Why are Hong Kongers all of a suddenly protesting for democracy when they were never a democracy?

May 2017
114
Hong Kong
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Karst Hill Fort

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,539
That doesn't matter. It leads nowhere. No one in any position of political power in HK needs to give a fig about any of that because of HK is run, how the political system is set up.

HKers have spent years stating their opinions, and no one that matters cares, not in HK, certainly not i Beijing. After years of this it is palpably clear that the opinions of the HK public means nothing, in either HK itself, much less in China.

The only way to make it matter is to begin being directly disruptive, which means taking it to the street. Which is why things have progressed to what it currently is.

The HK protesters think they deserve direct influence on how HK is run – much as local politics in any representative system – and you may disagree with that.

Anyone can have and express any opinion in China as long as no one listens and it doesn't matter. The HKers want it to matter. You might not.
That's not what you said originally. You said: street protests are the ONLY manifestation of a Hongkong public opinion that is even possible under the current system.
And when asked what other manifestation of Hong Kong public opinion that they aren't allowd to have, you say the above, which is not what you said originally.

Harassing and beating people who disagree with you is not just "disruptive", it is taking freedom away from people who disagree, and I've shown you plenty of proof about that. Perhaps only opinions that agree with you matter? People confuse freedom of speech with "freedom to agree with me". Not the same thing.

Previously the government caved and decided to push back the bill to cover the loopholes. The protestors got what they wanted, they were heard. Now they added additional demands like letting rioters get away scott free. That's not a reasonable demand. Those type of demands should NOT matter. Or perhaps you are OK with people beating you up and getting away with it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Karst Hill Fort

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,825
That's not what you said originally. You said: street protests are the ONLY manifestation of a Hongkong public opinion that is even possible under the current system.
Since all other expressions of public opinion in HK are irrelevant, as they can be, and are, simply ignored – first by the local authorities, even more so by Beijin – as a function of how HK is governed – it is.

Street protests are the perfectly logical, possible even predictable, of a system that allows the free formation of public opinion, but then leaves it with no meaningful way it can be channelled. It's not some kind of unique situation to HK.

But this was a situation entirely engineered by the Chinese, in China. Apparently as a consequence of the CCP and national government in Beijing not understanding, and not caring, what HK is and how it works. So now the situation has broken down, and Beijing doesn't know how to fix it. It never planned for the eventuality because it is anathematic to how China is supposed to function under the party. By the look of it Beijing is stuck somewhere between genuinely not understanding the situation, and doing so but being loathe to accept the implications. It speaks very badly for even basic workability of any kind of actual "one country, two systems" situation.

(And if you're resorting to marking words here, then you're clearly out of any actual counter-arguments.)
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,539
You ignored what I said:
Previously the government caved and decided to push back the bill to cover the loopholes. The protestors got what they wanted, they were heard. Now they added additional demands like letting rioters get away scott free. That's not a reasonable demand. Those type of demands should NOT matter. Or perhaps you are OK with people beating you up and getting away with it?

^Explain how is that "making up words"? You said they weren't heard. I gave an example of how they were heard. I gave another example of how their additional more unreasonable demands shouldn't be heard. You just keep repeating that "it's the only way to make a difference" to justify beating people up who disagrees. That's not a justification, please let me know what difference that made besides injured people.

Also explain how the below is incorrect, because you are clearly shifting what you originally said so it doesn't sound like it was me who ran out of counter-arguments:
That's not what you said originally. You said: street protests are the ONLY manifestation of a Hongkong public opinion that is even possible under the current system.
And when asked what other manifestation of Hong Kong public opinion that they aren't allowd to have, you say the above, which is not what you said originally.

Harassing and beating people who disagree with you is not just "disruptive", it is taking freedom away from people who disagree, and I've shown you plenty of proof about that. Perhaps only opinions that agree with you matter? People confuse freedom of speech with "freedom to agree with me". Not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Karst Hill Fort

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,825
I said "mark words", not make up. (Are you misreading deliberately?)

And you are marking words.

What you infer here has nothing to with what I'm arguing, but is displacement since it has no relevance for what I'm saying, which is clear enough. You are technically not arguing the poster but the post, but you are misrepresenting it and refusing to engage with the actual argument. Tactically astute, but only designed to confuse – if not the actual situation being argued about, which remains.

The problems in HK are cumulative, the present street protests the result of a decade or more of gradually pent up frustration. There is no longer any way the situation can be put back into the same box it originally emerged from. Because the situation wasn't long term sustainable anyway.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,539
It is relevant to what you said. Are you misreading? Which of the below words did I "mark"? Those capital letters in the word "only" were completely made by you, I'm just quoting it.
This was what you said: street protests are the ONLY manifestation of a Hongkong public opinion that is even possible under the current system.

That was your actual argument. When challenged, you changed your argument from manisfestation of public opinion that's "possible", to ones that made a difference.

So let's summarize.
You made the statement "street protests are the ONLY manifestation of a Hongkong public opinion that is even possible under the current system. "
When asked what other manifestations of public opinion HKongers aren't allowed to express, you respond by saying that those manifestations don't make a difference, which is not the same as those manifestations not being possible to exist.
You then defend the riots saying that it's the only way to make a difference.
When asked how the riots are making a difference, you didn't reply. You say I'm "confusing" the matter.
I asked you two questions directly relevant to the statements you made. When you provide answers that don't really address the actual question, I point it out. How does that confuse the matter? I say providing answers that don't really address the actual question to be something that confuses the matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Peterc

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,547
China
at first, the "protesters" are only a small fraction among the people, distorted as the representatives of the people.
then, they become barriers against those who want to make a live by destroy the public services.

now part of them become terrorists

Nancy Patricia describes "hk protest" as "a beautiful sight to behold". well, is she enjoying the 'sight'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karst Hill Fort

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,547
China
you expect police shooting when you or others of your group body fighting with the police and trying to grab the gun.

in fact, there are numerous examples in western countries that under such condition, even death by shooting is acceptable result by the handling of the police.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karst Hill Fort