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

Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

scmp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 115 posts

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#71

Post by pmiller2 »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #63
pmiller2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what those in power want you to think. Here’s a list of 19 protests with at least 100k participants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United... Four of them have taken place since November 2016.

Fascinating link but your color commentary on those in power trying to surpress this knowledge makes you sound irrational - despite being completely right. If those in power wanted to prevent this knowledge it wouldn't be on Wikipedia for any to edit.

How is it irrational to claim that those in power don’t want people knowing about massive protests against what they’re doing? (Tianiman Square, anyone?) The knowledge doesn’t need to be suppressed because it’s hidden in plain sight amongst all the other internet noise.

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#72

Post by Youden »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67
Youden wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. I think a better way to phrase "a government that is undemocratic" as "a dictatorship". The idea that democracy is the only system of government that can possibly represent the people is a horrendously American view of the world. To show an example that counters the "everything that isn'…

> where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum This is democracy. The people voted for a strong executive and to be represented by the monarchy. Nobody gets that vote in Uzbekistan.

It's a democratic process yes but the country is still a constitutional and largely functional monarchy.

Democracy is an indicator of whether the people are represented but it is not the definition.

I think a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes.

At one end of the spectrum is Switzerland, where the people can choose to directly override any government policy by referendum (or propose an action of their own).

At the other end of the spectrum is a government like North Korea, where the people have zero say.

Somewhere in the middle you see most Western democracies.

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#73

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Youden wrote: post #72
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where the people voted to give the monarchy _more_ power and refused to curb it in a referendum This is democracy. The people voted for a strong executive and to be represented by the monarchy. Nobody gets that vote in Uzbekistan.

It's a democratic process yes but the country is still a constitutional and largely functional monarchy. Democracy is an indicator of whether the people are represented but it is not the definition. I think a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes. At one end of the spectrum is Switzerland, where the people can choose to directly…

> a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes

How do you measure the latter? That’s the essence of democracy.

There are many democratic systems. Constitutional republics are democratic because the monarch must answer to the public. Dictatorships featuring leaders for life with limited options for sidelining or recalling are not democratic. The latter describes North Korea, China and certain African and central Asian states.

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#74

Post by sonnyblarney »

avocado4 wrote: post #54
PakG1 wrote: post #10

This article is published in the SCMP. The SCMP was purchased some time ago by Jack Ma. There were fears from various corners that Jack Ma, being friendly with the mainland Chinese government, would influence the SCMP to have coverage that was less independent than before. So it's interesting to see this published by SCMP.

SCMP has been pushing CCP propaganda since Jack Ma took over, it's just more subtle than GlobalTimes/XinhuaNet or other official sources. Not covering this protest would have been immediately obvious. You have to be a very subtle troll to make propaganda work abroad. It's similar to YC getting to open a China program in exchange for getting a few Mainland mods on HN. Any anti-China posts do come up to front page but…

"It's similar to YC getting to open a China program in exchange for getting a few Mainland mods on HN. Any anti-China posts do come up to front page but then disappear much faster than everything else (same will happen to this one)."

So this is one big statement. Is it true, or are you just guessing at that? Is it common knowledge, or suspicion? Where are we with the validity of that statement?

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#75

Post by magnusjonsson »

_yuow wrote: post #49
loyukfai wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, respect of human rights maybe a relatively recent "western" concept, but judging from the fact that so many family members of the top brass of the communist party of China have become citizens in these "Western" countries, it does seem that they themselves do embrace such values (when it doesn't confront their own interest).

[flagged]

whataboutist wumao

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#76

Post by NeedMoreTea »

chii wrote: post #44
CamelCaseName wrote: post #13

For anyone like me who was looking for some background on this, on Reddit, someone linked to a Vox video entitled "China is erasing its border with Hong Kong" [0]. At 15 minutes, it's a captivating introduction to the conflict. Another video (6 minutes) you might be interested in by Vox is "China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade" [1], which is on China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). [0]: https://www.y…

The vox video paints the Belt and Road Initiative in a negative light - which i feel is wrong. Why shouldn't China be allowed to invest and gain soft power? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make deals with countries the US deems 'undemocratic'?

It's been referred to as "debt trap diplomacy".

Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-...

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#77

Post by eastendguy »

Youden wrote: post #66
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. At that point, the deal is probably going to be one that benefits the government, but not the people. Countries do that, when it is in their best interest to do so. But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also righ…

> If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. I think a better way to phrase "a government that is undemocratic" as "a dictatorship". The idea that democracy is the only system of government that can possibly represent the people is a horrendously American view of the world. To show an example that counters the "everything that isn'…

Your Lichtenstein example is nonsense. Liechtenstein is not "partly democratic" but fully democratic. It has a monarch as Head of State (like the UK and others), and an elected parliament that enacts the law. It is also a direct democracy, where voters can propose and enact constitutional amendments and legislation independently of the legislature. The fact that the prince got a few more veto powers in 2003 does not change anything about the fact that it is democracy, and - equally important - people have full freedom of speech.

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#78

Post by tepidandroid »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #76
chii wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vox video paints the Belt and Road Initiative in a negative light - which i feel is wrong. Why shouldn't China be allowed to invest and gain soft power? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make deals with countries the US deems 'undemocratic'?

It's been referred to as "debt trap diplomacy". Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-...

Alternative viewpoint: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-i...

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#79

Post by emj »

wltprgm wrote: post #70
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted because you seem to just be here to argue. You're not interacting with peoples' responses to you very much, just throwing out a blizzard of new accusations. That's not a conversation, it's just a rant. HN isn't the place for that.

> because you seem to just be here to argue. You are right. I should change my tone. > You're not interacting with peoples' responses to you very much, just throwing out a blizzard of new accusations. I think I have made my point even though it was harsh. This thread is about protest in Hong Kong, and what the list of accusations (as you said) don't spread too far away, since it relates to the same thing.

I'm not really sure what your harsh point is to be honest, please expand!

Massacres and atrocities are no easy things to discuss. I've spoken to survivors of the holocaust in Europe, and the Rwandan genocide, you have obviously not heard anyone participating in Tiananmen square talk about the events? It's very hard to talk so lightly about massacares when you have heard personal anecdotes and the hard ships that the people went trough.

Re: Hundreds of thousands take to Hong Kong streets against controversial bill

#80

Post by rayiner »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #59
rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UN, particularly at that time (1948), was a creation and creature of the western world. The drafting committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt: http://research.un.org/en/undhr/draftingcommittee . Of the nine drafters, six were from a western country (US, UK, France, Australia, and Chile). Two (the ROC delegate and the Lebanese delegate) were educated in the US. (The ROC delegate moved to New Jersey and lived the…

You're using "west" as in western aligned? If not Australia and Russia are most definitely not western geographically. I've also never heard of Russia mentioned as western or grouped with other western countries. There's a lot of political tension between Russia and the "west" some I'm surprised to hear you say that.

"Western" is generally defined in terms of historical/cultural affiliation, not geography. Almost 90% of Australia's population is of English/Irish/Scottish descent, and Australia's laws, institutions, and culture are directly descended from Britain.

Russia is harder to pin down. Historically, they self-identified as western, even though the geographic center of Russia is actually in Asia.

Post reply on HN