81–90 of 142 posts
What do you think Beijing thought before? What a good boy you were being?
Beijing doesn’t want to give you democracy regardless of what you are doing. Now they just have to be way more overt about it.
> China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty. The protesters, who represent a wide swath of Hong Kong, want a government that looks out for their interests, not just Beijing’s, to help resolve problems like astronomical housing prices and low wages. > The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s…
> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
What are the chances of the unrest spreading into China? One hears of sporadic unrest through China, I take the economy hasn’t yet faltered so people aren’t too disgruntled. I take it this qualifies as “Interesting Times”
> What are the chances of the unrest spreading into China? There are hundreds of small riots happening all around China nearly every month. I don't think this will make a difference, unless it happens in numbers comparable to number you see in HK. Paradoxically, Xi's rule saw less riots than during Hu's term, when "something serious" was going on almost monthly.
> China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty. The protesters, who represent a wide swath of Hong Kong, want a government that looks out for their interests, not just Beijing’s, to help resolve problems like astronomical housing prices and low wages. > The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s…
> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are literally drills: nobody is getting shot in Shenzhen. Of course the drills are sabre-rattling, a show of force intended to send a message, and preparation for a future assault if necessary -- but they're still drills, not use of the military in anger.
Every "use of the military in anger" in history involves massing your forces at strategic borders. That is just War 101.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
"It seemed that the mass shooter and the nightclub patrons could no longer recognize each other's concerns."
China has a legitimate claim to Hong Kong, Hong Kong (arguably) has a right to self-determination.
They're a newspaper. Present both sides, let me make a decision. Don't tell me what to think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which I find to be irrational. Stamford Raffles "took" Singapore from the Malay sultanate in the 1820s. In 1963, we finally got it back, but let them go barely two years later due to ingrained cultural differences that manifested during the meantime. With the rise of so many capable cities on the mainland, perhaps pursuit of unification is just not worth the trouble anymore.
> With the rise of so many capable cities on the mainland, perhaps pursuit of unification is just not worth the trouble anymore. Maybe to you? It's clear from China's actions that they think otherwise and they're willing to do whatever it takes to ensure control and unification.
> China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty. The protesters, who represent a wide swath of Hong Kong, want a government that looks out for their interests, not just Beijing’s, to help resolve problems like astronomical housing prices and low wages. > The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s…
> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
For example, perhaps Ukraine says they've been invaded by Russian troops without insignias; and Russia says it isn't them.
Some would say the ideal in journalism would be not only to report the conflicting statements, but also to determine and report what the underlying truth is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
Thats is the essence of the false equivalency: the idea that if two people disagree with equal passion they must be equally correct. Journalists are supposed to be fact checkers and critical thinkers. Their job isnt to parrot beijings claims that the sky is green, its to stick their heads out the damn window and see for themselves.
What wrong claim have they made? China has a legitimate claim to the territory, Hong Kong has a legitimate right to self-determination (in my opinion).
Claiming they're wrong or otherwise conveying false information because they haven't picked a side is just wholly wrong.
If you want propaganda that only reports on your side, there are subreddits for that. This is a newspaper.