Hong Kong....Occupy Central Demonstrations....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Equation

Lieutenant General
You should check out how many protests there are every year in HK, and the original intention was a sit-in and inside the Civic Square. The area was condoned off when it's public space. Next up, the original OC area to house the protestors on 9/29 were also condoned off, which forced the people in the streets. So again like I've said, the original purpose wasn't even to disrupt the people. If the HKSAR gov't had let them sit in the designated areas instead of closing off the condoned public spaces for no apparent reason none of this would happen.

Was it enough to make a change and in according to the rest of Hong Kongers who may or may not abide by the beliefs of those protesters? Just because you protest that does NOT mean things will change to the way you wanted it to be. Remember there were large numbers of Pro-Beijing protesters as well, you can't count their voices out.
 
I was referring to your previous comments

and I replied back: "So therefore if the results doesn't turn out the way you or the OC movement wanted will you be standing in the way of evolution?"

and you show me a picture of a car and telling me to go take my "meds"? Why very mature for a person studying
Cognitive Neuroscience.

You don't realize your question is stupid do you? How or why will I even stand "in the way of evolution".

I don't know if you're genuinely trying to discuss this topic with me or trying to nitpick for things, but some of your questions are meaningless no offense. My response which you replied to was based off what I had learned in Intergroup Relations in Social Psychology. For the strange questions you're throwing at me, I'm already giving you a proper answer for that already. If you really have something you want to ask, please think first as to what is it you're really trying to ask. Don't ask for the sake of it.

Honestly why don't you think about it, how do I stand even in the way of the so-called "evolution".
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I would share a bit more since you are at least open minded over this whole democratic debate.

There is a background and history to actually understand the driving force behind the democratic push in HK. We will have to go back to more than 30 years when the reality sank in that HK would be reverting to China in 1997. When reversion became apparent there were widespread panic in HK with property prices and stock market plummeting and basically anyone who was able to was planning to flee. When Chairman Deng said to Thatcher that China can anytime walk in and just take back HK and there is nothing that Britain can do about it, Thatcher famously made the remark that Mr. Chairman you can certainly do so but that HK would not be worth a dime to China. Chairman Deng understood this point very well. In essence the 1984 joint Sino British declaration was birth out of this clear understanding that HK as a financial centre needs to be preserved and the basis that has underpinned its success was the rule of law, transparency and accountability. The principle of universal suffrage was the ultimate goal to preserve a foundation to that success. The joint agreement of a democratic process was the key in stabilising HK people's concern at that time on the notion that an established democratic process would ensure continuity of the rule of law, transparency and accountability that has been a source of HK's prosperity against a communist regime which was an unknown at that time.

The idea of a Trojan horse or the constant gripe that Britain did not introduce a democratic process until the takeover are based on ignorance of the reasoning that went into the joint declaration. That same reasoning of ensuring a democratic process that would underpin rule of law, transparency and accountability remains true today as it was 30 years ago even though it is pretty much watered down.

Britain and "rule of law" in Hong Kong can't be mentioned in the same breath without hideous laughter and large measures of contempt. Those people stole HK by right of might and treated the inhabitants as servants, coolies, and second-class subjects for over a century. It wasn't until they were tossed out by their ears did they consider universal suffrage for Hong Kong. What's more, Hong Kong "subjects" of the Imperial Crown weren't even issued British Passports and weren't allowed to freely travel to the UK, so broad claims of British care for democratic processes and equality under the law in Hong Kong is demonstrably false.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
You don't realize your question is stupid do you? How or why will I even stand "in the way of evolution".

I don't know if you're genuinely trying to discuss this topic with me or trying to nitpick for things, but some of your questions are meaningless no offense. My response which you replied to was based off what I had learned in Intergroup Relations in Social Psychology. For the strange questions you're throwing at me, I'm already giving you a proper answer for that already. If you really have something you want to ask, please think first as to what is it you're really trying to ask. Don't ask for the sake of it.

Honestly why don't you think about it, how do I stand even in the way of the so-called "evolution".

