Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Infected Mushroom]

This is not the case. The demands of the protestors are far in excess of this. Specifically, the demand that all protestors (regardless of rioting behavior in a case by case basis) be pardoned is basically calling for vandalism and attacking of the police and shops to be condoned if a big enough crowd dies it.

Also, the protestors demand political power in that they insist on a specific CE stepping down. There’s nothing “basic” about it.

Those are extremely lenient demands all things considered.

If the protests were really about human dignity and rights then they wouldn’t have caused all this destruction in the city. In doing so, and destroying tons of business, the movement shows a reckless disregard and double standard.

They are willing to fight for their rights and dignity, that’s honourable You’re trying your best and failing to portray them otherwise.

There’s nothing honorable or dignified about the sort of mass vandalism and destruction that they have inflicted upon this once glorious city.

[Beire]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

I’m glad to see that you are loyal to your government

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Successful propaganda is supposed to be vaguely believable...

That said, let's not turn our shiny, new thread into an IM thread.

So, focusing on the Hong Kong protests: Hong Kong police clashed with protesters rallying in support of the Uighurs:

Earlier in the afternoon, more than 1,000 people had attended a peaceful rally, waving Uighur flags and posters as they took part in the latest demonstration in more than six months of unrest.

A mixed crowd of young and older people, dressed in black and wearing masks to hide their identities, held up signs reading: “Free Uyghur, Free Hong Kong” and “Fake ‘autonomy’ in China results in genocide”.
[...]

“I think basic freedom and independence should exist for all people, not just for Hong Kong,” said a 41-year-old woman surnamed Wong, who attended the protest with her husband.

United Nations experts and activists say at least 1 million Uighurs and members of other largely Muslim minority groups have been detained in camps in Xinjiang since 2017 under a campaign that has been condemned by the US and other countries.

Beijing says it is providing vocational training to help stamp out separatism and to teach new skills. It denies any mistreatment of Uighurs.

Protests in Hong Kong are in their seventh month, albeit in a relative year-end lull. Many residents are angry at what they see as Chinese meddling in the freedoms promised to the former British colony when it returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

China denies interfering and says it is committed to the “one country, two systems” formula put in place at that time and has blamed foreign forces for fomenting unrest.

On Saturday, Hong Kong riot police swept into several shopping centres, chasing off and arresting demonstrators pressing their demands in the peak shopping weekend before Christmas.

The police’s heavy-handed clampdown on demonstrations and frequent use of teargas have incensed many protesters, whose demands include full democracy and an independent investigation into perceived police brutality.

I like what the 41-year-old protestor said: "I think basic freedom and independence should exist for all people, not just for Hong Kong."

Basic freedom. Human dignity and rights. That's all people want. That's all most anybody wants.

This is not the case. The demands of the protestors are far in excess of this. Specifically, the demand that all protestors (regardless of rioting behavior in a case by case basis) be pardoned is basically calling for vandalism and attacking of the police and shops to be condoned if a big enough crowd dies it.

Also, the protestors demand political power in that they insist on a specific CE stepping down. There’s nothing “basic” about it.

...

If the protests were really about human dignity and rights then they wouldn’t have caused all this destruction in the city. In doing so, and destroying tons of business, the movement shows a reckless disregard and double standard.

Have you ever heard of the term "police riot"? That is what caused the protests to degenerate into violence, given just how badly the police intended to provoke them so that they have a greenlight to severely crackdown upon them, coupled with the government's complete indifference and ignorance to any of the protesters' demands, even when they were fully peaceful. It took them until fucking October just to finally withdraw the bill once and for all, and the rest of the demands, mainly an independent commission being created to investigate and punish cases of police brutality, and the enaction of universal suffrage for both the LegCo and the Chief Executive, remain unfulfilled. And the vast majority of Hong Kong's public supports the protesters, even the radical factions, as seen here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ho ... 58061.html

And you only have to take a look at the results of this year's local elections in Hong Kong (Which resulted in the biggest landslide victory for the pro-democratic camp in HK's political history, debunking the common argument made by the pro-Beijing camp that Carrie Lam had the support of an alleged "silent majority") to measure the sheer level of support for the protest movement and the pro-democratic camp.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

Just to let you know, you are standing side by side with a neoliberal oligarchy that has abandoned socialism and communism several decades ago when it passed Deng's reformd and is now paying lip service at best to Marxism. Even Maoists are so disgusted with the current state of affairs that they regularly criticize the regime on a constant basis.

