Beijing will slaughter these protesters eventually either in public or secretly. We have an absolute moral imperative to give everyone in Hong Kong the option to evacuate to a free country.
So… a few thoughts. I live in HK (having semi-recently moved here from the Bay Area, right before this all flared up).
First, there's a ton of misinformation out there. Few sources have entirely accurate information, but the best English-language resource I've found on the subject is the local paper South China Morning Post (scmp.com). They have pretty accurate and unbiased live reporting of the protests as it flares up. Twitter and private groups have unfiltered live information.
The movement is still described as "anti extradition bill," but has long stopped being about the extradition bill that triggered it all. At this point, it's simply a revolution against an increasingly worrying shift towards Beijing-controlled authoritarianism.
The mood has intensified and darkened since the beginning of the movement in June. There is a lot more disagreement now about whether the protester's tactics are justified. The protests are losing a lot of general support, but still attract overwhelmingly large crowds. Police has stepped up the aggression, the gov't isn't budging, and dissidents are increasingly angry and willing to resort to violence and guerrilla tactics. There's also the added element of the white shirt counter-protesters (allegedly triads, allegedly China-backed) inciting indiscriminate violence to attempt to scare the public into distancing themselves from the movement.
Nobody has died yet, but the violence is getting worse and some people are getting seriously hurt. Yesterday's flare-up at the airport was in response to anger about a female medic protester being shot point-blank in the face by police and losing an eye. There were some pretty horrific scenes of police shooting tear gas rounds at close range in Kwai Fong MTR station (which is against the rules for how to use tear gas and which endangers both protesters and bystanders and MTR employees alike).
My life here hasn't been affected much, but I do make an effort to avoid the protests area which aren't exactly safe. There have been quite a few of regular transit disruption. I've definitely have had several days of cancelled plans due to transportation issues. I've had friends crash with me because their neighborhood was in the middle of a protest fight. I've had a friend get tear gassed walking home a bit too close to a group of protesters.
Hope this all gets resolved peacefully soon, but let's be real… it won't. I expect this will continue to escalate. I'm watching China's response carefully, because there's a risk they make some pretty unprecedented moves.
1) Traditionally the Chinese government largely left the affairs of HK to HKers (in reality just the few families), so there is no reason to step in and be the bad guy right now.
2) This protest/riot is far more complicated than it seems, considering the meeting with the US diplomat as well as the involvement of the boss of next digital. Geopolitics plays a hand here.
3) Protesters should target the ruling families (e.g. the realtors) instead, thus would gain the psychological support of mainlanders. Targeting the tourists doesn't help.
4) Hope nothing really bad happens and everything goes as peacefully as possible.
What do you think are the chances that the tanks roll in, all protestors are shot or arrested, marshal law is declared for a few months, and eventually Hong Kong becomes just another city in China without its own special governance or laws?
Can you rely on South China Morning Post (scmp.com) to be unbiased as their current owner is Chinese Alibaba Group ? Apart from mild criticisms, I don't think Alibaba group can afford to publish against Chinese government.
I find it very hard to believe that SCMP has both accurate and unbiased reporting after reading the Wikipedia article. This makes your comment read like a China-sponsored chill.
I'm talking about this as someone who is neither if favor of any party. Media is going to be either pro or against. It's very hard to find an unbiased media. An unbiased media needs to earn their reputation with time and a lot of effort. They also must have independent and verifiable funding that does not cross with neither party.
In your view they have moved past simply being an anti-extradition bill protest? In other words- if the bill was withdrawn your sentiment is that the protests would continue?
0 to minimal chance. the brainwashing happening in mainland china makes those protesters into terrorists supported by foreign governments. that’s the level where china is at right now.
The most liberal west-loving people I know in China are claiming that these are terrorist acts being pushed by America.
The chances of mainlanders being inspired by this is zero. Most seem to want to see the protesters disappear, and I don’t mean just going home and giving up.
People seem to love hyping up the idea that the young people in China will “wake up” and want democracy, free speech, etc. It’s going in the opposite direction and fast.
As others said, zero. I check out CCTV reporting about this every couple days, and they deliberately show only scenes where police gets attacked by the protesters (called terrorists). Or sometimes against uninvolved people accidentally ending up in the protests. Also defacement of government symbols helped turn the sentiment against the protesters. Otoh that helps see how most western media is also biased in their reporting (what footage they show) but the Chinese definitely take the cake here.
