Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+196|2070

uziq wrote:

jay's vocabulary and line of argument has noticeably changed in the last few years -- and it isn't down to that usual pastoral glide into senescent 'respectable' conservatism, either. he's got a lot of the firebrand rhetoric and uses a lot of the (fatuous and nonsensical) mots deployed by the right-wing. people are definitely becoming polarized; it's interesting that we're watching it happen on an internet forum, and arguably this whole dystopic and information-twisted era is inaugurated by the next gen of tech to supersede forums.

the left has always critiqued liberalism and the centre. the hegemony and orthodoxy of neoliberalism, trickle-down economics, etc. have palpably done the most harm and been the biggest enemy of the left's project since the late 1970s. this whole radical right vs radical left thing is a bastard child of the economic crisis and the heating up of discourse online and in piss-rag papers. conflating left-wing thought and liberalism is a really poor joke. almost all of post-marxist theory is focussed on unpacking the intermeshing of capitalism/the market and liberal democracy, ffs.

ironically jay will readily deploy the right-wing blogosphere rhetoric about 'cultural marxism on university campuses', meanwhile the real marxists on university campuses have been critiquing liberalism, identity politics, etc, and all the things that incense conservative pundits, all along. the ignorance on display is almost fractal.
Right wing small government economics is clearly impractical for a society and unpopular since people want services. Conservatives have to upset people with constant stories about political correctness and college kids since they can't win on ideas and people would reject them outright if they knew the only thing they are going to get for voting R is lower taxes on wealthy people. This is another reason why I am not into the China drama on the news. The real enemy of the American people are the rich conservatives and not the Chinese.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,792|4982|949

Larssen wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Larssen wrote:

The fact that I didn't add a treatise in my post on the historical context to the protests doesn't mean I'm unaware. Of course there's a cause and effect relationship between how the protest movement evolved and how China / the HK government handled the situation. The grievances can be traced back much further than 2014 as well. It's not that the protestors don't have a right to be angry, it's that continuous escalation on this level will fail.

It's important to see through the (conflict) narratives for a minute and just look at the social dynamics. The current protest movement is very fragmented and some factions seem powered by ideologues on the extreme end of the spectrum - they want independence for HK. They push people to be violently confrontational because an excessive response on the part of the police increases their base of support and allows them to shape an us vs them narrative (even though they are a small group of the whole protest movement). Controlling the narrative here is extremely important and these moments are ideal opportunities to them.

The 18 year old who got shot is an example. He ran with people throwing molotov cocktails, though that is often glossed over. The shooting was quickly seized upon by many news outlets, especially english-language ones, to underline the overarching story of the repressed HKer vs the Chinese evil empire. Be aware that this is the whole point to that part of the movement, and that they are very invested in disseminating their message in english language publications as well. Many of the protest actions are intended to ellicit  more violent responses. An airport occupation would've been beat down by riot police anywhere in the world.

And yes, the Chinese response is excessive, and triads didn't help, though arguably so far they've also been very restrained if compared to their handling of other protests & minorities.
I took issue with your statement that the protests evolved as if there's no context to that - in fact, your comment I quoted makes it sound like it's the protesters' fault in the first place for not engaging diplomatically, as if you don't recognize that the protests are/were the result of failed diplomacy between the movement and HK legislature back in 2014. You seem to think they should just keep banging their head against the diplomacy wall until China acquiesces (lol). 

You don't need to write a treatise but you should at least be cognizant of the reasons the protests evolved, especially if you're going to critique and chastise said escalations. It's important to understand that the protests aren't simply a response to the current extradition bill, and it's really not conducive to lump general grievances before 2014 into this protest movement, because this specific movement was borne out of China passing legislation in 2014 that allowed for the CPC to influence elections, which went directly against one of the main tenants of the British handover of HK in 1997, that is the idea of universal suffrage under the Basic Law (which is also one of the 5 demands of the current protest...).