[The New California Republic]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

I’m glad to see that you are loyal to your government

You support using tanks against the protesters, so it's no surprise that you'd agree with such statements.

[Beire]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

Just to let you know, you are standing side by side with a neoliberal oligarchy that has abandoned socialism and communism several decades ago when it passed Deng's reformd and is now paying lip service at best to Marxism. Even Maoists are so disgusted with the current state of affairs that they regularly criticize the regime on a constant basis.

It's a good thing I'm not a Maoist then. I am critical of certain aspects of China's reforms, but ultimately they remain on a socialist path.

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

I’m glad to see that you are loyal to your government

China may be my government in the future, if my plans to work there in the future are successful.

[Novus America]

Not everyone who supports the protesters would go out and protest either, I suspect. Many would be too scared or otherwise unable to take part, so just counting the people in each protest isn't accurate as the sum total of support they'd have.

Just sayin'.

We already told him that but he just ignored everything that does not fit his narrative.

[Ethel mermania]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

[Beire]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

I should clarify that in the event of the crackdown, I will stand with the people of Hong Kong as well, the ones who are going about their daily lives when rioters are not setting them on fire, even if they disagree with the Chinese government.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

The pro Dem electoral win signals that the the people aren't satisfied with the current government's handling of the protests, but it doesn't signal support for the rioting or for the policies of the protestors.

It's just to send a signal to the government that they need to do "better"... what that means differs from individual voter to individual voter

the votes were not undertaken with the assumption that those who won would take actual power in government (everyone knew as as starting assumption that the election was symbolic)... it serves a limited communicative function and must be treated as such. Hence the assumption that holds in western elections (that a majority voting for one party in general shows support for that party's policy do not apply here); voting pro Dem is the only way to express "dissatisfaction" under the current system, what the content of that "dissatisfaction" is differs from voter to voter.

I have spoken to countless people who said they would never vote for Carrie Lam or her party but are nevertheless anti-protest; for these people, they may consider voting Pro Dem as a way to communicate a limited message of disapproval.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that despite having 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong as of now much less than 1 million are marching shows that the people as a whole tire of the violence, lawlessness, and senselessness of the street fights.

Hence why I challenge those who say the HK protestors have public support to find me those 3-4 million "hidden" protestors. A small indeterminate figure of less than 1 million marchers do NOT speak for the citizens of this great city.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Just to let you know, you are standing side by side with a neoliberal oligarchy that has abandoned socialism and communism several decades ago when it passed Deng's reformd and is now paying lip service at best to Marxism. Even Maoists are so disgusted with the current state of affairs that they regularly criticize the regime on a constant basis.

It's a good thing I'm not a Maoist then. I am critical of certain aspects of China's reforms, but ultimately they remain on a socialist path.

They remain on a socialist path how, exactly? Their labour conditions are quite frankly abhorrent, there are widespread disparities of income, especially between regions, their healthcare system has been gradually privatized, worker control over the means of production is nonexistent, and foreign corporations can look forward to one of the cheapest labour forces in the world, in addition to China having more billionaires than the United States of America, the homeland of capitalism. And the consensus is clear that China is a state capitalist economy:

Current forms in the 21st century
"State capitalism is distinguished from capitalist mixed economies where the state intervenes in markets to correct market failures or to establish social regulation or social welfare provisions in the following way: the state operates businesses for the purpose of accumulating capital and directing investment in the framework of either a free market or a mixed-market economy. In such a system, governmental functions and public services are often organized as corporations, companies or business enterprises.

Mainland China
Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[65][66][67] In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.[68] Bremmer draws a broad definition of state capitalism as such:[69]

"In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.

They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain."

Following on Bremmer, Aligica, and Tarko[70] further develop the theory that state capitalism in countries like modern day China and Russia is an example of a rent-seeking society. They argue that following the realization that the centrally planned socialist systems could not effectively compete with capitalist economies, formerly Communist Party political elites are trying to engineer a limited form of economic liberalization that increases efficiency while still allowing them to maintain political control and power.

In his article "We're All State Capitalists Now", British historian and Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University Niall Ferguson warns against "an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into 'market capitalist' and 'state capitalist' camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary".[69] He then notes:[69]

"The real contest of our time is not between a state-capitalist China and a market-capitalist America, with Europe somewhere in the middle. It is a contest that goes on within all three regions as we all struggle to strike the right balance between the economic institutions that generate wealth and the political institutions that regulate and redistribute it."