It's only sound "Stupid" to you.
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
I'm glad you asked this. I know you guys all know I haven't said much about this, and even I know too. In fact, a friend is accusing me of being bias for not mentioning it(which I admit I do, because first of all I know there's no way I ain't taking a side in this situation), but I told her the reason is because the thinking for anti-OC is very straightfoward.
.
.
.

I'm just hearing my dad mentioning outside now, that the student leaders might be opening dialogue again, and clarified this isn't a revolution. Honestly whoever thinks this is a real revolution is dumb. Unless HK is its own sovereignty state(which it isn't), this ain't no revolution. So yea, whoever used this word is making it sound fancy somewhat, but also misleading. I won't be surprised there are misled people out there, which is why I try my best to explain things to those people. Essentially I have talked about this for so many times and so much, I'm getting sick and tired of it. I really just want the students to go home and be safe.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss, argue, and debate. We might see OC differently, but ours are political differences and not personal. Be careful out there comes Monday, and for Pete's sake, stay safe.
 
Was it enough to make a change and in according to the rest of Hong Kongers who may or may not abide by the beliefs of those protesters? Just because you protest that does NOT mean things will change to the way you wanted it to be. Remember there were large numbers of Pro-Beijing protesters as well, you can't count their voices out.

Just so you know, more than half the people aren't happy with the offer(that's according to a recent survey). It's just how the actions and attitudes of people that varied. Supporting OC was also only in the 30s percentile too, so as you see, the original motivation for Occupy wasn't that strong. Everything changed due to governmental response on 9/28-9/29. If they do act so stupid as to create those gates and condone off that area, again as I've said, none of this would happen. Why I'm saying this again is because that's how the fuse started. This also shows how this government is so unresponsive to its people that it can decide to prevent their assembly at the last moment without much a notice at all. Such a government deserves to be replaced because it's not accountable to the people anymore. Again, 49% do not trust government vs 30ish % who do.


I'm not sure if you've been following what's happening, but a quick answer is, the HKSAR and HKPF are responsible for the

And just so you know, I don't think most protestors actually BELIEVE or think they really will get it. They are trying to send a message to the HKSAR and the Beijing asking for reform and appeal to the decision, which I think the message can be said to be received, even if Beijing and HKSAR say no. Also, my dad was saying earlier that the student leader had just reaffirmed that this is not a revolution. The purpose is civil disobedience, and that's what it was the whole time. I just don't know why some people think it's a real revolution. HK is a city, not a country. No sovereignty is gonna be declared.
 

ancestral

New Member
No I don't think you understand them.

I also don't think it's entirely brainwash or anything. People's attitudes are formed based on information and experiences. You can say brainwashed in terms of information fed to them, but also the encounters and experiences of encounters and interactions with rude mainland individuals, combined with reaffirmation of other people's information, can reinforce these ideas. I'm not to say such attitude is correct, but rather it is not quite the cynic interpretation one may expect.

Furthermore, I feel you should be proud of their recognition of the imbalances and unfairness of privilege. How one goes about to cope with privilege is another story, but to recognize it is very important. Without recognition of privilege or issues in society, there will be no movements to end slavery, apartheid, civil direct actions to hold governments accountable, public accountability that forced Nixon to resign, and even revolutions that overthrow regimes. -isms such as racisms, ableism, etc etc will less likely be seen as a undesirable thinking in our modern society, especially when you consider our human history had only just recently begin to accept these things as unacceptable. (this paragraph isn't advocating for revolution to subvert Chinese sovereignty on HK. It's just to help visualize my idea)

Furthermore, regardless of which democracy is in place, it's important to accept people being different, along with their ideas. I guarantee that one day one of those protestors you meet on the streets could be the next writer, the next volunteer, the next professor in humanities, the next activists, the next politician, the next innovator, or someone you feel you're able to hold a 5 hour talk about politics. Always be happy of a society where people speaks out. When no one does, that's when you should be scared.

I don't think it's fair to say "I don't think you understand them". It's a good way to end the discussion right here. By the same token, I don't think you understand the situation in Hong Kong because you're not even in Hong Kong.

