you get on the wrong side of, it will bomb you or replace your government through coercion. It outspends every country on "defense" to ensure this. History is littered with plenty of examples where the US favored a more authoritarian or "evil" government over less, sometimes even installing them. Arab Spring is a recent example where you saw governments replaced with the US' help, while leaving some notable monarchies alone. In reality, the US employs its foreign policy for its own interests. It’s always been like that.
- epistasis 10mo agoThe Arab Spring is a bad example if you're trying to say that the US is installing governments... South America's history provides far better examples. That said, the US doesn't need to be perfect to still be an example of providing freedom for its own citizens.
- jameslk 10mo agoThere’s a lot of examples, yes in South America too, but the US helped replace or tried to help replace some governments during the Arab Spring. Libya being the biggest example, where the US and its allies imposed a no fly zone to help topple a dictator it didn’t like [0]. It could have done that in other places, but you didn’t hear a peep from the US when those protests were crushed by their governments during the Arab Spring. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
- epistasis 10mo agoLibya is a super super bad example if you're looking for bad US behavior. This is literally the very first sentence of your own source: > On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973). Compared to the South America stuff, this is saintly and angelic behavior helping out the world in every way. It's not the US alone, it's a coalition that expands beyond NATO, there's a UN resolution... In fact bringing this up as a "bad behavior" example proves just how much of a shining city on a hill the US has been around the world. It's been bad, but it's also done lots of good stuff.
- reenorap 10mo agoWhy is America all of a sudden part of this? HK was a British colony, what is the UK doing to preserve freedom in HK?
- A_D_E_P_T 10mo agoThe UK's having a hard enough time trying to preserve freedom in the UK. Hold up... So you're saying that they're actually not trying to preserve freedom in the UK and have arrested hundreds of people over twitter memes?! In all seriousness, you're approximately as free in HK as you are in the UK. In HK, don't promote democracy or insult the government in Beijing. In the UK, don't suggest that diversity isn't Our Greatest Strength. Every society these days has an untouchable third rail. None are without beams in their own eyes.
- luxpir 10mo agoThe discussion has devolved to such a point that people from outside the UK keep parroting this (likely Kremlin originated) line that the UK is now a Muslim stronghold with no free speech when in reality it just continues to uphold the values it has influenced the world with, one of the few positives from its dark past, of protecting those unable to protect themselves. Hate speech and punching down. As if inciting violence is completely harmless and no bad ever comes of it. Many freedom-focused people without direct experience of disability, bullying or discrimination have no way to relate to that concept, and the echo chamber amplifies the intellectually dishonest takes until they take hold. Which is exactly what the angry, seething, downtrodden richest people in the world seem to want right now. I wonder why. What a sorry, hopeless state we've allowed to happen. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but the ones who've worked hardest to develop theirs should be weighted the most. Now a Russian bot has the same value on a platform as a nuclear scientist or, dare I say it, a real journalist. Because it's entertaining and tickles some dangling dopamine receptors. I'm sure people will wind their necks in when the ultimate result has finally played out and we'll cycle back to cooler heads prevailing, but I fear we'll have to go there first before we get back. Yes I took the bait, but no regrets, I'll die on this hill. Hate bullies and liars with a passion.
- keybored 10mo agoThat this is the top comment says all you need to know about this board. Being a city on the hill is a cudgel, not a halo. It’s always been used in a self-serving way, and always against enemies. Who is someone who points out the flaws of their enemies but never the flaws of themselves or their friends, even though they are all equally likely to commit the same crimes?[1] That is a scoundrel. Not someone that anyone needs to wait to Call Out anyone on anything. That it is (in this context) a self-admitted “aspiration” is the laughable part. No one else gets credit for “aspiring” (just words) to be a city on a hill. Except if it’s us. [1] Being generous here.
- AnimalMuppet 10mo agoHong Kong is dead. Yeah, sure, there's still a city there with that name. But the Hong Kong we knew is dead. What made Hong Kong what it was is dead.
- RegnisGnaw 10mo agoThe purpose of Hong Kong globally, a port for trade with the closed off China, has been dead for a long time.
- derelicta 10mo ago[flagged]
- rockskon 10mo agoIts citizens don't share your enthusiasm.
- lostlogin 10mo agoThe beatings will continue until they do.