In the common program set up by the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1949, in effect the country’s interim constitution, state capitalism meant an economic system of corporatism. It provided that:[71]

"Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of state capitalism."

Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is the existence of financial markets in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in the market socialist literature and in the classic models of market socialism; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a basic income/social dividend or similar scheme, which are major features in the market socialist literature. They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[72]

[Novus America]

I'm hoping that the riots will end and that the rioters are punished. I hope that it doesn't come to a crackdown, but if so, I will still stand with the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong.

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

Tankies going to tank. Just look at the absurdly edgy signature. You are not going to make any headway against that much doublethink.

[Albrenia]

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

Tankies going to tank. Just look at the absurdly edgy signature. You are not going to make any headway against that much doublethink.

Yeah, I read the sig and figured the same.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

The pro Dem electoral win signals that the the people aren't satisfied with the current government's handling of the protests, but it doesn't signal support for the rioting or for the policies of the protestors.

It's just to send a signal to the government that they need to do "better"... what that means differs from individual voter to individual voter

the votes were not undertaken with the assumption that those who won would take actual power in government (everyone knew as as starting assumption that the election was symbolic)... it serves a limited communicative function and must be treated as such. Hence the assumption that holds in western elections (that a majority voting for one party in general shows support for that party's policy do not apply here); voting pro Dem is the only way to express "dissatisfaction" under the current system, what the content of that "dissatisfaction" is differs from voter to voter.

I have spoken to countless people who said they would never vote for Carrie Lam or her party but are nevertheless anti-protest; for these people, they may consider voting Pro Dem as a way to communicate a limited message of disapproval.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that despite having 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong as of now much less than 1 million are marching shows that the people as a whole tire of the violence, lawlessness, and senselessness of the street fights.

Hence why I challenge those who say the HK protestors have public support to find me those 3-4 million "hidden" protestors. A small indeterminate figure of less than 1 million marchers do NOT speak for the citizens of this great city.

Then why did pro-democratic candidates who participated in or supported the protests such as Jimmy Sham, Richard Chan (Airport uncle), Andrew Chiu, Jocelyn Chau, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Lester Shum, and Kelvin Lam win overwhelming victories in their respective constituencies? One would think that if the public was truly tired of the protests and grew hostile towards them, they would never even think of voting for someone who has constantly made it clear that they fully stand by the protest movement. Not to mention that you are directly repeating a baseless claim by Carrie Lam, Starry Lee, and others, who assert that their loss was not due to their blatant refusal to accede to the protesters' demands, or that, god forbid, because the public supports the protest movement, but because the public allegedly voted for the pro-democratic camp because they "hate the government for not cracking down upon the rioters" (In your own words), an argument which requires a new level of mental gymnastics and double-think for it to be true.

[Infected Mushroom]

The pro Dem electoral win signals that the the people aren't satisfied with the current government's handling of the protests, but it doesn't signal support for the rioting or for the policies of the protestors.

It's just to send a signal to the government that they need to do "better"... what that means differs from individual voter to individual voter

the votes were not undertaken with the assumption that those who won would take actual power in government (everyone knew as as starting assumption that the election was symbolic)... it serves a limited communicative function and must be treated as such. Hence the assumption that holds in western elections (that a majority voting for one party in general shows support for that party's policy do not apply here); voting pro Dem is the only way to express "dissatisfaction" under the current system, what the content of that "dissatisfaction" is differs from voter to voter.

I have spoken to countless people who said they would never vote for Carrie Lam or her party but are nevertheless anti-protest; for these people, they may consider voting Pro Dem as a way to communicate a limited message of disapproval.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that despite having 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong as of now much less than 1 million are marching shows that the people as a whole tire of the violence, lawlessness, and senselessness of the street fights.

Hence why I challenge those who say the HK protestors have public support to find me those 3-4 million "hidden" protestors. A small indeterminate figure of less than 1 million marchers do NOT speak for the citizens of this great city.

