NationStates

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
The numbers are quite clear though.

If you can only get 183,000 people at most to march in December, then you can’t claim to represent 7.5 million people.

I mean if we're going by that extremely narrowed classification that has moved the goalposts so far away that one's in Macau and the other one has been extradited to Taiwan, the pro-government demonstrators have an even shittier claim due to the presence of only a couple of hundred of protesters.

And by that logic basically every single mass protest in history has no claim to represent a majority of the people. Goodbye Color Revolutions.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Plzen wrote:I seem to recall a certain very recent election that happened during all those protests, which saw a much greater number of people turning out to participate than any protest in the last few months, whether pro- or anti-government. I also seem to recall that the results of that election was quite decisively favourable to one particular side.

It would seem, however, that there are people that no longer remember this little incident.

All that I recall was that the pro-Dems won many many seats (a majority).

However, that shows that the people aren’t satisfied with the current local governance (they think the protests can be better handled), not that they support the protests.

Basically a simple “you guys didn’t do a good job cleaning the streets, let’s see if the other party does better.”

This happens from time to time. I don’t read much into it.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:I mean if we're going by that extremely narrowed classification that has moved the goalposts so far away that one's in Macau and the other one has been extradited to Taiwan, the pro-government demonstrators have an even shittier claim due to the presence of only a couple of hundred of protesters.

And by that logic basically every single mass protest in history has no claim to represent a majority of the people. Goodbye Color Revolutions.

Historically, that is the case as shown by the number of participants compared to the whole.

Bombadil wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
It’s not one movement though. That was over four months ago.

Oh right.. you're talking of a new movement that's gone from 0 to a couple hundred this month as evidence the world is turning.

Infected Mushroom wrote:All that I recall was that the pro-Dems won many many seats (a majority).

However, that shows that the people aren’t satisfied with the current local governance (they think the protests can be better handled), not that they support the protests.

Basically a simple “you guys didn’t do a good job cleaning the streets, let’s see if the other party does better.”

This happens from time to time. I don’t read much into it.

You should move to Egypt and literally live in da Nile.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Historically, that is the case as shown by the number of participants compared to the whole.

Congratulations on single-handedly weakening your own argument.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:Congratulations on single-handedly weakening your own argument.

How?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Plzen wrote:I seem to recall a certain very recent election that happened during all those protests, which saw a much greater number of people turning out to participate than any protest in the last few months, whether pro- or anti-government. I also seem to recall that the results of that election was quite decisively favourable to one particular side.

It would seem, however, that there are people that no longer remember this little incident.

All that I recall was that the pro-Dems won many many seats (a majority).

However, that shows that the people aren’t satisfied with the current local governance (they think the protests can be better handled), not that they support the protests.

Basically a simple “you guys didn’t do a good job cleaning the streets, let’s see if the other party does better.”

This happens from time to time. I don’t read much into it.

The New California Republic wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
All that I recall was that the pro-Dems won many many seats (a majority).

However, that shows that the people aren’t satisfied with the current local governance (they think the protests can be better handled), not that they support the protests.

Basically a simple “you guys didn’t do a good job cleaning the streets, let’s see if the other party does better.”

This happens from time to time. I don’t read much into it.

Can you really not see how much you are desperately trying to spuriously interpret this to nullify it as a valid point against your position?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Can you really not see how much you are desperately trying to spuriously interpret this to nullify it as a valid point against your position?

My understanding is that while the protestors have tried to frame the pro dem electoral win as public support for the protests; the truth is that people voted pro-dem for a variety of reasons

There’s a dissatisfaction with the government and some of that’s translated into a symbolic vote for the opposition, but that’s not the same thing as support for the protests

We have to be careful not to conflate the two

For example, my workplace is full of people who are anti- protest but would still say “there’s no way I would vote for Lam or her affiliated parties because they aren’t all that competent, I might vote pro dem to communicate that”

The New California Republic wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
My understanding is that while the protestors have tried to frame the pro dem electoral win as public support for the protests; the truth is that people voted pro-dem for a variety of reasons

There’s a dissatisfaction with the government and some of that’s translated into a symbolic vote for the opposition, but that’s not the same thing as support for the protests

We have to be careful not to conflate the two

For example, my workplace is full of people who are anti- protest but would still say “there’s no way I would vote for Lam or her affiliated parties because they aren’t all that competent, I might vote pro dem to communicate that”

The desperation here is palpable.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:The desperation here is palpable.

It’s not unheard of. In Canadian politics for example, some people may vote Conservative not because they agree with Conservative policies or don’t agree with Liberal policies, but as a simple statement that “at least something needs to change/things aren’t being done as the can be”

In times of crisis, the incumbent party may take a measure of damage

One cannot over read into it though

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
The focus is moving to placing pressure on China.. and FC Cologne at least have the balls to make the correct decision..

FC Cologne are pulling out of a deal to run a football academy in China, with a member of the club council saying they should not support “such a totalitarian and brutal dictatorship”.

The deal, which was going to be worth €1.8m (£1.5m) to the club, was originally put on hold in the summer and on Wednesday Cologne said they would not go ahead with it.

..and the CCP is perhaps stupid enough to make things worse for themselves..

Changes to the charter of one of China’s top universities, including dropping the phrase “freedom of thought” and the inclusion of a pledge to follow the Communist party’s leadership, has sparked fierce debate and a rare act of student defiance.

The changes to the charter of Fudan University in Shanghai, considered one of China’s more liberal institutions, emerged on Tuesday when the education ministry said it had approved the revisions for three universities.

Within hours, the Fudan amendments were trending on Weibo with one hashtag viewed more than a million times.

“If I may dare to ask those who initiated the amendment of the Fudan University charter, how do you expect our generation of Fudan people to face our ancestors?” said one user of the social media site.

That post, and many similar posts questioning the changes, in particular the removal of “freedom of thought”, were deleted by Wednesday afternoon although the issue was still being discussed in private WeChat groups.

Since President Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, China has tightened controls on the internet and various aspects of civil society in a campaign that has seen increased censorship and shrinking space for protests, including on campuses.

The revisions to the university charters come as Beijing grapples with anti-government protests in Hong Kong which have involved many students.

A video circulating on Twitter on Wednesday showed a group of Fudan students singing their college anthem, which includes the phrase “freedom of thought”, during their lunch break. Students at the university confirmed to Reuters that the event had taken place.

2020 is going to be an interesting year. Enjoy Christmas, next up the Taiwan elections..

This is all just pointless theater. I’m not concerned.

Taiwanese elections are “flashy” but ultimately, China NEVER expected to be able to control who won anyways and regardless of who wins, ROC would remain in play. I expect the usual rhetoric from both sides, nothing changes.

Greens win? Eh. Nothing much changes anyways. There’s already been a Green bloc Taiwan government for years, hasn’t started a world war.

As for these random “condemnation bills” or selective boycotts... again, China is simply too big and too important. And I think it’s leadership is thick skinned enough to see the big picture.

Allow some small players to make a few PR acts of performative virtue signaling... overall economic patterns remain the same. I believe the idea is to avoid what Germany did in WWI and instead take over economically.

That’s the long game.

Ultimately, it’s expected that there will be these sorts of gestures from some of the parties. But it’s nothing new.

...

I’m perfectly fine with the protests being relegated to a few weekend peaceful marches and a few lunch protests here and there. Over time, that gets as banal as the weather.

I estimate only about 7,000 protestors at most are willing to use violence (throwing bombs, attacking the police, crash shops). The police have roughly that number under arrest for now and they’ll mostly be cycling in and out arrests and courts now. Polyu was a huge misplay for the movement.

The Pro Dems would have won with or without Polyu. However, Polyu was the big battle the cops needed to finalize the list of the most violent players and then swoop in. Now we’re seeing the aftermath of that.

There may be more protestors but they’re too moderate and casual to pose a realistic threat.

I do believe that this is it. The weakness has been found. You’ve got 1 million people willing to march on a rare good day... but only about a few thousand of them are actually violent troublemakers. You find a way to identify, focus, and target them... things become quiet.

Propheticum wrote:The CCP Clown College graduates are just chasing their own tail to keep the argument alive. Internet Filibustering. The dude who's *on* mushrooms while writing his arguments got absolutely roasted and the Hong Kong supporters have shown that Winnie the Pooh doesn't stand a chance against their insults.

Hong Kong People wrote:Breaking news from SCMP:
Police freeze HK$70 million raised by group to support Hong Kong protesters, accusing it of using funds for personal gain and illegal acts
Police have frozen more than HK$70 million (US$9 million) raised to support protesters and arrested four people for money laundering in Hong Kong over suspicions the funds were used for personal gain and other illegal activities.
Acting senior superintendent Chan Kwok-ki said the four, aged between 17 and 50, were arrested during a raid on Thursday in which officers seized HK$130,000 in cash coupons, HK$160,000 in supermarket coupons, two laser pointers, six arrows and a large amount of gear such as helmets and gas masks.
Chan said the suspects were related to fundraising platform Spark Alliance, which had collected about HK$80 million over the past six months. Officers froze more than HK$70 million, with investigations under way over usage for the remaining sum.
While the platform’s website said the money would be channelled into supporting people arrested during protests, police suspected it was used to purchase insurance products for individuals in the group.
“We also do not exclude the possibility that the funds were used as a reward to encourage teens to come out and join the civil unrest,” Chan said.


The HK Police are essentially prohibiting HKers from donating money to help these arrested young protestors legally . Crackdown worsens day by day when HK enjoys relative peace now.What's the point of continuing to be peaceful if crackdown will only become more serious?

Hong Kong People wrote:Breaking news from SCMP:
Police freeze HK$70 million raised by group to support Hong Kong protesters, accusing it of using funds for personal gain and illegal acts
Police have frozen more than HK$70 million (US$9 million) raised to support protesters and arrested four people for money laundering in Hong Kong over suspicions the funds were used for personal gain and other illegal activities.
Acting senior superintendent Chan Kwok-ki said the four, aged between 17 and 50, were arrested during a raid on Thursday in which officers seized HK$130,000 in cash coupons, HK$160,000 in supermarket coupons, two laser pointers, six arrows and a large amount of gear such as helmets and gas masks.
Chan said the suspects were related to fundraising platform Spark Alliance, which had collected about HK$80 million over the past six months. Officers froze more than HK$70 million, with investigations under way over usage for the remaining sum.
While the platform’s website said the money would be channelled into supporting people arrested during protests, police suspected it was used to purchase insurance products for individuals in the group.
“We also do not exclude the possibility that the funds were used as a reward to encourage teens to come out and join the civil unrest,” Chan said.


The HK Police are essentially prohibiting HKers from donating money to help these arrested young protestors legally . Crackdown worsens day by day when HK enjoys relative peace now.What's the point of continuing to be peaceful if crackdown will only become more serious?

Tuthina wrote:

Hong Kong People wrote:Breaking news from SCMP:
Police freeze HK$70 million raised by group to support Hong Kong protesters, accusing it of using funds for personal gain and illegal acts
Police have frozen more than HK$70 million (US$9 million) raised to support protesters and arrested four people for money laundering in Hong Kong over suspicions the funds were used for personal gain and other illegal activities.
Acting senior superintendent Chan Kwok-ki said the four, aged between 17 and 50, were arrested during a raid on Thursday in which officers seized HK$130,000 in cash coupons, HK$160,000 in supermarket coupons, two laser pointers, six arrows and a large amount of gear such as helmets and gas masks.
Chan said the suspects were related to fundraising platform Spark Alliance, which had collected about HK$80 million over the past six months. Officers froze more than HK$70 million, with investigations under way over usage for the remaining sum.
While the platform’s website said the money would be channelled into supporting people arrested during protests, police suspected it was used to purchase insurance products for individuals in the group.
“We also do not exclude the possibility that the funds were used as a reward to encourage teens to come out and join the civil unrest,” Chan said.


The HK Police are essentially prohibiting HKers from donating money to help these arrested young protestors legally . Crackdown worsens day by day when HK enjoys relative peace now.What's the point of continuing to be peaceful if crackdown will only become more serious?

Based on the irrefutable evidence of "because I say so". I mean, in a twisted way, it makes sense for them to accuse their enemies regardless of whether they have actual proof, as indicated by the fact that more people have been arrested by the police in the last 6 months related to the protests, than there are actual imprisoned people in the entire city. After all, the only repercussions they will get for wrongfully accusing people is being berated by the court, but before that, they can mess with you for prolonged time, including freezing asset like this news. Even if the court decides that the police need to pay for the assorted fees of the case, it's ultimately coming out of taxpayer money anyway.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Tuthina wrote:Based on the irrefutable evidence of "because I say so". I mean, in a twisted way, it makes sense for them to accuse their enemies regardless of whether they have actual proof, as indicated by the fact that more people have been arrested by the police in the last 6 months related to the protests, than there are actual imprisoned people in the entire city. After all, the only repercussions they will get for wrongfully accusing people is being berated by the court, but before that, they can mess with you for prolonged time, including freezing asset like this news. Even if the court decides that the police need to pay for the assorted fees of the case, it's ultimately coming out of taxpayer money anyway.

I’m sure there’s probable cause.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I’m sure there’s probable cause.

Tuthina wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I’m sure there’s probable cause.

I doubt that, considering the police's poor track record of suing people related to the protests, to the point that they have been criticised by the court multiple times for everything from being late to the court, charging too many people at once and overloading the courts, to more egregious cases like faulty documents that can't get the suspects' name right, to not providing documents at all.

But yeah, I guess like the police you support, your reasoning is also based on the same irrefutable idea of "because I say so". I mean, considering that in this thread alone, you've been saying that you're out of here "for good" several times.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I'd also like to add that when I say "probable cause" I don't mean that if the police were to sue or prosecute the donors they would win in court.

Just that there's enough "reasonable suspicion" that the courts would allow it go forward regardless of whether in hindsight it was justified or not.

If there was probable cause, then even if it turned out you were in the end of innocent, you have no recourse against the police because they were acting within their statutory authority

to give a simple example... assume the police had "probably cause" to search your home because they think you have illegal weapons; they search you and it turns out... NO WEAPONS. Can you sue the police? No because so long as there was probable cause and the formalities of the search were met, they're in the clear.

The test is not "were you, in hindsight, innocent or guilty" the test is... "was there probable cause/reasonable suspicion"

Infected Mushroom wrote:I'd also like to add that when I say "probable cause" I don't mean that if the police were to sue or prosecute the donors they would win in court.

Just that there's enough "reasonable suspicion" that the courts would allow it go forward regardless of whether in hindsight it was justified or not.

If there was probable cause, then even if it turned out you were in the end of innocent, you have no recourse against the police because they were acting within their statutory authority

to give a simple example... assume the police had "probably cause" to search your home because they think you have illegal weapons; they search you and it turns out... NO WEAPONS. Can you sue the police? No because so long as there was probable cause and the formalities of the search were met, they're in the clear.

The test is not "were you, in hindsight, innocent or guilty" the test is... "was there probable cause/reasonable suspicion"