Yes, there are factions that are using this movement to further their own aims, including the independence movement. There are also pro-China factions that are masquerading as protesters and purposely escalating violence - something common in these types of scenarios. I don't think you have to highlight that narrative is important - it's kind of a common sense look at protests in general, and in this case I don't think saying "well what about the violent extremists" is really relevant to this particular discussion. Your position seems to be that the protesters should push against those factions and seek calm, nonviolent protests, which sure, yeah, of course. The reality is that China will not negotiate, so the protests aren't so much to gain a seat at the negotiating table as much as trying to garner international support. This is why you see China trying to control the narrative by painting the protesters as violent thugs...something you seem to be captivated by despite recognizing the importance of shaping that narrative in international media.

FYI, when the "muslim ban" was enacted in the USA by the Trump admin, people occupied many airports in the US and riot police didn't beat down the protesters. It's not normal! It's also not normal in the western world for governments to use gangs to suppress nonviolent protests. It's also not normal for police to beat protesters. When it happens in the west, it rightfully gets a lot of media attention.

I'm not sure why you are hand-wringing about the violence of the protest movement without holding China to task. China holds all the power in the negotiating, China is disproportionately engaged in violence and force, yet you are chastising the protesters? Yeah, why aren't the protesters making sure everyone on their side is engaged in civil disobedience as they are getting shot and thrown off buildings and beaten by police and thugs? Why aren't the protesters peaceful as they get funneled into choke points as the police run away? Why aren't the protesters pushing back against violent factions (they are) if they really want to engage in diplomacy?

If your goal is to highlight the bias in international media coverage, or to point out the narrative as portrayed by western media, holding the protesters to task is an incredibly dumb way to achieve that goal in my opinion.
Thanks for the post. I agree with most of your analysis. I'll also concede I could've made a better effort in navigating the nuance and explaining my reservations. Don't accuse me of hand-wringing though as I'm patently not.

The strategy of trying to appeal to the international press and western involvement in the aim to maintain (or rather) expand democratic governance / independence in HK does not appear as one that's bound for success. In fact, what I worry for and the trends we're all seeing is that the situation is slowly spiralling out of control. You know it, I know it, uziq knows it, and we all recognise that there's a conscious effort to steer this escalation. The Chinese should be held to the task, sure, and factions in the protest have their part to play. I'm not some shill for Chinese governance for pointing that out - the implication is pretty insulting. The efforts of the Chinese trolls haven't really reached me and I'm pretty sure most of it is confined to HK news outlets and Chinese publications, the former of which I don't read and the latter of which I can't. I'm also hardly chastising the protesters if I'm pointing out the fact that some seem to deploy a strategy chasing escalation (which I can't support). It's curious that this invites both your and uzi's disapproval, almost as if it's a sin to not be on 'their side'.

I'll add on to what makes this complicated to me. At some point 5 years ago I spent an extended time in China and had to be in HK as well. The minute I saw a banner out over a street which read 'Mainlanders don't you shit in our streets', after hearing the general opinion on Hong Kongers elsewhere, was when I realised that escalation seemed very likely. There's the official reasons for why the protest started and how the relationship between both parties is complicated, but there's also a deep aversion in many HKers and Chinese for one another on a more personal level. Sure, democratic governance could've been maintained after 1997 or developed even further, though I'm quite sure that would've been a route to civil unrest as well. Not to mention that the existence of two almost entirely contradictory forms of governance within one country and expecting stability is a fantasy. Which, I'm sure, is how the Chinese view their 'long game' - a country which could not exist if it were a democracy.
That strategy is seen as the only hope against a regime that has shown throughout history they are not afraid to quash protests violently, render the key players off to internment camps and/or death and generally never give any concessions, no matter how popular they are. In your opinion, what is the strategy to success? China didn't budge in 2014, what makes you think they will look for peaceful resolution while giving in to the 5 demands this time? What type of strategy would you support, given that peaceful protest and "diplomatic solutions" won't work?

I usually go to Hong Kong and China (and Taiwan) every quarter. I was there in April. I was supposed to go back in August but the protests and general uncertainty blocked me. I'm supposed to go again in mid Nov...we will see how that plays out. The Taiwanese hold the same disdain for Chinese tourists. Isn't the behavior of Chinese tourists an international meme at this point? Why wouldn't TW and HK have that same general sentiment?  Taiwanese don't see themselves as Chinese, and neither do Hong Kongese.

