151–160 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Texas secession movement doesn't claim a right to secede. Texas retains the right to split into five states. They plan to use the threat of adding 8 right-leaning senators to the US senate to convince democrats to let them leave.
Isn't Texas only a red state because of gerrymandering?
Considering, that HK leader did not immediately withdrew the bill after the first protest, it is only natural to assume, that that person does not represent the will of the people. So it makes sense to impeach.
The difficulty with this statement is it requires that the people have the ability to affect their leaders through voting which in Hong Kong's case does not. In HK, the people can vote for a Chief Executive of HK, but the pool that you can vote for is now only allowed to be "pro China", this is what the umbrella revolution was protesting and sadly failed. "Universal suffrage but only with the people we let you vote f…
As we are not Xi, we could only speculate why this time is different, that the anti-extradition protest in 2019 achieved something (the suspension of the law), unlike the Umbrella protest in 2014 which achieved effectively nothing.
One key difference is that, the 2014 Umbrella protest concerns only Hong Kong--China internal politics: other parties (US, UK, Canada, etc.) have less to say for Hong Kong's universal suffrage; meanwhile the 2019 anti-extradition protest concerns citizens of other countries, so they have a say in this particular event.
Quoting Simon Shen (in Chinese [1], section six there, translation mine + Google translate):
> VI. Diplomacy of Diaspora: The Dispute of the "Fugitive Offenders" Breaks Through the Diplomatic Missions in Hong Kong Standardized by "the Vienna Convention"
> ...
> However, the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" dispute is a rare opportunity for these diplomats to find reasons to comment on Hong Kong, because the regulations directly cover their own citizens and chambers of commerce in Hong Kong. With this starting point, comments are their basic responsibility and there is room for manoeuvre. It is said that the Office of the Special Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong will release the doubts from the collective and their meetings. One of the reasons is naturally that the SAR Government can speak at the level of the Basic Law and is not interested in the other party. The SAR Government does not seem to be interested in a local regulation covering foreign businessmen and expatriates. This has already exceeded the pure legal issue, but opened a dangerous Pandora's box because "protecting the diaspora" is well known to the international community. "Universal Key", many acts that could have been classified as "interference in internal affairs" have become crowned with such reasonable reasons. For example, the United States intervenes in Venezuela to protect the diaspora, and Russia annexes Crimea to protect the diaspora. In recent years, embassies around the country have also stepped up publicity to protect the diaspora.
> More importantly, this time the countries have made great comments on Hong Kong and set a number of precedents. In addition to the collective actions of the EU countries, the United Kingdom and Canada are also issued a "Joint Statement" by Hong Kong foreign ministers to Hong Kong, suggesting that the British will start "England after the Brexit". The possibility of the Australian-New Zealand Commonwealth is an example of other diplomatic work with Hong Kong; other diplomats seem to have a lot of cases in the past month. During the Disputes of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the SAR Government has been unable to successfully dispel the doubts of various countries, and even more and more, the consulates in Hong Kong have created more working relationships because of the need for direct exchanges. The importance of this consular mission was first activated in the twenty years after the reunification. It would be almost impossible without a draft that covered all the people of the world and caused a lot of local controversy.
And from a previous discussion, some one claimed that the real reason that the 2019 protest achieved something has to do with Taiwan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20196738
[1]: https://simonshen.blog/2019/06/16/%e5%be%9e%e5%9c%8b%e9%9a%9...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
simple answer: we don't have alternatives. comparing with being meddling by USA or any foreign power, I'd rather pick CCP. No matter how well intentioned you guys are/were, I'll say it in your face: I don't trust you. here is the problem: if you were pissed off by my remark, then how could you overcome the trust issue? if you were not, how stupid I'm going to be to trust you? honestly, I think we deserve whatever we…
It's funny to make comparison between CCP and "foreign power" as CCP was originally funded by the Soviets, which is, of course, a "foreign power". And the sad truth is that you as an individual really can't make opinions for "we" which I'd take as "Chinese people" here. The problem is that the opposite opinions to yours are getting oppressed in a unprecedented way. Lastly, "do business" doesn't mean "cheat and take a…
I'm pride not to use 'we' here precisely b/c I know I can't represent all Chinese. whom am I to claim to have that authority? I know whom I am, and I know I have blind spot in my view, and I happily to admit the fact. and I'll be even happier to know if there is any wrong with my logic. the question is, are you?
