51–60 of 135 posts
To be clear, they are rather riot leaders who funded by US than "student group leaders".
Source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notice that walking on the streets of China or Hong Kong is still a world different from posting an internet comment or incrementing a mysql column. Also, yes, we generally are skeptical of political claims online. See this thread and any political discussion on HN. It's why political submissions are usually clusterfucks like this one where every top-level comment is greyed-out and making a strong claim. Or made by s…
Here is an actual person, living in China, commenting on Hong Kong. Do you believe this video deserves skepticism? If so, can you tell me why? https://youtu.be/h64hTb4on78
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the point. He's saying that there's no possible way to decisively figure out who does and doesn't live in Hong Kong on Quora; there are a lot of nations interested in influencing what's going on there right now (including US, I might add), and Chinese disinformation campaigns (especially ones where they pretend to be from elsewhere) aren't a new phenomenon. Petitions are bullshit, Quora is bullshit. Look f…
I wonder what you consider valid opinions then. Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion? Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
You're redirecting the conversation. Is this intentional? I didn't claim any which way as to the "validity" of opinion: I agreed with Saagar, saying that the fact of where you live is easy to obscure or lie about on the internet, and opinions that were possibly deceptively broadcasted should be taken with a grain of salt.
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
This is a fun question, because there are four or five layers to it! I'll try to answer it and the rest of your questions the best I can, because I don't think we're that far off from ideological alignment here.
First, I'll start off again by pointing out your usage of "valid opinion" isn't here nor there (all opinions are valid, even if some are deceiving and many are wrong): my statement wasn't on the validity of opinions, but on whether or not the opinions were coming from people who were being honest about where they were from. But I still like this question, so I'm going to answer.
You word this like it's a "gotcha," as if for some reason expats are primarily on the side against CCP (or China, because let's be honest, a lot of the hate directed in the CCP's direction is anti-Chinese xenophobia, despite there being a lot of valid reasons to hate the CCP and detest its actions), but most foreigners who'd be willing to film themselves talking in China and publicly broadcast it are pro-Chinese government. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing, and it's completely natural given that the Chinese government has some absolutely fantastic scholarships and has relatively accepting immigration policies.
But then, Hong Kong isn't China. I wouldn't trust an American living in France to tell me about Venezuela, even if their opinions are "valid" as long as they're representing themselves as an American living in France telling me about Venezuela. I'd trust a foreigner living in Hong Kong to tell me about Hong Kong, I'd trust a foreigner living in China to tell me about whichever part of China they're in (I'm not going to claim someone living in Chongqing could tell me much about Huangshan; people don't accept that China is more like USA than a tiny country like France, but I wouldn't trust a Californian to deliver a good summary of what Wisconsin is like, either).
It then follows that Chinese living in China and Americans living in the USA have opinions that are worth less than anyone living in Hong Kong, which I'd say is true if you think people should have a right to self-determination. Most online opinions claiming to be from Hong Kong online should probably be discounted then, solely because given the volume of people from both countries with an interest in interfering in Hong Kong's affairs (let's be honest, CIA is assuredly interfering too given the obvious benefits of an independent Hong Kong to US intelligence).
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Again, you're using "invalid" in a sense that I don't think is useful. Nonetheless, anyone claiming to be from anywhere online has a pretty strong chance of not being from there. Any dog can log on. So yeah, definitely discount HN pretty heavily. Even if HN isn't subject to any disinformation campaigns (ignoring that Amazon's been caught paying people to comment on here and some Amazon accounts have been banned for that), it's still primarily well-off people circlejerking about the dangers of economic systems they've only read the Wikipedia articles about; yes, absolutely throw the opinions away. Most importantly, do so when sides not directly involved (meaning not Hong Kong in this case, despite that China is 'directly' involved; China is 'directly' involved in the sense that USA was during Vietnam) have vested interests in making things go their way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is an actual person, living in China, commenting on Hong Kong. Do you believe this video deserves skepticism? If so, can you tell me why? https://youtu.be/h64hTb4on78
-
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "these people are funded from abroad" rhetoric is employed too often by countries trying to control their population. Without hard evidence I wouldn't trust such things. I Russia, for example it's the number one way to try to discredit anybody who disagrees with the government. Yet the government, which has essentially total control over all spheres of life, has not been able to procure any evidence.
Pompeo certainly was hinting the same in speaking of rioters in the US, and his office slyly even seems to suggest that was the reason behind closing the Houston consulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A petition is a much lower effort action than a protest. People motivated enough to protest in person probably represent a stronger opinion base than people merely motivated enough to sign a petition.
That's generally true. In this case, it's a petition about a national security law, so does that still hold? I would say that anybody signing support for a national security law has to be mad (under normal circumstances), no matter how easy it is to put down a signature.
When the Hong Kong stock exchange listed a Chinese tech index the other day I realised Hong Kong had completely fallen. The CCP rules Hong Kong in totality now as far as I'm concerned.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_share
[2]: https://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tearsheet/summary?s=HSCA...
I recently purchased Unfree Speech by Joshua Wong, a prominent Hong Kong activist who was imprisoned for 6 months (at the age of 20) for his political activity. I recommend it, as it is a pretty informal, quick read. It felt...odd...reading a contemporary story about political imprisonment. Somehow the term itself feels antiquated, but alas here we are.
(kidding, but not completely -- read Article 21: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republi...)