I accept people being different, but it's (some of) the protesters and youths who cannot accept a POV different from them. In Hong Kong, the reality is if you're not pro-democracy, you'll be witch-hunted and picked on by the vast amount of pro-democracy fanatics. They are so paranoid about the CPC they themselves are becoming the very "evil" they hate.

Take a look at this screen. One of my friends who expressed opposition opinions on FB got "uprooted" and have his identity exposed to the public. I know, these people are the minority, but I've never seen anything like this from the anti-OC camp, who are comparatively much much more accepting of different opinions.

PS. how do I post an image properly?
 

Attachments

  • 10636474_1481451832130345_8005769728439304115_o.jpg
    10636474_1481451832130345_8005769728439304115_o.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 23

Brumby

Major
Britain and "rule of law" in Hong Kong can't be mentioned in the same breath without hideous laughter and large measures of contempt. Those people stole HK by right of might and treated the inhabitants as servants, coolies, and second-class subjects for over a century. It wasn't until they were tossed out by their ears did they consider universal suffrage for Hong Kong. What's more, Hong Kong "subjects" of the Imperial Crown weren't even issued British Passports and weren't allowed to freely travel to the UK, so broad claims of British care for democratic processes and equality under the law in Hong Kong is demonstrably false.

Your premise is Britain as a colonial power cannot reasonably introduce a democratic process into a departing colonial outpost. You have to demonstrate why such a behaviour is mutually exclusive or at least is an unreasonable act. I have already outlined the reason. You have to undercut that reasoning at the minimum. Whether Britain care or not does not preclude other reasons outside of care.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, argue, and debate. We might see OC differently, but ours are political differences and not personal. Be careful out there comes Monday, and for Pete's sake, stay safe.

No worries. I really appreciate the patience, curiosity, and respect you have shown for me and I always welcome these questions. I hope I am able to reciprocate the respect back towards you in the end, and if I failed to I apologize. I also recognize we have some misunderstandings in the beginning but I am very happy the veil's been lifted and things worked out in the end.

I also hope my expression of fatigue didn't discourage anyone from engaging in more talks. It's just a personal rant of my day and not directed in anyone in particular(talked about this with my parents, friends several days. I even bombarded FB feeds with posts and at least 3 friends unfollowed me lol)

Thanks again and take cares too. Keep following and let's wish for the best and safety for everyone, wherever they are(except Islamic State. they can go fk themselves)
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Just so you know, more than half the people aren't happy with the offer(that's according to a recent survey). It's just how the actions and attitudes of people that varied. Supporting OC was also only in the 30s percentile too, so as you see, the original motivation for Occupy wasn't that strong. Everything changed due to governmental response on 9/28-9/29. If they do act so stupid as to create those gates and condone off that area, again as I've said, none of this would happen. Why I'm saying this again is because that's how the fuse started. This also shows how this government is so unresponsive to its people that it can decide to prevent their assembly at the last moment without much a notice at all. Such a government deserves to be replaced because it's not accountable to the people anymore. Again, 49% do not trust government vs 30ish % who do.


I'm not sure if you've been following what's happening, but a quick answer is, the HKSAR and HKPF are responsible for the

And just so you know, I don't think most protestors actually BELIEVE or think they really will get it. They are trying to send a message to the HKSAR and the Beijing asking for reform and appeal to the decision, which I think the message can be said to be received, even if Beijing and HKSAR say no. Also, my dad was saying earlier that the student leader had just reaffirmed that this is not a revolution. The purpose is civil disobedience, and that's what it was the whole time. I just don't know why some people think it's a real revolution. HK is a city, not a country. No sovereignty is gonna be declared.


Than OC are responsible for the disruption of the people that depends on those businesses as well. Why couldn't OC talk to those business people first before taking matters into their own hands and protest it without consent? they could work out a time table or a deal where the protesters could come out after business hours and such, but they did not. That's is a rather piss poor planning and judgement by the student leaders on their part. That's why more and more people are becoming discontent with OC selfish behaviors. Trying to "send a message" to the government through unpopular means and disruptive actions does not make it right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top