111–120 of 189 posts
Conclusion: Chinese is absolutely the best language-family to make cryptic, gnomic, multi-layered allusions and sound like you've lived 100,000 years up a mountain eating nothing but fresh mountain air and magical peaches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the first amendment right? The US military machine would decimate any civilians wielding weapons if they were so inclined. They wouldn't even have to use troops, they could do so with drones.
Why has the US military machine failed to wipe out a few thousand foreign insurgents (generally less well equipped than American civilians) using drones then? Why did many of my peers, troops, die? I have severe doubts that the US could contain a civil uprising scenario, especially given international pressures. About 42% of Americans *live in a household with guns according to Gallup, with approximately 30% owning t…
I would add that the US monitors its civilians with multiple agencies, including Homeland Security and the NSA, and I would think it'd be easier to do on the domestic side than have to contend with foreign governments and the distances involved in operating overseas.
I'm not sure about the Gallup poll you're referring to, but the Pew Research poll I stumbled upon has 30% of Americans owning a firearm with an additional 11 to 12% living in a household with someone who owns a firearm. I don't really agree that means 42% of Americans own firearms. In fact, the ratio of households that own a gun has been going down for decades (You can see this here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despite-mass-shootings-number-o...). The issue is there are fewer and fewer people owning guns, but those people own far more guns than they did previously. Which is where the extremism and mass shootings come in (along with our current social and political structure). Here's a quotation from the article I linked above:
>They found that those who own guns own an average of 4.8 firearms. But they also found that half of all guns — 130 million guns — are owned by 14 percent of gun owners or 7.6 million people. That's 3 percent of the U.S. population.
The international pressure angle is interesting and not something I've really thought a lot about. Incidentally, the current administration doesn't seem to care what international governments think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the creation of the United States laughable? What was used in order to gain that freedom from Britain? Firearms maybe?
The last time some of the US states tried to secede from the rest of the union and gain their "freedom" (they were of course heavily armed) they were attacked and crushed in a war that lasted 4 years and caused almost a million deaths. So in that case the weapons didn't work. Or did they? Sometimes armed rebellion has good outcomes, sometimes (probably more often) it has horribly tragic ones. Prolonged political pres…
Li Ka-shing is well aware. His job ad for a Chinese PA was featured in the news for its salary (HK$1Mpa) and very high requirements (expert level in modern and classical Chinese and Chinese history, 20+ years experience). https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1567579
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you defend yourself against the Chinese army with just handguns and rifles? You can post the answer here, or better yet, sell it to Taiwan confidentially for billions of dollars.
Ask the Vietnamese.
Personally I think they'll just continue arresting and making people disappear to the mainland so there is nothing damaging on the news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really illustrates the importance of our own second amendment.
Not really. Civil disobedience is the only historically effective way to defeat a modern state. With open warfare, the historical playbook for putting down this sort of thing is clear. Roll in the tanks, and infantry from Mongolia or whatever. Sometimes the revolt get put down immediately, sometimes you end up with guerrilla warfare.
What a contorted argument. I assume that the British empire wasn’t a modern state, and that history is less than one century long (and full of holes).
> “everyone knows what 4 / 6 /89 signifies” This annoyed me quite a bit. No I don’t. Most people probably don’t. It’s the date of Tiananmen Square.
> This annoyed me quite a bit. Cool. You're on a computer. Look it up. Now you know (probably better than if they had just said it outright). Why do so many people here choose to fill the comment sections with gripes about minor imperfections in articles, when those imperfections don't take away from the article as a whole? Especially when there's so much else worth discussing here.
"From born to die, you will always buy Li Ka-Shing's goods" "If there's God in HongKong, his last name must be Li" He and other oligarchs raise prices and exploit profits from people. HK Gov tried several times to press down house prices (build public rental apartments provided by gov, called 新界东北发展计划 ), all failed. What's the funniest part is, HK GOV plan to dismantle the golf courses for building public apartments,…
>In this a City with the 0.539 Gini coefficient, why people hate the government on the other side than rich oligarchs? capital owns media. This has perplexed me to no end. The straw that broke the camel's back was an extradition treaty being proposed, and not the crushing living conditions that have been worsening over the past two decades. Sounds like you are a native. curious why you think this is the case outside…
Just like some western opinion that why Chinese people don't fight their government for democracy and free speech, I really can not understand why HK people don't fight oligarchs for goods prices and living house.
Every few years, some protests happen in Hong Kong, None of those protests is aiming to the oligarchs, some people do hate Li, but the most far they can do is ridiculing and complaining.
>If that's the case i can't see why the CCP is complaining they lost control of the narrative via the press, if they never had it in the first place
the CCP attached great importance to propaganda from the beginning (the 1930s). At that time, they do have the advantage of propaganda (compare to the Kuomintang), and now the CCP has lost its ability and skills, the official media of CCP are barely welcome by Chinese, very many young men dislike them. Those years what the CCP propaganda department can do is only to delete and forbidden the contents they dislike, and this usually has the opposite effect - more and more people don't trust them
That appears to be an incredibly classy thing to do, at no small risk to himself. The billionaires have the most to lose with any social unrest, and he exposed himself to support the masses. If so: Respect Counter-possibility: it's a CYA maneuver, which supports both sides simlutaneously and either message can be declared as "intended" post-hoc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really illustrates the importance of our own second amendment.
You mean the first amendment right? The US military machine would decimate any civilians wielding weapons if they were so inclined. They wouldn't even have to use troops, they could do so with drones.
If this was the truth why is the US military still engaged in Afghanistan? Is it possible that war is more nuanced if you don't carpet bomb locations off the map?