Then why did pro-democratic candidates who participated in or supported the protests such as Jimmy Sham, Richard Chan (Airport uncle), Andrew Chiu, Jocelyn Chau, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Lester Shum, and Kelvin Lam win overwhelming victories in their respective constituencies? One would think that if the public was truly tired of the protests and grew hostile towards them, they would never even think of voting for someone who has constantly made it clear that they fully stand by the protest movement. Not to mention that you are directly repeating a baseless claim by Carrie Lam, Starry Lee, and others, who assert that their loss was not due to their blatant refusal to accede to the protesters' demands, or that because the public supports thep rotest movement, but because the public allegedly voted for the pro-democratic camp because they "hate the government for not cracking down upon the rioters" (In your own words), an argument which requires a new level of mental gymnastics and double-think for it to be true.

It wouldn't make sense in a western system (where elections fundamentally shift the make up of the governing bloc) but it makes sense here once you've factored in the largely symbolic nature of the election.

All of the power here is overwhelmingly concentrated in the CE. The voters could (and did) safely communicate their disapproval of the current handling of the protests by voting for the opposition. The content of the policies of the opposition mattered less than their (the voters') opportunity to communicated a limited message of disapproval.

There was no downside to the communication of that message; there was zero risk those voted would form a power bloc and overtake the ruling government. This isn't a parliamentary system where party make up in government translates to who holds power and the voters knew that.

[Ethel mermania]

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

The pro Dem electoral win signals that the the people aren't satisfied with the current government's handling of the protests, but it doesn't signal support for the rioting or for the policies of the protestors.

It's just to send a signal to the government that they need to do "better"... what that means differs from individual voter to individual voter

the votes were not undertaken with the assumption that those who won would take actual power in government (everyone knew as as starting assumption that the election was symbolic)... it serves a limited communicative function and must be treated as such. Hence the assumption that holds in western elections (that a majority voting for one party in general shows support for that party's policy do not apply here); voting pro Dem is the only way to express "dissatisfaction" under the current system, what the content of that "dissatisfaction" is differs from voter to voter.

I have spoken to countless people who said they would never vote for Carrie Lam or her party but are nevertheless anti-protest; for these people, they may consider voting Pro Dem as a way to communicate a limited message of disapproval.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that despite having 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong as of now much less than 1 million are marching shows that the people as a whole tire of the violence, lawlessness, and senselessness of the street fights.

Hence why I challenge those who say the HK protestors have public support to find me those 3-4 million "hidden" protestors. A small indeterminate figure of less than 1 million marchers do NOT speak for the citizens of this great city.

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Then why did pro-democratic candidates who participated in or supported the protests such as Jimmy Sham, Richard Chan (Airport uncle), Andrew Chiu, Jocelyn Chau, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, Lester Shum, and Kelvin Lam win overwhelming victories in their respective constituencies? One would think that if the public was truly tired of the protests and grew hostile towards them, they would never even think of voting for someone who has constantly made it clear that they fully stand by the protest movement. Not to mention that you are directly repeating a baseless claim by Carrie Lam, Starry Lee, and others, who assert that their loss was not due to their blatant refusal to accede to the protesters' demands, or that because the public supports thep rotest movement, but because the public allegedly voted for the pro-democratic camp because they "hate the government for not cracking down upon the rioters" (In your own words), an argument which requires a new level of mental gymnastics and double-think for it to be true.

It wouldn't make sense in a western system (where elections fundamentally shift the make up of the governing bloc) but it makes sense here once you've factored in the largely symbolic nature of the election.

All of the power here is overwhelmingly concentrated in the CE. The voters could (and did) safely communicate their disapproval of the current handling of the protests by voting for the opposition. The content of the policies of the opposition mattered less than their (the voters') opportunity to communicated a limited message of disapproval.

There was no downside to the communication of that message; there was zero risk those voted would form a power bloc and overtake the ruling government. This isn't a parliamentary system where party make up in government translates to who holds power and the voters knew that.

Unfortunately for you, your arguments are simply factually inaccurate, given that a majority of HK citizens do support the protesters' demands, and if neccessary, radical tactics:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ho ... 58061.html

[Infected Mushroom]

The pro Dem electoral win signals that the the people aren't satisfied with the current government's handling of the protests, but it doesn't signal support for the rioting or for the policies of the protestors.

It's just to send a signal to the government that they need to do "better"... what that means differs from individual voter to individual voter

the votes were not undertaken with the assumption that those who won would take actual power in government (everyone knew as as starting assumption that the election was symbolic)... it serves a limited communicative function and must be treated as such. Hence the assumption that holds in western elections (that a majority voting for one party in general shows support for that party's policy do not apply here); voting pro Dem is the only way to express "dissatisfaction" under the current system, what the content of that "dissatisfaction" is differs from voter to voter.