or, maybe you want to shield the light on the tactic about 'Red herring'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In China mainland, there is a censor tech named Great Firewall.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall?wprov=sfti1 ) It just cut off the connection between China and the World Internet by blocking famous website like Twitter, Facebook etc. Only the people have eagerness of finding truth will use anti-blocking tech like VPN to find information by themselves. Of course, it’s inconvenience and sometimes not worki…
> Being lack of information, most citizens support gov’s standpoint. NO, because of the censorship, we do not know how many people actually support gov’s standpoint. Your statement is pure speculation and does not have any factual basis. The Chinese government will not allow any professional organization to conduct and publish a survey like: "Do you support the censorship?", or "Do you support protest in HK?", or "Do…
This is a very open and courteous community, where a bit of generosity in interpreting people's statements, and courtesy even to people we disagree with, is highly valued and it seems to me you have some very valuable views and experience to share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the technicalities, but Wilson’s Doctrine clearly applies to the citizens of Texas in 2019 as much as to the citizens of Austria-Hungary a century earlier. If it became absolutely certain that an overwhelming majority of Texans wanted to secede, the right answer would be to draw up ways to allow them to do so in the smoothest and most legal way, not to send the US Army to quash it. I understand the Civil…
Wilson’s Doctrine clearly applies to the citizens of Texas in 2019 as much as to the citizens of Austria-Hungary a century earlier. How do you figure? I don't think any mainstream view of 'self-determination' and certainly not Wilson's just up and grants national sovereignty for the asking. Texas is plenty autonomous.
Texas is a well-defined territory with a well-defined set of cultural characteristics. Its population has as much of a right to self-determination as Catalunya, Scotland, Croatia, Slovakia or Kosovo, should a consensus emerge in the region. This is hardly controversial.
No one bat an eye when a China citizen arrested on Canada soil to be extradite to US.
When China trying to pass a extradition bill on a China territory, the world goes batshit.
The reason that most journalist peddling is you may be trial unfairly in mainland China. You always get a fair trial. China law is fair in China. Shariah law is fair in the Islamic country. Plead the fifth is fair in US.
The problem comes when one thinks their own version of law is better than their neighbouring country law.
And those who comment about how hk democracy and China CCP. Democracy is not a be all system. In a Democratic system, the 51% will always dictate against the other 49%. I grew up in "progressive" multi racial country...so progressive that the majority race which have the Democratic power pass bills that give their race significant advantage over other citizen. Slippery slope system.
Disclaimer: I'm a 3rd gen Chinese descent grew up in a Democratic country and living in China now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We allow similar censorship in the US (of things like extremist propaganda or hate speech) with a similar justification. The difference is that this is private companies doing it of their own volition and not by government demand. The US government can't do anything about you hosting a website and posting extremist propaganda/hate speech on it. (the exception being speech which is _likely_ to cause _imminent lawless…
> The difference is that this is private companies doing it of their own volition and not by government demand. Is this really a meaningful difference if the end result is the same?
It saddens me that so many people draw this sort of false equivalence. All it does is provide comfort and support for the sort of pervasive state imposed news blackouts and retribution against individual commentators practiced in places like China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How common would you say it is for someone living in China to be able to have access to outside information / sites like you? Does everyone mostly understand that the government censors things to such an extreme but because of a fear of being targeted choose to not say anything, or would you say that most people are actually genuinely ignorant?
It's usually viewed as a protective measure more than a mechanism of oppression. And it is protective. If you believe that widespread dissidence could lead to the collapse of your government then preventing that is a necessary evil to ensure your own well being. So, yeah, most mainlanders are aware of the censorship but it's not always viewed as inherently bad. And not just out of fear of being targeted or something.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How common would you say it is for someone living in China to be able to have access to outside information / sites like you? Let me answer this question as well, because, well, I'm entitled. It's very very rare to see Chinese people use VPN other than for maybe to play games, most people here is just living, don't even curious about the outside world. Even worse, among those who did got out, some saw those China's…
> HongKong is Not a sovereign country, if people in HongKong eventually failed, then they will face the same thing in the future. Which is the reason why they must try not fail. (If they do, then welcome to West Korea, comrade. May our dear supreme leader bless you!) Hong Kong people are trying to do their best--after all, with no army of its own, 2 million people went to the street to voice out, peacefully--but supp…