Notice that TW pushes their disputes by proxy, mostly through the US. Rarely do the actual governments speak out against their at arms-length overlords. Granted, there's a marked difference between TW political status and HK political status, but the general perception is the same. Also keep in mind, this general perception does not stop all three parties from regular commerce and economic engagement in the slightest. There is no diplomacy like economic diplomacy, which is a key point of protesting as a form of international pressure.
Larssen
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+4|238

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

That strategy is seen as the only hope against a regime that has shown throughout history they are not afraid to quash protests violently, render the key players off to internment camps and/or death and generally never give any concessions, no matter how popular they are. In your opinion, what is the strategy to success? China didn't budge in 2014, what makes you think they will look for peaceful resolution while giving in to the 5 demands this time? What type of strategy would you support, given that peaceful protest and "diplomatic solutions" won't work?

I usually go to Hong Kong and China (and Taiwan) every quarter. I was there in April. I was supposed to go back in August but the protests and general uncertainty blocked me. I'm supposed to go again in mid Nov...we will see how that plays out. The Taiwanese hold the same disdain for Chinese tourists. Isn't the behavior of Chinese tourists an international meme at this point? Why wouldn't TW and HK have that same general sentiment?  Taiwanese don't see themselves as Chinese, and neither do Hong Kongese.

Notice that TW pushes their disputes by proxy, mostly through the US. Rarely do the actual governments speak out against their at arms-length overlords. Granted, there's a marked difference between TW political status and HK political status, but the general perception is the same. Also keep in mind, this general perception does not stop all three parties from regular commerce and economic engagement in the slightest. There is no diplomacy like economic diplomacy, which is a key point of protesting as a form of international pressure.
Excuse me on the hand wringing thing - I confused it with hand rubbing. Different meanings.

China is subtly changing. This is not the same China that ran tanks over protesters in Beijing. If it were, we wouldn't have had months of protest in Hong Kong. The image that it is absolutely ruthless is one the government likes to silently uphold, but it's clear that it has adjusted its approach significantly. It also applies different policies in different regions, I don't think the internment camps in Xinjiang or the treatment of the Tibetans can be directly equated to a possible handling of Hong Kong.

I do believe there's some possibility for diplomatic engagement and that Hong Kong holds more leverage than other Chinese minority territories, due to its history and its economic importance. Part of the problem for China in this situation is that it's impossible for the government to consider giving in to the 5 demands, absolutely not openly. I'm sure you can understand why, considering the country's diversity and governance. I also didn't think the five demands were etched into stone, but would at best be a point of departure for some form of compromise. The complete withdrawal of the extradition bill signalled to me that there certainly was a willingness on the part of the establishment in the HK region to try and engage with the protest. That failed, because the entire system is branded as illegitimate. Regardless of the fact that the CPC has to shoulder much of the blame for the reaction, to now have protests demand an end to the entire current form of governance and the removal of key top officials is a direct confrontation with the CPC. The dismissal of the revocation of the bill signalled that some protesting parties do not seek or see a peaceful resolution as possible. Or they're delusional, believing they can force China to submit to all five demands.

So what should they do? I won't pretend to have a ready made answer to one of the most complicated political realities on the planet. That however doesn't indicate that the current course is the right choice. I would certainly advise against that.

As for Taiwan; I understand the perception is the same but as you stated the political reality (especially at present) is very different. I can't draw a parallel and don't know enough about the Taiwanese-Chinese relationship to comment meaningfully.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-10-10 15:16:57)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Most of the ones I've seen question her intelligence and her fitness to propose vast sweeping legislation when her background is that of a bartender.
Your background is that of a bartender.

But yeah, attack the person not her relatively mainstream ideas. Intelligence is overrated, look at your President.

Bottom line is you don't really have any developed thoughts of your own, you support whichever ideology will deliver the most to you at any given time and parrot the talking heads who ram that ideology down everyone elses throats.

