Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Infected Mushroom]

The government represents the people because it is appointed by the rightful government of the Hong Kong SAR, the People's Republic of China (with over a billion citizens). The only thing that concerns me is that the vast majority of HK's people continue to follow the law and have not shown an inclination to join the marches.

Voting for the more extreme members at the election would not have sent the government a message of disapproval but one of approval.

Considering that the Chief Executive is not even directly elected by the citizens of HK and the fact that China itself has a complete lack of electoral democracy (The CCP was never actually voted into power, but it rose due to a violent revolution against a prior regime and established itself through brute force), the fact that 30 of the 70 seats on the LegCo are allocated for corporate interests of the island's economy, and the fact that the Chief Executive is approved by an unelected committee handpicked by Xi Jinping, under no reasonable metric could HK's government possess the consent of the governed, let alone claim itself to be the "rightful" government.

my point was that since the elections had no power to actually replace the ruling CE and the appointed seats, there was A LOT of room for pro government voters to send a qualified message to the government WITHOUT the risk of the opposition coming to power (hence the translation from votes to actual support for the protestors, cannot be adequately quantified or even approximated especially in light of the decreasing street presence)

so the election results must be read carefully

[Galloism]

Considering that the Chief Executive is not even directly elected by the citizens of HK and the fact that China itself has a complete lack of electoral democracy (The CCP was never actually voted into power, but it rose due to a violent revolution against a prior regime and established itself through brute force), the fact that 30 of the 70 seats on the LegCo are allocated for corporate interests of the island's economy, and the fact that the Chief Executive is approved by an unelected committee handpicked by Xi Jinping, under no reasonable metric could HK's government possess the consent of the governed, let alone claim itself to be the "rightful" government.

my point was that since the elections had no power to actually replace the ruling CE and the appointed seats, there was A LOT of room for pro government voters to send a qualified message to the government WITHOUT the risk of the opposition coming to power

so the election results must be read carefully

I know when I'm telling the government I want them to crack down harder on the opposition I just vote for the opposition.

Seems reasonable.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

A government that is imposed on people without their consent might rule them, it does not represent them. Might makes right is different than representation.

But so you admit then the majority of people disapprove of the government. And yet you have zero evidence to support that they disapprove of the government because it was not hardline enough (considering how badly the hardliners did).

This is some real interesting “logic” here, “because the elections are rigged people voting against the government actually support the government”.

It makes no sense whatsoever and you have provided nothing to prove it is the case.

they don't necessarily disapprove, they just don't think the conflict was handled, as well as it could have been handled

they don't feel the government handled the situation, optimally is how I would put it

I don't think it necessarily rises to that level (actual disapproval), and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of actual support for the protestors (since the protest numbers and protestor turnout has been lowered since)

One can support the protesters even if they don't openly turn out, and this is especially true in authoritarian regimes, where open expression of dissent could easily get one arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or even outright executed on the spot. Just because someone isn't protesting every second of the day doesn't mean he/she suddenly started loving the government in question, and for that matter, support for Emmanuel Macron still remains low even though turnout for the Gilets Jaunes marches has started to stagnate.

[Novus America]

A government that is imposed on people without their consent might rule them, it does not represent them. Might makes right is different than representation.

But so you admit then the majority of people disapprove of the government. And yet you have zero evidence to support that they disapprove of the government because it was not hardline enough (considering how badly the hardliners did).

This is some real interesting “logic” here, “because the elections are rigged people voting against the government actually support the government”.

It makes no sense whatsoever and you have provided nothing to prove it is the case.

they don't necessarily disapprove, they just don't think the conflict was handled, as well as it could have been handled

they don't feel the government handled the situation, optimally is how I would put it

I don't think it necessarily rises to that level (actual disapproval), and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of actual support for the protestors (since the protest numbers and protestor turnout has been lowered since)

You literally just repeat the same nonsensical non sequitur over and over again.
And no, clearly people disapprove
“Since the protests began in June over Lam’s push for the now-withdrawn extradition bill, her approval ratings have tanked, making her the most unpopular leader since the former British colony returned in China in 1997. A recent public opinion poll places her popularity at just 20.2% with only 11% of those polled saying that they would vote for her if given a vote.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go ... d=66785576

But we already did this! Are you so deeply invested in your strange “logic” that you cannot process counter arguments at all?

Simply repeating over and over “because the numbers of people actually marching is not quite as large people actually support the government and show that support by voting overwhelmingly against the government” is the one of the most baffling non sequiturs I have heard here, and that is saying something.

[Infected Mushroom]

my point was that since the elections had no power to actually replace the ruling CE and the appointed seats, there was A LOT of room for pro government voters to send a qualified message to the government WITHOUT the risk of the opposition coming to power

so the election results must be read carefully

I know when I'm telling the government I want them to crack down harder on the opposition I just vote for the opposition.

Seems reasonable.

When the opposition cannot gain actual power and create policy (as is the case in Hong Kong), then yes that is one way to do it

[Galloism]

I know when I'm telling the government I want them to crack down harder on the opposition I just vote for the opposition.

Seems reasonable.

When the opposition cannot gain actual power and create policy (as is the case in Hong Kong), then yes that is one way to do it

Seems like a mixed message.

[Infected Mushroom]

they don't necessarily disapprove, they just don't think the conflict was handled, as well as it could have been handled

they don't feel the government handled the situation, optimally is how I would put it

I don't think it necessarily rises to that level (actual disapproval), and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of actual support for the protestors (since the protest numbers and protestor turnout has been lowered since)

One can support the protesters even if they don't openly turn out, and this is especially true in authoritarian regimes, where open expression of dissent could easily get one arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or even outright executed on the spot. Just because someone isn't protesting every second of the day doesn't mean he/she suddenly started loving the government in question, and for that matter, support for Emmanuel Macron still remains low even though turnout for the Gilets Jaunes marches has started to stagnate.

if the sum total of their action in daily life is to continue to obey the law and in effect recognise the government implicitly whilst providing taxable revenue and income for the state and generate for the economy, then they can only (in my view) be reasonably counted as being pro government because the net effect of everything they do balances out far in excess in favour of the government

after all, without the help of the 6-7 million, the Hong Kong government would have in all likelihood collapsed (they are the ones who persevered and kept generating for the economy despite the protestors' attempts to literally bring the city to a standstill state)

their actions have so far, been of much greater impact in sustaining the SAR than even the threat of the PLA or all the Chinese money possible

...

I mean, I see more than 30,000 police on the streets keeping HK afloat. I see 6-7 million people working to keep the SAR government afloat.

[Novus America]

When the opposition cannot gain actual power and create policy (as is the case in Hong Kong), then yes that is one way to do it

Seems like a mixed message.

And an idiotic one, even if your vote is unimportant their is no logical reason why you would vote against the government to show you support the government.
And if you are trying to send a message it makes no sense to send the literally opposite message of what you intend, hoping they somehow read this to mean you actually mean the opposite.

My head actually hurts trying to comprehend this insanity.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

One can support the protesters even if they don't openly turn out, and this is especially true in authoritarian regimes, where open expression of dissent could easily get one arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or even outright executed on the spot. Just because someone isn't protesting every second of the day doesn't mean he/she suddenly started loving the government in question, and for that matter, support for Emmanuel Macron still remains low even though turnout for the Gilets Jaunes marches has started to stagnate.

if the sum total of their action in daily life is to continue to obey the law and in effect recognise the government implicitly whilst providing taxable revenue and income for the state and generate for the economy, then they can only (in my view) be reasonably counted as being pro government

after all, without the help of the 6-7 million, the Hong Kong government would have in all likelihood collapsed (they are the ones who persevered and kept generating for the economy despite the protestors' attempts to literally bring the city to a standstill state)

their actions have so far, been of much greater impact in sustaining the SAR than even the PLA or all the Chinese money possible

...

I mean, I see more than 30,000 police on the streets keeping HK afloat. I see 6-7 million people working to keep the SAR government afloat.

So basically, the only way one can be anti-government is to completely withdraw from society altogether and live a life as a closed hermit in a sealed room while also engaging in tax evasion and avoiding social interactions? Now that is one pretty hot take, especially since if we went by your logic, 99.9% of Americans support Donald Trump's administration.

[Novus America]

One can support the protesters even if they don't openly turn out, and this is especially true in authoritarian regimes, where open expression of dissent could easily get one arrested, imprisoned, tortured, or even outright executed on the spot. Just because someone isn't protesting every second of the day doesn't mean he/she suddenly started loving the government in question, and for that matter, support for Emmanuel Macron still remains low even though turnout for the Gilets Jaunes marches has started to stagnate.

if the sum total of their action in daily life is to continue to obey the law and in effect recognise the government implicitly whilst providing taxable revenue and income for the state and generate for the economy, then they can only (in my view) be reasonably counted as being pro government because the net effect of everything they do balances out far in excess in favour of the government

after all, without the help of the 6-7 million, the Hong Kong government would have in all likelihood collapsed (they are the ones who persevered and kept generating for the economy despite the protestors' attempts to literally bring the city to a standstill state)

their actions have so far, been of much greater impact in sustaining the SAR than even the PLA or all the Chinese money possible

...

I mean, I see more than 30,000 police on the streets keeping HK afloat. I see 6-7 million people working to keep the SAR government afloat.

Again a complete non sequitur. Just because people are unable or unwilling to march against an authoritarian government does not indicate they support it.

Although it is true, if the majority did start an outright insurrection it would be more effective at bringing down the government, it is not a black an white proposition between rioting in the streets and supporting the government.

[Infected Mushroom]

Seems like a mixed message.

And an idiotic one, even if your vote is unimportant their is no logical reason why you would vote against the government to show you support the government.
And if you are trying to send a message it makes no sense to send the literally opposite message of what you intend, hoping they somehow read this to mean you actually mean the opposite.

My head actually hurts trying to comprehend this insanity.

you don't vote against the government to show support for the government, you vote against the government for an opposition that cannot take power with the knowledge that the government can't be removed from power... to communicate the message that the government needs to do better whilst not being ambivalent/disapproving towards the actual policies of the opposition

this is how you square the decreasing street protest presence in December with the vote results in the councillor elections

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I’m late, aren’t I?

Welcoming myself to the not-so-fresh thread here. Can’t wait to debunk recycled and flawed arguments with bullshit reasons.

I’ll be responding when the new content comes in, you guys are handling our trio (apperently) of pro-CCP supporters well.

[Infected Mushroom]

if the sum total of their action in daily life is to continue to obey the law and in effect recognise the government implicitly whilst providing taxable revenue and income for the state and generate for the economy, then they can only (in my view) be reasonably counted as being pro government because the net effect of everything they do balances out far in excess in favour of the government

after all, without the help of the 6-7 million, the Hong Kong government would have in all likelihood collapsed (they are the ones who persevered and kept generating for the economy despite the protestors' attempts to literally bring the city to a standstill state)

their actions have so far, been of much greater impact in sustaining the SAR than even the PLA or all the Chinese money possible

...

I mean, I see more than 30,000 police on the streets keeping HK afloat. I see 6-7 million people working to keep the SAR government afloat.

Again a complete non sequitur. Just because people are unable or unwilling to march against an authoritarian government does not indicate they support it.

Although it is true, if the majority did start an outright insurrection it would be more effective at bringing down the government, it is not a black an white proposition between rioting in the streets and supporting the government.

they are supporting the HK SAR government, this is not symbolic or anything... I'm talking about actual support

they say nothing, they go to work/school, they keep society functioning

this is what the SAR government needs far more than 30,000 policemen or even help from the PLA or any sum of money or amount of recognition from Beijing

In fact, the 6-7 millions ARE THE BACKBONE of the pro government side. Without the 30,000 policemen, the protestors have the advantage. But without these 6-7 million HKers going to work/school, the protestors would win.

So in effect, it follows, that by virtue of the above, the 6-7 million HKers are pro government because actions speak louder than words, consequences speak louder than symbolic ambivalence or words.

[The New California Republic]

Heloin never said you did. Pay attention.

I made a mistake and I am replying to several posts at a time. I am paying attention, thank you very much.

Debatable, given what happened.

[Novus America]

if the sum total of their action in daily life is to continue to obey the law and in effect recognise the government implicitly whilst providing taxable revenue and income for the state and generate for the economy, then they can only (in my view) be reasonably counted as being pro government

after all, without the help of the 6-7 million, the Hong Kong government would have in all likelihood collapsed (they are the ones who persevered and kept generating for the economy despite the protestors' attempts to literally bring the city to a standstill state)

their actions have so far, been of much greater impact in sustaining the SAR than even the PLA or all the Chinese money possible

...

I mean, I see more than 30,000 police on the streets keeping HK afloat. I see 6-7 million people working to keep the SAR government afloat.

So basically, the only way one can be anti-government is to completely withdraw from society altogether and live a life as a closed hermit in a sealed room while also engaging in tax evasion and avoiding social interactions? Now that is one pretty hot take, especially since if we went by your logic, 99.9% of Americans support Donald Trump's administration.

No see, according to his logic you must completely withdraw from society while at the same time marching 24/7 otherwise you support the government. Even zanier.

And he will just repeat “because US elections are much more fair that makes everything different”.
He tries to work around this by claiming his model only works in places with rigged elections.

By his argument Pinochet was supported by 99% just because protests were relatively few during most of his rule.

[Novus America]

Again a complete non sequitur. Just because people are unable or unwilling to march against an authoritarian government does not indicate they support it.

Although it is true, if the majority did start an outright insurrection it would be more effective at bringing down the government, it is not a black an white proposition between rioting in the streets and supporting the government.

they are supporting the HK SAR government, this is not symbolic or anything... I'm talking about actual support

they say nothing, they go to work/school, they keep society functioning

this is what the SAR government needs far more than 30,000 policemen or even help from the PLA or any sum of money or amount of recognition from Beijing

In fact, the 6-7 millions ARE THE BACKBONE of the pro government side. Without the 30,000 policemen, the protestors have the advantage. But without these 6-7 million HKers going to work/school, the protestors would win.

So in effect, it follows, that by virtue of the above, the 6-7 million HKers are pro government because actions speak louder than words, consequences speak louder than symbolic ambivalence or words.

I literally already addressed this in my last reply! Is there any point when you completely ignore any counter argument and just repeat yourself with the same discredited argument?

[Infected Mushroom]

So basically, the only way one can be anti-government is to completely withdraw from society altogether and live a life as a closed hermit in a sealed room while also engaging in tax evasion and avoiding social interactions? Now that is one pretty hot take, especially since if we went by your logic, 99.9% of Americans support Donald Trump's administration.

No see, according to his logic you must completely withdraw from society while at the same time marching 24/7 otherwise you support the government. Even zanier.

And he will just repeat “because US elections are much more fair that makes everything different”.
He tries to work around this by claiming his model only works in places with rigged elections.

By his argument Pinochet was supported by 99% just because protests were relatively few during most of his rule.

if you don't protest, but continue to prop up the government through your actions, then it follows logically that you are pro government

and yes, this carries across history

if you declare yourself anti-government, this better be backed up by actions whether we're talking about the American Revolution, HK, or anywhere else

if you're going to cast a vote that's against the current government in an election where the current government may be realistically replaced whilst for the time being you continue to prop up the government , then I'll make exception (like in the USA).

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Again a complete non sequitur. Just because people are unable or unwilling to march against an authoritarian government does not indicate they support it.

Although it is true, if the majority did start an outright insurrection it would be more effective at bringing down the government, it is not a black an white proposition between rioting in the streets and supporting the government.

they are supporting the HK SAR government, this is not symbolic or anything... I'm talking about actual support

they say nothing, they go to work/school, they keep society functioning

this is what the SAR government needs far more than 30,000 policemen or even help from the PLA or any sum of money or amount of recognition from Beijing

In fact, the 6-7 millions ARE THE BACKBONE of the pro government side. Without the 30,000 policemen, the protestors have the advantage. But without these 6-7 million HKers going to work/school, the protestors would win.

So in effect, it follows, that by virtue of the above, the 6-7 million HKers are pro government because actions speak louder than words, consequences speak louder than symbolic ambivalence or words.

Except that the protesters aren't trying to destroy society, and as a matter of fact, they are seeking to treat festering wounds that the ruling cabinet has failed to address, such as the issue of universal suffrage for both the CE and LegCo, reforming the police to be more accountable to the people, an end to political corruption, resolving skyrocketing rents and degrading living conditions, establishing a welfare state, and protecting the island from blatant imperialism. Your argument would only make a shred of sense if the protesters were anarchists trying to topple a state, which they are not.

[Infected Mushroom]

they are supporting the HK SAR government, this is not symbolic or anything... I'm talking about actual support

they say nothing, they go to work/school, they keep society functioning

this is what the SAR government needs far more than 30,000 policemen or even help from the PLA or any sum of money or amount of recognition from Beijing

In fact, the 6-7 millions ARE THE BACKBONE of the pro government side. Without the 30,000 policemen, the protestors have the advantage. But without these 6-7 million HKers going to work/school, the protestors would win.

So in effect, it follows, that by virtue of the above, the 6-7 million HKers are pro government because actions speak louder than words, consequences speak louder than symbolic ambivalence or words.

I literally already addressed this in my last reply! Is there any point when you completely ignore any counter argument and just repeat yourself with the same discredited argument?

This is a reply to your argument. You said, "not marching against the government is not a sign that you support the government"... I'm showing you HOW the 6-7 million ARE supporting the government through their actions

I'm telling you the HK SAR literally depends on them and their continued supportive actions

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

they are supporting the HK SAR government, this is not symbolic or anything... I'm talking about actual support

they say nothing, they go to work/school, they keep society functioning

this is what the SAR government needs far more than 30,000 policemen or even help from the PLA or any sum of money or amount of recognition from Beijing

In fact, the 6-7 millions ARE THE BACKBONE of the pro government side. Without the 30,000 policemen, the protestors have the advantage. But without these 6-7 million HKers going to work/school, the protestors would win.

So in effect, it follows, that by virtue of the above, the 6-7 million HKers are pro government because actions speak louder than words, consequences speak louder than symbolic ambivalence or words.

I literally already addressed this in my last reply! Is there any point when you completely ignore any counter argument and just repeat yourself with the same discredited argument?

When you are dealing with a wingnut that unironically thinks life itself is "propping up the government", you know you have no chance of rational discourse here.

[Infected Mushroom]

they are supporting the HK SAR government, this is not symbolic or anything... I'm talking about actual support

they say nothing, they go to work/school, they keep society functioning

this is what the SAR government needs far more than 30,000 policemen or even help from the PLA or any sum of money or amount of recognition from Beijing

In fact, the 6-7 millions ARE THE BACKBONE of the pro government side. Without the 30,000 policemen, the protestors have the advantage. But without these 6-7 million HKers going to work/school, the protestors would win.

So in effect, it follows, that by virtue of the above, the 6-7 million HKers are pro government because actions speak louder than words, consequences speak louder than symbolic ambivalence or words.

Except that the protesters aren't trying to destroy society, and as a matter of fact, they are seeking to treat festering wounds that the ruling cabinet has failed to address, such as the issue of universal suffrage for both the CE and LegCo, reforming the police to be more accountable to the people, an end to political corruption, resolving skyrocketing rents and degrading living conditions, establishing a welfare state, and protecting the island from blatant imperialism. Your argument would only make a shred of sense if the protesters were anarchists trying to topple a state, which they are not.

they tried to cause a city wide strike (which thankfully never happened), they tried to shut down all schools, they attacked train stations and the airport in an attempt to cripple infrastructure and transport, they targeted major economic centres like Central and Admiralty and Kowloon... it seems that they were at one point, hell bent on making HK so dysfunctional that the government would topple over or the 6-7 million would rise up. It did not happen because the people persevered and worked their way through it.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I literally already addressed this in my last reply! Is there any point when you completely ignore any counter argument and just repeat yourself with the same discredited argument?

This is a reply to your argument. You said, "not marching against the government is not a sign that you support the government"... I'm showing you HOW the 6-7 million ARE supporting the government through their actions

I'm telling you the HK SAR literally depends on them and their continued supportive actions

Are the protesters trying to destroy the SAR though? Your argument is absolutely redundant and a glaring non-sequitur otherwise, especially since none of the protesters have proposed anything close to dismantling society in HK.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I literally already addressed this in my last reply! Is there any point when you completely ignore any counter argument and just repeat yourself with the same discredited argument?

This is a reply to your argument. You said, "not marching against the government is not a sign that you support the government"... I'm showing you HOW the 6-7 million ARE supporting the government through their actions

I'm telling you the HK SAR literally depends on them and their continued supportive actions

This is absolutely invalid. We’ve debated over this in both this thread and the old one, and it shows how much holes there are in this. Again, they are not supporting the government. Marching isn’t the only form of protest and dissent against a ruling body. What we’re doing right now, in fact, is protesting the HKSAR government, a government that’s shown it’s incapability in ruling this island and is likely a demonstration of future regimes’ blatant failures if this continues.

[Novus America]

And an idiotic one, even if your vote is unimportant their is no logical reason why you would vote against the government to show you support the government.
And if you are trying to send a message it makes no sense to send the literally opposite message of what you intend, hoping they somehow read this to mean you actually mean the opposite.

My head actually hurts trying to comprehend this insanity.

you don't vote against the government to show support for the government, you vote against the government for an opposition that cannot take power with the knowledge that the government can't be removed from power... to communicate the message that the government needs to do better whilst not being ambivalent/disapproving towards the actual policies of the opposition

this is how you square the decreasing street protest presence in December with the vote results in the councillor elections

This is called “shoehorning”. You create your premise, and then make up ridiculous assumptions to force everything to support your premise.
Despite having provided no reason for anyone to believe your assumptions beyond “my assumptions support my premise so my premise and assumptions must be right”.

This is also a purely circular reasoning.
https://images.app.goo.gl/y4G9VCbYz2DEZ2e59

If we accept your premises we must accept your conclusion but we have no reason to accept your premises.

I mean your whole argument is a list of logical fallacies.

[Infected Mushroom]

This is a reply to your argument. You said, "not marching against the government is not a sign that you support the government"... I'm showing you HOW the 6-7 million ARE supporting the government through their actions

I'm telling you the HK SAR literally depends on them and their continued supportive actions

Are the protesters trying to destroy the SAR though? Your argument is absolutely redundant and a glaring non-sequitur otherwise, especially since none of the protesters have proposed anything close to dismantling society in HK.

I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions.

The actions of a large number of protestors suggested that they aimed to cause widespread destruction, disruption, societal paralysis such that their demands can be met.