I have spoken to countless people who said they would never vote for Carrie Lam or her party but are nevertheless anti-protest; for these people, they may consider voting Pro Dem as a way to communicate a limited message of disapproval.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that despite having 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong as of now much less than 1 million are marching shows that the people as a whole tire of the violence, lawlessness, and senselessness of the street fights.

Hence why I challenge those who say the HK protestors have public support to find me those 3-4 million "hidden" protestors. A small indeterminate figure of less than 1 million marchers do NOT speak for the citizens of this great city.

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

[Thermodolia]

The pro Dem electoral win signals that the the people aren't satisfied with the current government's handling of the protests, but it doesn't signal support for the rioting or for the policies of the protestors.

It's just to send a signal to the government that they need to do "better"... what that means differs from individual voter to individual voter

the votes were not undertaken with the assumption that those who won would take actual power in government (everyone knew as as starting assumption that the election was symbolic)... it serves a limited communicative function and must be treated as such. Hence the assumption that holds in western elections (that a majority voting for one party in general shows support for that party's policy do not apply here); voting pro Dem is the only way to express "dissatisfaction" under the current system, what the content of that "dissatisfaction" is differs from voter to voter.

I have spoken to countless people who said they would never vote for Carrie Lam or her party but are nevertheless anti-protest; for these people, they may consider voting Pro Dem as a way to communicate a limited message of disapproval.

Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that despite having 7.5 million people living in Hong Kong as of now much less than 1 million are marching shows that the people as a whole tire of the violence, lawlessness, and senselessness of the street fights.

Hence why I challenge those who say the HK protestors have public support to find me those 3-4 million "hidden" protestors. A small indeterminate figure of less than 1 million marchers do NOT speak for the citizens of this great city.

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

But then IM wouldn’t be able to reap the benefits of a semi-free society

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

There were in June, but you would only realize that if you stopped blindly following your indoctrination programme created by Beijing.

[Infected Mushroom]

It wouldn't make sense in a western system (where elections fundamentally shift the make up of the governing bloc) but it makes sense here once you've factored in the largely symbolic nature of the election.

All of the power here is overwhelmingly concentrated in the CE. The voters could (and did) safely communicate their disapproval of the current handling of the protests by voting for the opposition. The content of the policies of the opposition mattered less than their (the voters') opportunity to communicated a limited message of disapproval.

There was no downside to the communication of that message; there was zero risk those voted would form a power bloc and overtake the ruling government. This isn't a parliamentary system where party make up in government translates to who holds power and the voters knew that.

Unfortunately for you, your arguments are simply factually inaccurate, given that a majority of HK citizens do support the protesters' demands, and if neccessary, radical tactics:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ho ... 58061.html

Your source is from October in the buildup to the Polyu battle, this was when the movement was still on the rise

[Tuthina]

You do not speak for the citizens of hong kong.

The folks i know in hong kong, the folks I know with family in hong kong, are all fairly uniform in their opinions of the current situation there, and it is a lot closer to mr. Bombidil's than yours. If you prefer mainland policies go to Guangzhou plenty of oppertunity without those pesky cries of freedom you so abhor.

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

Funny how that line of logic doesn't apply to the turnout of pro-police and anti-"violence" assemblies.

He thinks there is no support for the protesters and doesn’t like that the PLA haven’t stormed tanks through the city yet.

Hmm, by his choice of words, it appears he lives in Hong Kong? Am I right? If I’m right, perhaps he is concern about his safety....

Given IM has shown their ignorance about everything from happenings and laws of Hong Kong to how football teams work, I'm not even sure if they come from the same planet as us Hongkongers.

[Heloin]

You cant side with both. You need to pick one side or the other. The democracy candidates winning the local elections by landslides shows what the people of HK think, and they are on the side of the 5 demands team. This is a mass middle class movement, not a radical fringe.

I should clarify that in the event of the crackdown, I will stand with the people of Hong Kong as well, the ones who are going about their daily lives when rioters are not setting them on fire, even if they disagree with the Chinese government.

The people of Hong Kong support the protesters. You can either stand with Hong Kong or Stand with Beijing, not both.

[Infected Mushroom]

If that is the case, there would be more than 1 million people on the streets (out of a total of 7.5 million people).

There were in June, but you would only realize that if you stopped blindly following your indoctrination programme created by Beijing.

I don't follow any indoctrination program. I simply choose to be loyal to my own government.