Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

hongkongfp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#51

Post by jedberg »

filoleg wrote: post #49
inlined wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me when suddenly something matters or it doesn’t. There were outcries over Crimea until there suddenly weren’t. There were no outcries over Syria until there suddenly were.

I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way…

The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#52

Post by vkou »

xiii1408 wrote: post #35
mrguyorama wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the USA has a legal process for secession.

Yeah, there's at least a supreme court precedent, set by Texas v. White . It outlawed unilateral succession, but ruled that "revolution or consent of the states" can lead to secession.

The whole point of secession, whether in the US, or Catalonia, or in China[1], is that you have reached a point where you are not able to come to a bilateral compromise on issues that affect you.

If you need bilateral support to exercise your right to self-determination, you don't actually, in practice, have any right to self-determination.

It's like saying that you have the freedom to leave your abusive job, but only as long as your boss lets you quit. That's not freedom, that's slavery.

[1] And yes, I am aware that the case in Scotland was a bit different. Props to the UK for being, as an outside observer, reasonable about the whole affair.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#53

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

filoleg wrote: post #49
inlined wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me when suddenly something matters or it doesn’t. There were outcries over Crimea until there suddenly weren’t. There were no outcries over Syria until there suddenly were.

I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way…

> While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict.

There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least before the invasion - things changed a bit since then). In HK the situation is completely different: people know what kind of country China is, and will fight for whatever rights they still have.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#54

Post by vkou »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #33
vkou wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original protestors were fastidious in their civic-mindedness. General question: What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows? How do you apply that process for determining the nature of protests in your local city? I ask, because I've never been to, seen, heard of, or read abo…

> What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows? Whether they smash windows and vandalise, or not.

1. How do you know that is actually done by the protestors, or some unaffiliated hooligans?

2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source.

Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension - and is a distraction, used to condemn some protests (that you politically oppose) as illegitimate, and to endorse others, as legitimate?

Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans, either planted, embedded, or just standing on the sidelines. I postulate that it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#55

Post by filoleg »

jedberg wrote: post #51
filoleg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way…

The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.

That's the real leverage. Hong Kong's true potential is still there to be uncovered, and people remember how flourishing it was back then. Imagine how it could all blow up to even higher highs if the PRC rule was completely gone from Hong Kong. I feel like if that gate opens in the near future (i know, wishful thinking), HK will have its new golden age, as companies and individuals will not need to worry about PRC influence on HK anymore.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#56

Post by filoleg »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #53
filoleg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way…

> While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. There was something else still: the population of Crimea was mostly Russian. Like, really Russian. Using only Russian language, calling hryvnas rubles, and in general feeling Russian. Many of these people actually liked the idea of Crimea being a part of Russia (at least be…

I had briefly mentioned this in the "P.S." section of my original comment, but I appreciate you adding more concrete and specific examples.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#57

Post by pishpash »

jedberg wrote: post #51
filoleg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the situation at hand is very different. Crimea, unlike Hong Kong, isn't an alpha+ city that is one of the most important financial hubs in the world. While capturing Crimea by RF was extremely reprehensible, there was not much at stake there for any side not directly involved in the conflict. All there was in Crimea situation is just a geopolitical projection of power. With Hong Kong, the stakes are way…

The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.

China didn't handicap shit. Hong Kong's rise in the first place was entirely due to China's self-inflicted communism and external sanctions in the first decades after the Revolution. (Shanghai was the Paris of the East before that.) Ever since that stopped, Hong Kong was no longer as important by default. Hong Kong's special status was always predicated on somehow China failing, including now (rule of law, etc.).

This is why the underlying sentiment of Hong Kong independence is especially offensive to Chinese sensibilities.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#58

Post by rolltiide »

djsumdog wrote: post #19

I really hope Hong Kong gains independence from China. They do not want to be part of that regime. Hong Kong currently participates in some United Nations committees, but is not recognized as a country. Have there been any political leaders in Hong Kong who have publicly opposed returning to China or who have requested recognition by other UN member States?

Do you think there is any scenario where it can be a bargaining chip that results in its independence?

1997 China is very different than 2019 China with regard to the successes in Shanghai's free trade zone and Guangzhou. The Communist Party is very very far from the teachings of Karl Marx and there is no outcome of a communist utopia that dissolves the central planners, after the means of production are completely egalitarian (a communist state is supposed to be a means to an end, all communist states have failed during this supposedly transitionary stage, China is stable in its central control of power, but doesn't seem to be aiming for a transaction to this fictional untested standard of governance). I don't get the impression that the people buy it, with so many known ways to effect private ownership and capital formation. The effect being that Hong Kong itself isn't that relevant and is more of a blight to undermine the Communist Party's power.

How many resources does the party need to deploy to maintain this information leakage? There would be considerably less international heat on the Communist Party if they let go of their Special Administrative Regions. Other provinces don't derive their adherence to the party based on what happens to the SARs.

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#59

Post by bllguo »

filoleg wrote: post #55
jedberg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate truth is that Hong Kong isn't nearly as important to global banking as it once was. China has a done a really great job handicapping them, for this very reason. So that it would be easier to absorb them.

That's the real leverage. Hong Kong's true potential is still there to be uncovered, and people remember how flourishing it was back then. Imagine how it could all blow up to even higher highs if the PRC rule was completely gone from Hong Kong. I feel like if that gate opens in the near future (i know, wishful thinking), HK will have its new golden age, as companies and individuals will not need to worry about PRC in…

HK used to flourish because it was the access point between China and the West. If they completely severed ties with China there is no value proposition anymore... what "higher highs" are you anticipating, exactly?

Re: Hong Kong protesters occupy legislative chamber

#60

Post by tempguy9999 »

vkou wrote: post #54
tempguy9999 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows? Whether they smash windows and vandalise, or not.

1. How do you know that is actually done by the protestors, or some unaffiliated hooligans? 2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source. Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actual…

Your posts baffle me I'm afraid. You ask

"[...] peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or [...] a bunch of hooligans"

You then ask how I really know whether it's being done by either, well, if it's breaking windows it's hooligans. If it's not it's not. I gave you an answer.

You then say

"Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension"

So you're saying it doesn't matter, then add

"Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans"

So you're claiming all protests will end up with criminal damage, then add

"it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances"

which seemingly negates the whole point of your original question. Mate, you're all over the place here.

Post reply on HN