- mytailorisrich 10mo agoThere is a duality. The Chinese were obviously always opposed to British imperalism and it was a major victory to finally get HK back, including in HK, and even acknowledged in Taiwan. There is a large body of quite nationalistic and anti-European/British films in HK cinema from British times. However, this does not mean that there is no domestic politics with pro and anti communist party, but daily life hasn't changed in HK except from the larger influx of "mainlanders". The narrative on HK in the West is simplistic and, frankly a little racist. European imperialism and colonialism has long been rejected except somehow for the so great thing it did in HK, conveniently forgetting that the British never had any democracy in HK and acquired HK by pretty nasty means.
- Lio 10mo ago
- GenerocUsername 10mo agoImagine a major city in America that were politically dominated y China for 50+ years and it is hard to imagine this type of blowback not occuring eventually.
- azinman2 10mo agoWhat happened to one country, two systems?
- embedding-shape 10mo agoRecommended reading on that: One Country, Two Systems in Crisis: Hong Kong's Transformation - Wong, Yiu-chung (2004) In summary, since 1997 it has for all intents and purposes been abandoned.
- HSO 10mo ago[flagged]
- roncesvalles 10mo agoThat was always meant to be transitional. Also, as China marches forward, Hong Kong loses its leverage over Beijing. Now it's just one of a dozen HK-like cities for China. It went from "little prince" to "problem child".
- Terr_ 10mo agoCertainly a factor: IIRC Hong Kong's GDP versus the mainland has gone from 20-30% to 2-3% in the ~28 years since the handover, as the mainland has modernized. While that still puts in the ballpark of "top 5 cities", it's not quite the same (relative) prize as before.
- 0x3f 10mo agoMight makes right, as always was.
- dist-epoch 10mo agoA sovereign can change it's mind. It's the whole point of being sovereign. Not saying I like what they did (I don't).
- azinman2 10mo agoExcept they had an agreement for 50 years to keep it that way. So basically what you mean is anyone can change their mind, which means agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Then why would anyone agree to anything?
- mothballed 10mo agoMr. Lai is the real deal. He started out as a child laborer and worked his way up from nothing to owning a clothing brand and then Apple Daily pro-democracy publisher. He had the option to leave Hong Kong, but stayed and kept up the fight. He's facing life in prison right now, so this conviction puts everything on the line. Glad to see this hitting the front page. I posted an article earlier with not much movement which was really worrying for the HK free thought movement; happy that this turned out to not be the case.
- regularization 10mo agoThe US is currently expelling students, firing professors and college presidents and so on, not because they aren't US aligned, but because they allow people on campus to criticize Israel. CBS just got taken over by the same cabal. Amidst ICE grabbing people out of Home Depot parking lots in the US, China is just doing the same thing over there.
- E-Reverance 10mo agoOne can care about both
- 879565375987587 10mo ago[flagged]
- crymore 10mo ago[flagged]
- buellerbueller 10mo agoAt least it isn't genocide!
- tmpm 10mo agoICE doesn't grab citizens out of Home Depot parking lots.
- woopwoop 10mo agoIn 2019, NPR's planet money did a segment on the Hong Kong protests that heavily featured Jimmy Lai. This segment from the end has always stuck with me. GOLDSTEIN: China has not allowed more freedom of speech. Publications can still be shut down for criticizing the government. And yet, China has gotten richer. It started to develop its own financial center in Shanghai. Foreign money can now flow into China without going through Hong Kong, so the Chinese Communist Party doesn't need Hong Kong as much as it used to. This has led to more and more tension between people in Hong Kong and the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government. In 2014, there was a fight over how to choose the government official who runs Hong Kong, and a million people in Hong Kong took to the streets to protest. Just last month, the government official who runs Hong Kong wanted to pass a new law that would allow people in Hong Kong to be extradited to China to stand trial. The people in Hong Kong said, we don't trust your mainland courts. Two million people protested in the streets, including, by the way, Jimmy Lai, who is now in his 70s. What was it like? What was it like walking that day? LAI: I was very excited - when you see so many people, you know, is fighting for a moral issue. We don't have guns. We don't have tanks. We don't have anything. The only thing we have the Chinese government don't is the moral authority we have, the moral courage we have. GOLDSTEIN: The moral authority and courage, yeah. LAI: Yes. GOLDSTEIN: A few weeks later, on July 1, on the anniversary of Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule, protesters broke into the Hong Kong legislature buildings, smashed glass walls and spray-painted graffiti. Chinese leaders see these protesters and Jimmy Lai, for that matter, as agents for foreign influence - as, you know, basically latter-day colonialists. His house has been firebombed, and there was an assassination plot against him. LAI: I stopped thinking about this because if I let the fear frighten me, I cannot go on, you know, because with what I have taken up, I have to sustain it. I will be the last to leave. That is like a captain who cannot jump the ship. GOLDSTEIN: I mean, you're rich. You could leave if you wanted. LAI: Yeah. If I'm rich but an a*hole... GOLDSTEIN: (Laughter). LAI: ...What my kids will think about me? GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. LAI: You know, being rich, you can be very poor... GOLDSTEIN: Go on. Say more. LAI: ...Because if you only have money, you lost the meaning, you lost the dignity, you lost everything as a human being. What else do you have?
- elAhmo 10mo agoHaven't followed this 'geo area' that much, so don't know the guy, but this last part reminds me of Musk.
- Simulacra 10mo agoIs it possible to get a fair and just trial in China? I have trouble accepting this or any verdict from a Chinese court and would appreciate examples that counter this.
- 0x3f 10mo agoOf course it's possible to get a fair and just trial in China, since that can happen even coincidentally to the process. E.g. I'm sure an actual murderer has been given a just punishment in China, at some point in the history of the Chinese legal system. Is it possible to get a fair trial if you're an enemy of the state? Well... what defines fair and just? In accordance with the will of the Chinese people? Or are we talking about Western standards?
- the_af 10mo ago> Is it possible to get a fair trial if you're an enemy of the state? In which country is it possible to get a fair trial if you're an enemy of the state, especially in today's climate?
- 0x3f 10mo agoWell it's possible in the same coincidental sense that I described, right? You can be railroaded _and_ be guilty of horrific crimes. It depends whether fairness and justness are properties of the process or the outcome. Regardless, it's presumably all relative. At least there's certainly an ordering of states I'd rather have against me, as a person living in them. Maybe Sweden?
- the_af 10mo agoI think if it's coincidental, it cannot be fair right? Fair in the sense we're discussing here must mean a repeatable system. If a wrongful process arrives at the right conclusion, it's still not fair (e.g. let's say a bunch of people lynch someone accused of murdering a child, without hearing any evidence, and it turns out the suspect was really a child mudered: was the process "fair"?). Or if you don't like the child murder analogy: suppose an FBI employee decided to betray the US to the Soviets out of money, not ideology (cue Robert Hanssen). The US is at this point in time still executing traitors to the state. They grab this Hanssen-type, send him to the electric chair (on faulty evidence or simply "vibes" of guilt), but later it turns out this person was really guilty. Was this process fair? Maybe Sweden if relatively fairer, like you said. I suspect not. But even if it was relatively fair, what's with obsessing over Hong Kong and China if most of the world isn't fair?
- demarq 10mo ago> The law was enacted without consulting the Hong Kong legislature and gave authorities broad powers to charge and jail people they deemed a threat to the city's law and order, or the government's stability. The UK throwing a very big rock at a thin glass house. I don’t agree with any such laws in any country, but I think it’s important to point out the hypocrisy here
- embedding-shape 10mo ago> let him who is without sin cast the first stone And all that. We're all evil at one point or another, from someone's perspective.
- spankalee 10mo agoThis is crazy logic. It leaves no one with the ability to critique another country when it abuses its citizens.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoNo, that's not the right takeaway, at least for me. For me it means that even if a country isn't perfect, doesn't automatically mean they can't be against others doing harm.
- nutjob2 10mo agoIt really is crazy. A lot of people here seem to miss the relative nature of countries' behavior and think they're all as bad as each other when the difference is huge. Especially when it comes to China and Russia, people seem to think they're about as bad as the West when nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe thats due to more people from the hard right haunting this place, or the general shift of the tech crowd to the right. I'm not sure what it is exactly.
- AnimalMuppet 10mo agoReally? In my perception, the "US is evil so it can't criticize anyone else" more often came from the left.
- lvl155 10mo agoDemocracy that we knew from 60s to 00s is effectively dead everywhere. I would like to think that social media and surveillance technology both played roles in accomplishing that so quickly and without public outcry/protests. All that blood spilled in 1900s to spread democracy wiped out in a matter of couple of years.
- guerrilla 10mo ago> both played roles in accomplishing that so quickly and without public outcry/protests. Bread and circuses. Everyone is comfortable and entertained to the point of drooling. They won't be leaving their cozy warm houses with TV and video games to do anything. Brain isn't built that way. If it were, there wouldn't be an obesity epidemic. It'll always be short-term rewards over long-term most of the time for most people. On the other hand, none of this is sustainable in the long-run, so it'll all come crashing down and things will work out. We'll probably be dead long before then though. Gotta go through some rough shit first.
- throwaw12 10mo ago"Democracy that we knew from 60s to 00s is effectively dead everywhere." What if it was a fake all along and was just a facade and social media exposed it?
- guerrilla 10mo agoIt was, but what we have no is also much worse. Both can be true.
- throwaway29812 10mo ago[dead]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- tokai 10mo agoThe anglosphere is not the entire democratic world.
- beefbombaystyle 10mo ago[flagged]
- biasedreport 10mo ago[flagged]
- pixelpoet 10mo ago8 minute old account agrees, because of course it does.
- biasedreport 10mo ago[flagged]
- pixelpoet 10mo ago... and always with the same "talking points".
- pixelpoet 10mo agoGetting so tired of these hours-old troll accounts, invariably looking to destabilise and divide, push authoritarian views, ...
- tehjoker 10mo agoThese are accurate takes by OP, it’s just unpatriotic content gets downvoted even though it is accurate.
- bArray 10mo agoRemember, Hong Kong was supposed to be in a 50 year transition period from 1997 where there were supposed to be one country, two systems [1]. The national security legislation is just one in a long line of failures [2]. If nothing else was learned, it was this: China, specifically the CCP, cannot be trusted. It makes me sick that the UK sends billions to Ukraine to interfere in a war we have no fundamental right to involve ourselves in, meanwhile, Hong Kong was allowed to fall with only light media coverage. It is outrageous. The politicians that oversaw it should be ashamed. Not to mention that Carrie Lam, former leader of Hong Kong, sold her people up the river by allowing the national security law in [3]. She was even hiding out in the UK with her husband from her own countrymen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#Implementation_in_Hong_Kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#Imple... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#2020_national_security_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#2020_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Lam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Lam
- ronsor 10mo agoDon't worry, China is learning a lot from Russia. Taiwan is next.
- vachina 10mo agoAs a non-us observer, I'm unsure where this "China gonna invade Taiwan" hysteric come from. It never made sense.
- ImJamal 10mo agoProbably from China's claims that Taiwan is part of China.
- mrguyorama 10mo agoFrom China insisting that the two lands will be united no matter what while building weapons aimed at Taiwan and systems that will be very effective at shooting at Taiwan and building literal invasion barges that are only usable at invading little islands that have heavily built up the defenses on their beaches. Gee, I wonder where it comes from
- yieldcrv 10mo ago> The law was enacted without consulting the Hong Kong legislature And a plain reading of the Basic Law (Hong Kong's constitution) permits everything that's happened, and expecting the contrary seems like a coping mechanism. There are massive exemptions for Hong Kong's autonomy and deferrence to Beijing at Beijing's discretion, or by the Head of Hong Kong who is appointed by Beijing I wasn't around for the handover so I'm largely exempt from the emotional marriage to an ideal Hong Kong residents and people affirming Hong Kong resident's feelings seem to have The legislature wouldn't have to be consulted for the National Security Law to have been enacted, the article and seemingly all of the west seems to think that is a controversy when it isn't necessary And then there is another layer where the structure of the legislature doesn't even match western ideals and wouldn't have made a difference. The legislature is 50% popular vote and 50% corporations. So even if 100% of the population voted for the same thing, they would only have 50% of the vote, and the corporations are all pro-Beijing by nature of being able to economically exist in that environment. (Notably, the ancient City of London within London functions nearly the same way. Actually in an even more egregious way with the non-natural persons having a more extreme weighting of votes) People act like a different founding document governs Hong Kong (Sino British joint declaration? Some comments by representatives), when it doesn't. People act like the governing document of Hong Kong was supposed to be ignored for 50 years, when something way different and way more integrated is supposed to happen at the end of the handover period. I think there is zero path to the goals Hong Kong residents espouse and are used to. They’re imagining a different governing system than the one they live in, thats incompatible.
- thedudeabides5 10mo agoThe NSL (and the way it was implemented) is as stark a violation of he Sino British Joint Declaration as possible without PLA tanks on the ground. Game over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
- yieldcrv 10mo agobut the Sino British Joint Declaration is not the constitution of Hong Kong. It is not even an enforceable treaty. Its analogous to an American finding a piece of the Declaration of Independence to confirm their views after finding the US constitution too inconvenient. A pointless exercise, levels worse than even the Federalist papers.
- tehjoker 10mo agoJust remember when the press reports on foreign affairs, “pro democracy” means “pro capitalism, pro west” we don’t gaf about democracy or self determination. That’s why we ally with saudi arabia, israel, and invaded iraq.
- jimbokun 10mo agoWhatever else they are, Israel is a democracy.
- GordonS 10mo agoCan an apartheid state really be considered a democracy?
- judah 10mo agoIsrael has 2 million Arab citizens with full voting rights, free education, free healthcare, and representation in the Knesset.
- School-Cotton 10mo agoSure, within the Green Line, the minority of Arabs who managed to avoid being expelled in 1948 are now citizens with equal legal rights, at least in theory. So it’s reasonable to argue that there is no apartheid regime there. But that has nothing to do with the West Bank, which is where the accusation of apartheid is most credible. This is, of course, why pro-Israel advocates always attempt to redirect the conversation to focus specifically on the Arab citizens of Israel within the Green Line when these matters are discussed.
- judah 10mo agoThank you for acknowledging that 2 million Arabs live in Israel with full citizenship and rights. That undermines the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. As for the West Bank, it's ruled by Fatah, not Israel. Israel provides for its own citizens -- regardless of ethnicity -- but it's not responsible for the citizens of foreign territories and their governments. Israel is under no obligation to provide services to foreign governments, especially those compromised by antisemitic terrorist organizations.
- dzonga 10mo agothis guy was sold a false idea of "democracy" - however his sponsors no longer have powers to they used to think they have. hence his sponsors have thrown "democracy" in the trash. previously, these well funded democracy - regime agents would win in many places, but now the tables have turned - america now has a demagogue as president.
- dfee 10mo agoWould love to see X's "account based in" for this thread to assess bias.
- barfoure 10mo ago/pol/ has entered the chat.
- dh2022 10mo agoIf anything, these actions will make Taiwan even more opposed to unification with China and will strengthen their resolve to oppose China. For China it would have made more sense long term to first "incorporate" Taiwan into their country and only after that start turning the screws on both Taiwan and Hong Kong.
- maxglute 10mo agoNaw, now Taiwan will have a few years to realize being 1C2S is no big deal, kids in HK are going to mainland to party, next gen is going to be even more integrated thanks to patriotic education. In 5-10 years you'll have patriotic HKers lol at TWers being brained for for prefering Gaza solution over HK solution. Which realisitically is really what the offer is now.
- dh2022 10mo agoI am still waiting for the widely advertised and announced China attack on Taiwan. And I do not think Taiwan will become Gaza if China eventually attacks - unlike Israel, China has quite a lot of enemies in the West.
- maxglute 10mo agoPRC never advertised a timeline outside of implying national rejuvenation (which can't happen without reincorporating TW) by PLA centennial by 2049. If you depend on western propaganda like Davidson Window 2027 then you can keep thumb twiddling. What's likely going to happen is some inciting event or some engineered out of blue casus belli. PRC doesn't have any capable enemies in the west, including US, that can prevent PRC from turning TW into a Gaza. Which PRC can do with purely mainland based fires at this point. The force balance is too lopsided off PRC shores now. PRC's fleet of PL191 can basically level all of Taiwan urban areas in a few months, weeks considering other munition stockpiles. They can build a few hundred more chasis and frankyl TW->Gaza would take a couple weeks. Otherwise every inch of TW is within a few minute strikes from mainland, so resupply is out of question. There's nothing preventing TW from becoming Gaza except Xi is kind of nice bro.
- NoGravitas 10mo agoDictatorship of the proletariat jails a member of the bourgeoisie notable for calling for the restoration of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and conspiring with agents of bourgeois states to that end. This doesn't seem surprising? A revolutionary state working to prevent counterrevolution?
- Aqua0 10mo agoWhat are U.S. citizens thinking when they are confronted with violent movements on Capitol Hill? The same applies to Hong Kong.