Low. There are also reports of APCs massing on the China-HK border. Allowing unrest to spread is the one thing China has become extremely good at preventing.
Thanks to the internet censorship, it is hard for either side to get any accurate information from the other, not to mention fewer people do that deliberately.
Greater than zero (never trust the heavily massaged public sentiment - and the VPN usage hints at a "silent but substantial" objecting miniority) but HK and Mainland have a history of negative sentiments that goes back to while the British still held it.
Everybody, this is a dangerous time. APCs are massing in Shenzhen (see other thread).
Now is the time to email your local Chinese embassy. Carrie Lam, the top HK politician. Michael Tien and Ronnie Wong, leading pro-establishment politicians.
Let them know dialogue & political solutions are needed, violence is not acceptable, and that PEOPLE ARE WATCHING AND CARE.
Mention any connections to China you have. Your voice can make a difference to the political calculus. But time is very short. Act now.
> China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty. The protesters, who represent a wide swath of Hong Kong, want a government that looks out for their interests, not just Beijing’s, to help resolve problems like astronomical housing prices and low wages.
> The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s concerns.
This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. I'm kind of flabbergasted that they can't find the courage to take a stand on even such a black-and-white issue. It's always "two sides."
Contrast this language with the HK protestors 5 demands. NYT looks even worse.
- a full withdrawal of a proposed bill that would allow Hong Kong people to be extradited to mainland China
- a retraction of any characterization of the movement as a “riot”
- a retraction of charges against anti-extradition protesters
- an independent committee to investigate the Hong Kong police’s use of force
- universal suffrage in elections for the city’s chief executive officer and legislature by 2020
The idea that readers of the New York Times would need some kind of paternalist guideline on which side to choose in this conflict is quite hilarious. The NY Times is reporting on the issue, and there are two sides to it, the line of the Chinese government and the line of the protesters.
I really don't think there is any doubt among NY Times readers as to which of the two value systems they support, and if there was, it wouldn't be the job of the NY Times to tell them.
Editorials will reflect individual journalist's stance towards the conflict, though. That's why I personally find them boring and rarely read them.
It is up to the reader to form an opinion given the evidence presented to them. The media should try to present both sides as neutrally as possible. If Beijing's side has been watered down so much as to be comically neutral, the reader should be able to pick up on this and understand the lack of positive traits attributable to Beijing's position.
The recent inversion of the norm of the neutrality of the media is bad. You talk as if it is good. Look at an AP or Reuters report directly from their website if you want to read the news with minimal spin. They keep to the facts, and they don't pitch each story as part of a grand moral battle. Any moral stance the media takes should be seen as a demerit, even if it is one you agree with. The exception being the editorials, or their equivalent.
EDIT: I feel like I've done a disservice to my position. I need to mention that neutrality in media is connoted with sticking to the facts. If you want to do a good job as a reporter, fill your articles with accurate, unembellished facts. Make the dang article 90%+ factual information without hystrionics or fluff. I've seen plenty of yellow journalism lately, but the accusation that excessive neutrality is just fluff is silly when you look at this article or at the corpus of NYTimes's articles.
Contrast this with the pinnacle of right-centrism, The Economist, which despite reporting on PRC's perspective too, repeatedly leans pro-HK, e.g. from the latest issue
> This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism.
They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
I don't understand your objection. Are you claiming there's a hidden third side to the dispute? Or that the controversy is fabricated and there is, in fact, only one side?
It seems clear to me that there are indeed exactly "two sides." It is also clear that their relationship is now more contentious, and less symbiotic. What exactly is your disagreement with those propositions?
It seems to be the way for many outlets these days.
If someone says it is bright & sunny, and someone else says there is a huge dark angry thunder storm in the same location, the BBC will present both view points instead of looking out of the window to check if one seems more accurate than the other.
It's quite ironic you say that, because all across the formerly "democratic" world, a kind of facade or sham self-governance is washing over societies and governments everywhere, which constantly and consistently infringes upon and chips away at actual self-governance and actual democracy as leftist authoritarians impose their will and trying to corral and suppress and contain freedom and liberty and self-governance.
I am not even certain though that most cases they actually realize what they are doing if their paternalistic language ... of imposing their will on others for our/my/your own good ... can be taken as an honest indication. It's very much the same kind of authoritarians/abusive mindset and action that is common among western "liberals"/leftists and the CCP. Ironically too is that as most here are left leaning, if not largely leftists (whether they realize it or not), they also don't realize that this situation with HK is only a petri dish of what is to come due to leftist/liberal/globalist delusions of world wide kumbaya and hand holding amidst global world peace and tranquility. On the contrary actually, the liberal/leftist/globalist actions and values are a black swan that struts around right before us, but none are permitted to see, and even the supposed smartest people around dismiss off hand out of idle narcissism.
[+] [-] Aeolun|6 years ago|reply
What do you think Beijing thought before? What a good boy you were being?
Beijing doesn’t want to give you democracy regardless of what you are doing. Now they just have to be way more overt about it.
[+] [-] joelx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenneth|6 years ago|reply
First, there's a ton of misinformation out there. Few sources have entirely accurate information, but the best English-language resource I've found on the subject is the local paper South China Morning Post (scmp.com). They have pretty accurate and unbiased live reporting of the protests as it flares up. Twitter and private groups have unfiltered live information.
The movement is still described as "anti extradition bill," but has long stopped being about the extradition bill that triggered it all. At this point, it's simply a revolution against an increasingly worrying shift towards Beijing-controlled authoritarianism.
The mood has intensified and darkened since the beginning of the movement in June. There is a lot more disagreement now about whether the protester's tactics are justified. The protests are losing a lot of general support, but still attract overwhelmingly large crowds. Police has stepped up the aggression, the gov't isn't budging, and dissidents are increasingly angry and willing to resort to violence and guerrilla tactics. There's also the added element of the white shirt counter-protesters (allegedly triads, allegedly China-backed) inciting indiscriminate violence to attempt to scare the public into distancing themselves from the movement.
Nobody has died yet, but the violence is getting worse and some people are getting seriously hurt. Yesterday's flare-up at the airport was in response to anger about a female medic protester being shot point-blank in the face by police and losing an eye. There were some pretty horrific scenes of police shooting tear gas rounds at close range in Kwai Fong MTR station (which is against the rules for how to use tear gas and which endangers both protesters and bystanders and MTR employees alike).
My life here hasn't been affected much, but I do make an effort to avoid the protests area which aren't exactly safe. There have been quite a few of regular transit disruption. I've definitely have had several days of cancelled plans due to transportation issues. I've had friends crash with me because their neighborhood was in the middle of a protest fight. I've had a friend get tear gassed walking home a bit too close to a group of protesters.
Hope this all gets resolved peacefully soon, but let's be real… it won't. I expect this will continue to escalate. I'm watching China's response carefully, because there's a risk they make some pretty unprecedented moves.
For perspective, here's a comment I wrote the day of the first violent protest on June 12th (which I attended): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20167292
Happy to answer any questions from the perspective of an expat on the ground.
[+] [-] markus_zhang|6 years ago|reply
1) Traditionally the Chinese government largely left the affairs of HK to HKers (in reality just the few families), so there is no reason to step in and be the bad guy right now.
2) This protest/riot is far more complicated than it seems, considering the meeting with the US diplomat as well as the involvement of the boss of next digital. Geopolitics plays a hand here.
3) Protesters should target the ruling families (e.g. the realtors) instead, thus would gain the psychological support of mainlanders. Targeting the tourists doesn't help.
4) Hope nothing really bad happens and everything goes as peacefully as possible.
[+] [-] loyukfai|6 years ago|reply
Edit: As for the triad thing, it's far more than that, the Hong Kong Police Force itself is suspected to be in collusion: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=16CiwPChpr0
[+] [-] londons_explore|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acd10j|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|6 years ago|reply
I find it very hard to believe that SCMP has both accurate and unbiased reporting after reading the Wikipedia article. This makes your comment read like a China-sponsored chill.
I'm talking about this as someone who is neither if favor of any party. Media is going to be either pro or against. It's very hard to find an unbiased media. An unbiased media needs to earn their reputation with time and a lot of effort. They also must have independent and verifiable funding that does not cross with neither party.
[+] [-] decoyworker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeristor|6 years ago|reply
One hears of sporadic unrest through China, I take the economy hasn’t yet faltered so people aren’t too disgruntled.
I take it this qualifies as “Interesting Times”
[+] [-] xxxpupugo|6 years ago|reply
In fact, what I have sensed is that there is certain fraction of the general public wants the government to take more drastic measures, and quickly.
[+] [-] kmlx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiblye|6 years ago|reply
The chances of mainlanders being inspired by this is zero. Most seem to want to see the protesters disappear, and I don’t mean just going home and giving up.
People seem to love hyping up the idea that the young people in China will “wake up” and want democracy, free speech, etc. It’s going in the opposite direction and fast.
[+] [-] iforgotpassword|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iserlohnmage|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emptyfile|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namelosw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A2017U1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] griffoa|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
There are hundreds of small riots happening all around China nearly every month.
I don't think this will make a difference, unless it happens in numbers comparable to number you see in HK.
Paradoxically, Xi's rule saw less riots than during Hu's term, when "something serious" was going on almost monthly.
[+] [-] gondo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twhitmore|6 years ago|reply
Now is the time to email your local Chinese embassy. Carrie Lam, the top HK politician. Michael Tien and Ronnie Wong, leading pro-establishment politicians. Let them know dialogue & political solutions are needed, violence is not acceptable, and that PEOPLE ARE WATCHING AND CARE.
Mention any connections to China you have. Your voice can make a difference to the political calculus. But time is very short. Act now.
[+] [-] julienreszka|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tabtab|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|6 years ago|reply
https://www.hongkongfp.com/
[+] [-] brianpgordon|6 years ago|reply
> The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other’s concerns.
This kind of language is why the NYT is the subject of so many centrism memes. There are no "two sides" that can "recognize each other's concerns" and get along. There are democracy and authoritarianism. I'm kind of flabbergasted that they can't find the courage to take a stand on even such a black-and-white issue. It's always "two sides."
[+] [-] heymijo|6 years ago|reply
- a full withdrawal of a proposed bill that would allow Hong Kong people to be extradited to mainland China - a retraction of any characterization of the movement as a “riot” - a retraction of charges against anti-extradition protesters - an independent committee to investigate the Hong Kong police’s use of force - universal suffrage in elections for the city’s chief executive officer and legislature by 2020
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/09/hong-kong-international-airp...
[+] [-] JohnStrangeII|6 years ago|reply
I really don't think there is any doubt among NY Times readers as to which of the two value systems they support, and if there was, it wouldn't be the job of the NY Times to tell them.
Editorials will reflect individual journalist's stance towards the conflict, though. That's why I personally find them boring and rarely read them.
[+] [-] Excel_Wizard|6 years ago|reply
The recent inversion of the norm of the neutrality of the media is bad. You talk as if it is good. Look at an AP or Reuters report directly from their website if you want to read the news with minimal spin. They keep to the facts, and they don't pitch each story as part of a grand moral battle. Any moral stance the media takes should be seen as a demerit, even if it is one you agree with. The exception being the editorials, or their equivalent.
EDIT: I feel like I've done a disservice to my position. I need to mention that neutrality in media is connoted with sticking to the facts. If you want to do a good job as a reporter, fill your articles with accurate, unembellished facts. Make the dang article 90%+ factual information without hystrionics or fluff. I've seen plenty of yellow journalism lately, but the accusation that excessive neutrality is just fluff is silly when you look at this article or at the corpus of NYTimes's articles.
[+] [-] brainerazer|6 years ago|reply
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/08/chinese-troops-...
[+] [-] mieseratte|6 years ago|reply
They're a newspaper, not a political blog. This isn't an op-ed. They're not meant to be "taking a side."
[+] [-] torstenvl|6 years ago|reply
It seems clear to me that there are indeed exactly "two sides." It is also clear that their relationship is now more contentious, and less symbiotic. What exactly is your disagreement with those propositions?
[+] [-] dspillett|6 years ago|reply
If someone says it is bright & sunny, and someone else says there is a huge dark angry thunder storm in the same location, the BBC will present both view points instead of looking out of the window to check if one seems more accurate than the other.
[+] [-] typon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] decoyworker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JamesSchriver|6 years ago|reply
I am not even certain though that most cases they actually realize what they are doing if their paternalistic language ... of imposing their will on others for our/my/your own good ... can be taken as an honest indication. It's very much the same kind of authoritarians/abusive mindset and action that is common among western "liberals"/leftists and the CCP. Ironically too is that as most here are left leaning, if not largely leftists (whether they realize it or not), they also don't realize that this situation with HK is only a petri dish of what is to come due to leftist/liberal/globalist delusions of world wide kumbaya and hand holding amidst global world peace and tranquility. On the contrary actually, the liberal/leftist/globalist actions and values are a black swan that struts around right before us, but none are permitted to see, and even the supposed smartest people around dismiss off hand out of idle narcissism.
[+] [-] avip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Simulacra|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happybirthday|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]