Currently you're a self-made man and war-hero in your peak earning years, so you support right-wing policies for the low taxes. As soon as your situation changes ie your income dries up and your health starts to fail you'll flip to something else, you'll be out with your begging bowl again demanding someone else pays your way, again.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-10-10 15:42:57)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

i think the bigger issue is not being able to tell between social democracy, which is the centre ground for most of that western world, and ‘the Left’, regardless of the various strains of leftist thought or factions.

america, the most unequal society in the advanced world, seems to view any form of taxation or federal activity as ‘Leftism’. it’s a very distorted worldview and has little to nothing to do with genuine public ownership or wealth redistribution. AOC doesn’t want to send everyone to work on farms, does she?
https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2018/02/28/Photos/NS/MW-GE557_MediaB_20180228115701_NS.jpg?uuid=659e15a6-1ca8-11e8-83b2-9c8e992d421e
Pretty well every organisation in that chart is an opinionated for-profit media outlet run by someone with an agenda.

Well done if thats where you get your world-view and understanding of politics from.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-10-10 16:13:31)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
SuperJail Warden
Member
+196|2070

Dilbert_X wrote:

Currently you're a self-made man and war-hero in your peak earning years, so you support right-wing policies for the low taxes. As soon as your situation changes ie your income dries up and your health starts to fail you'll flip to something else, you'll be out with your begging bowl again demanding someone else pays your way, again.
Jay will turn into one of those welfare cases that blames immigrants, and blacks for him not getting a big enough handout.
uziq
Member
+169|1803

Jay wrote:

Because you embrace mass bureaucracy and accept government involvement in your life without remark. The vast majority of us do not. Every political issue in America boils down to statism vs freedom.
freedom from building regulations, apparently. the market's profit-maximization/cost-cutting is going swimmingly.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/12/us/n … index.html
SuperJail Warden
Member
+196|2070
The invisible hand of the free market should have caught the building.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3709|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Because you embrace mass bureaucracy and accept government involvement in your life without remark. The vast majority of us do not. Every political issue in America boils down to statism vs freedom.
freedom from building regulations, apparently. the market's profit-maximization/cost-cutting is going swimmingly.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/12/us/n … index.html
http://no-les.org/Newsletter/09%20apr/N … 0codes.htm
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3709|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The invisible hand of the free market should have caught the building.
The construction industry is heavily regulated. Where were the building inspectors?

This was a dumb example to pick uzi.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Because you embrace mass bureaucracy and accept government involvement in your life without remark. The vast majority of us do not. Every political issue in America boils down to statism vs freedom.

Jay wrote:

The construction industry is heavily regulated.

You've embraced bureaucracy and accepted govt involvement at every stage and in every aspect of your life without remark. Your progress has been totally dependent on it and I don't doubt that your current situation is largely dependent on govt tax and spend policies.
Except your only remark is to claim you haven't. Its bizarre, if anyone's intelligence should be questioned its yours.
There seems to be some connection missing in your head. You're more Jay Gatsby than John Galt, except you're not going to be a 1%er and when the time comes you'll have your hand out for govt assistance like all the people you claim to despise.

Jay wrote:

Where were the building inspectors?
Exercising some small government and not meddling in the business of brave capitalists making money?
Not kowtowing to Marxists who want the evil of a safe workplace for all workers imposed on the free market?
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+169|1803

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The invisible hand of the free market should have caught the building.
The construction industry is heavily regulated. Where were the building inspectors?

This was a dumb example to pick uzi.
can’t be that regulated as it was immediately apparent that the company behind it have been in and out of court in the past, with one of the family members already doing jail time. looks like they tendered for the cheapest possible firm and got corner-cutting criminals, instead.

Last edited by uziq (2019-10-13 01:10:50)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX
All part of the functioning of the perfect free market.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3709|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The invisible hand of the free market should have caught the building.
The construction industry is heavily regulated. Where were the building inspectors?

This was a dumb example to pick uzi.
can’t be that regulated as it was immediately apparent that the company behind it have been in and out of court in the past, with one of the family members already doing jail time. looks like they tendered for the cheapest possible firm and got corner-cutting criminals, instead.
Whether he's low bidder or not, he still has to follow local building codes and build to engineer approved plans. If he cuts corners and people die then he's going to jail. If he followed the plans and the design was flawed the engineer potentially goes to jail. To chalk this up to some sort of free market gone wrong is stupid. At every point they had to ask mother may I to the government and it was still built fucked up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,618|4456|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

he still has to follow local building codes and build to engineer approved plans
Marxism
If he cuts corners and people die then he's going to jail.
Fascism
If he followed the plans and the design was flawed the engineer potentially goes to jail.
Govt overreach
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard