3 ms·

Saying a vast majority hated the protests seems like a too strong of a statement. Here are some sources which reports 57% supported [1] and 58.3% supported [2].

Saying a vast majority hated the protests seems like a too strong of a statement. Here are some sources which reports 57% supported [1] and 58.3% supported [2]. It has also been estimated that 36.4% had attended a demonstration against it in August 2019, and a year later 45.6% [3]. This paper directly contradicts your claim it was mainly due to housing [4]. > Our empirical findings suggested that the systematic threat concerning the erosion of the city's values and institutions imposed by the extradition bill was a primary cause of the unprecedented mobilization. [1]https://www.investing.com/news/world-news/exclusive-hong-kongers-support-protester-demands-minority-wants-independence-from-china--reuters-poll-2050369 https://www.investing.com/news/world-news/exclusive-hong-kon... [2]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-east-asian-studies/article/uncovering-economic-grievances-behind-radical-protests-revisiting-peoples-support-for-the-antiextradition-bill-movement-in-hong-kong/6E20851B0307974BA38CAF9E53BCBA19 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-east-asia... [3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/total-mobilization-from-below-hong-kongs-freedom-summer/92BA12D2EEA5782B4330B0D07B389842 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... [4]https://www.proquest.com/docview/2714819043 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2714819043 (On my phone, so some sources are secondary sources).

aurareturn 24d ago
A poll conducted for Reuters by an institute whose ex-CEO has historically expressed anti-Beijing and HK pro-succession views and has since moved to UK.[1] Yea, no bias there. Reuters is a British news agency wholly owned by Thomson Reuters[0] Even in that survey, you can clearly see that the locals did not want all the things the protestors/western media wanted. Nevertheless, only 17% expressed support for seeking independence from China, and 20% were opposed to "the current path of one country, two systems" - the arrangement under which Hong Kong is governed by Beijing. Many protesters say Beijing has used its authority under the system to gradually undermine certain freedoms - such as an independent judiciary and freedom of speech - that are supposed to be guaranteed at least until 2047 under the arrangement. The results of the survey, involving 1,021 people and conducted from Dec. 17-20, also showed a large plurality of respondents mainly blamed the Hong Kong government for the crisis, the worst civil unrest to hit the city in decades, rather than the central government in Beijing. This paper directly contradicts your claim it was mainly due to housing [4]. Summarize it? Having lived in Hong Kong and talked to many locals, had local friends, talked to young HKers, no one could convince me that housing wasn't the biggest reason for the pent up frustration that ultimately led to the protests. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kim-wah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kim-wah
- _DeadFred_ 24d ago
  Normally numbers are countered with numbers that back up your position, not personal anecdotes and attacks on source credibility.
  - deleted 24d ago
    [deleted]
  - aurareturn 24d ago
    I mean, the numbers speak for themselves right? Only 37% participated in any demonstration - likely only the non-violent ones in the beginning. His source doesn't actually disprove what I said - that most locals hated the protests.
    - F3nd0 24d ago
      37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?
      - aurareturn 24d ago
        There is a difference between demonstrations and violent protests. The protests lasted nearly a year. Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.
        latent-person 24d ago
        > Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK. Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to). Let me link [3] again for you: [3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/total-mobilization-from-below-hong-kongs-freedom-summer/92BA12D2EEA5782B4330B0D07B389842 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... edit: Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.

aurareturn 24d ago

A poll conducted for Reuters by an institute whose ex-CEO has historically expressed anti-Beijing and HK pro-succession views and has since moved to UK.[1] Yea, no bias there. Reuters is a British news agency wholly owned by Thomson Reuters[0] Even in that survey, you can clearly see that the locals did not want all the things the protestors/western media wanted. Nevertheless, only 17% expressed support for seeking independence from China, and 20% were opposed to "the current path of one country, two systems" - the arrangement under which Hong Kong is governed by Beijing. Many protesters say Beijing has used its authority under the system to gradually undermine certain freedoms - such as an independent judiciary and freedom of speech - that are supposed to be guaranteed at least until 2047 under the arrangement. The results of the survey, involving 1,021 people and conducted from Dec. 17-20, also showed a large plurality of respondents mainly blamed the Hong Kong government for the crisis, the worst civil unrest to hit the city in decades, rather than the central government in Beijing. This paper directly contradicts your claim it was mainly due to housing [4]. Summarize it? Having lived in Hong Kong and talked to many locals, had local friends, talked to young HKers, no one could convince me that housing wasn't the biggest reason for the pent up frustration that ultimately led to the protests. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kim-wah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kim-wah

_DeadFred_ 24d ago
Normally numbers are countered with numbers that back up your position, not personal anecdotes and attacks on source credibility.
- deleted 24d ago
  [deleted]
- aurareturn 24d ago
  I mean, the numbers speak for themselves right? Only 37% participated in any demonstration - likely only the non-violent ones in the beginning. His source doesn't actually disprove what I said - that most locals hated the protests.
  - F3nd0 24d ago
    37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?
    - aurareturn 24d ago
      There is a difference between demonstrations and violent protests. The protests lasted nearly a year. Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.
      - latent-person 24d ago
        > Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK. Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to). Let me link [3] again for you: [3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/total-mobilization-from-below-hong-kongs-freedom-summer/92BA12D2EEA5782B4330B0D07B389842 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... edit: Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.