151–160 of 218 posts
https://www.newsweek.com/cathay-ceo-refused-name-hong-kong-p... > The Taiwan News claimed that Cathay Pacific CEO Rupert Hogg's decision to resign last week came after he refused to name names to the Chinese government when he was asked to provide a list of employees who were involved in the Hong Kong protests. > China's Civil Aviation Administration ordered Cathay to provide a list of employees who were involved in…
(Some say this version of events is an untrue rumor.)
https://www.newsweek.com/cathay-ceo-refused-name-hong-kong-p... > The Taiwan News claimed that Cathay Pacific CEO Rupert Hogg's decision to resign last week came after he refused to name names to the Chinese government when he was asked to provide a list of employees who were involved in the Hong Kong protests. > China's Civil Aviation Administration ordered Cathay to provide a list of employees who were involved in…
I think Hogg had to resign anyway, regardless of the unverified claim from Newsweek and Taiwan news. A pilot was arrested for rioting: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3020736... An employee leaked the itinerary of members of the HK Police force: https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/cathay-pacific-staff-leaks-travel... Social media videos of Cathay Pacific staff involved in protests, shouting, arguing, etc.…
I see this happening everywhere in relation to the unrest in HK. Ideally, ideas should be discussed on their merit and in the light of day. When faced with what is perceived as dissent, strong counter arguments should be made instead of shutting down discourse.
In my opinion, this censorious attitude will be damaging to the pro-democracy movement’s cause in the long term.
EDIT: response to jeremysalwen’s comment below since it seems my comments are either being rate limited or filtered.
> If the 50 cent army ever came to HN, it would look like the above two comments.
Thank you.
I could not have asked for a better example of what I meant than your comment. I've seen variants of this type of comment repeated everywhere on HN and Reddit to shut down legitimate discourse. I have only made extremely neutral comments, and yet here I am feeling like I’m being surrounded by a suspicious lynch mob. If you think turning every exchange of ideas into the Spanish Inquisition is the best way to support the plight of the protestors then I’d disagree, but that’s your prerogative.
Also, if an echo chamber is what people want HN to be, I can live with that. I just think it’d be a pity because I enjoy reading discussions with a diversity of opinion - more specifically, I enjoy reading high quality responses to actual dissenters, not unsubstantiated witch-hunting or low effort dismissals to every ‘threat’ real or imagined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pilot talking about protestors at the airport he's landing, and supporting them did not imperil the safety of passengers. Claiming that is indeed absurd.
>did not imperil the safety of passengers. This should be a claim reserved to the experts. If everyone can make those kind of claims why we need FAA? China's aviation authority's claim might not be reasonable, but I'm in no position to judge. And I don't think the Economist can judge either. It not only judged, but grossed over the few incidents with just one word, absurdly. Now you are a pilot yourself, I'm sure you…
You have some anonymous user in this thread fantasizing about crazy scenarios that didn't happen, and you're propping them up with your own judgement, and then you're telling me to hold my judgement and trust the alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you.
No thanks, I'll take as much freedom in judgement as you afforded yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but how are you going into a country and stay there legally? The same way startups figure out how to survive and eventually profit: by continuously adapting and continuously looking for opportunity. In our case, some of my relatives saved up enough "under the counter" money to pay a citizen to marry them until they were able to get a green card; after which they divorced. Others just married citizens. Others got en…
Ok, that's really funny. It would never in a million years occur to me to pay someone to marry me so I could live in some country. And, yes, some recent startups have skirted or crossed the line to illegality. My point remains - nowadays (unlike a century ago, if I'm not mistaken), the majority of people can not choose in which country to live (legally, at any rate).
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american-chinatowns-history_n...
I didn't say that your point was invalid. I'm just pointing out that when you're desperate enough to escape an authoritarian regime or other dangers, legality isn't as important of a consideration. There's plenty of grey areas to work in. ie if there's a will, there's a way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No incentive for Hogg to deny it, makes him look good.
How about your Civil Aviation Administration making an official statement that it didn't ask Hogg for this list as a starter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>did not imperil the safety of passengers. This should be a claim reserved to the experts. If everyone can make those kind of claims why we need FAA? China's aviation authority's claim might not be reasonable, but I'm in no position to judge. And I don't think the Economist can judge either. It not only judged, but grossed over the few incidents with just one word, absurdly. Now you are a pilot yourself, I'm sure you…
Speaking over the intercom about protestors is not a safety issue. You don't need the obviously politically motivated CCP "experts" to judge that. This has nothing to do with aviation safety and everything to do with (lack of) freedom of speech. You have some anonymous user in this thread fantasizing about crazy scenarios that didn't happen, and you're propping them up with your own judgement, and then you're telling…
What judgement has I made? I said I'm surprised the Economist used the word absurdly. Is surprised a judgement?
>alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you.
What's my position in this matter? Did I say it's a safety concern in any comment? Again is surprised == I agree with the demand? Or please remind me if I said something else that made you think I agree with China's aviation authority?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Hogg had to resign anyway, regardless of the unverified claim from Newsweek and Taiwan news. A pilot was arrested for rioting: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3020736... An employee leaked the itinerary of members of the HK Police force: https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/cathay-pacific-staff-leaks-travel... Social media videos of Cathay Pacific staff involved in protests, shouting, arguing, etc.…
Trying to bury every single thought that doesn't perfectly conform with the common narrative is unscalable and will only serve to amplify the counter-narrative. I see this happening everywhere in relation to the unrest in HK. Ideally, ideas should be discussed on their merit and in the light of day. When faced with what is perceived as dissent, strong counter arguments should be made instead of shutting down discours…