After listening to these folks explain the situation of refugees and their legal status in HK, one wonders a bit why EJS decided to go there as his first stop.
"Sure. So there's a couple assertions in those arguments that are sort of embedded in the questioning of the choice of Hong Kong. The first is that China is an enemy of the United States. It's not. I mean there are conflicts between the United States government and the Chinese PRC government but the peoples inherently we don't care. We trade with each other freely, we're not at war, we're not in armed conflict, and we're not trying to be. We're the largest trading partners out there for each other."
"Additionally, Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech. People think 'Oh China, Great Firewall.' Mainland China does have significant restrictions on free speech but the people of Hong Kong have a long tradition of protesting in the streets, of making there views known. The internet is not filtered here more so then any other western government and I believe that the Hong Kong government is actually independent in relation to a lot of other leading western governments."
As for why he'd go to a place with disappointing refugee policies, I don't think he was planning to settle there.
The most popular answe is Argentina. The most interesting is Kerala.
Now my government is recording internet history, and censoring depictions of my (harmless but unusual) sexual practices. I'm not yet a criminal in my homeland, but I fear it's only a matter of time.
Where do I go?
Disclaimer: I am from Bulgaria. I've met countless Americans, a lot of British, loads of Eastern Europeans, some Nordics, some Turks and Arabs, very few Southern Americans, and some Asians. I still stand by my claim. We're pretty chill and the rotten tomatoes amongst us aren't more than anywhere else.
The fact that our governments don't take action on a load of issues unless it affects their pockets -- or the entire rest of the world already addressed them and they feel very behind (pick one) -- is in the strict meaning of the word bad... but it does have benefits. For example we couldn't care less about the overly sensitive political correctness movement. Almost nobody around here hates LGBT people unless they become very vocal and attention-seeking. Or any other kind of people. Nobody screams "sexism!" when a woman isn't qualified for a job. Nobody has the resources to censor or monitor the internet around here as well. (For now.)
Additionally, Bulgaria and Romania offer one of the best internet connections in the world. (Estonia too, but that's in the Baltic area.)
If you can work remotely, you'll reap the benefits of living in a relatively cheap country with a foreign paycheck. Trust me, it feels pretty good and is very sustainable. (But hell, don't ever get stuck with a local regular job.)
I don't seriously think you'd use such a feedback in your decision making -- but consider it a biased anecdotal semi-informative piece.
I couldn't wait to get out of Bulgaria. It will be a long time before I voluntarily revisit.
I'll agree however that unless you live in several parts of Sofia (the capital) the rest of the city -- and the country -- can be easily defined as a poverty-stricken sh*thole. =)
Let's just say I live in the bubble of the middle class and for that Bulgaria is pretty much perfect.
EDIT: You should absolutely avoid the trains in Bulgaria. Buses, planes, or walking. Not joking.
But the common folk is incredibly bullshit-resistant and that makes living in this country a bless for people who need the peace of mind.
Kerala has the lowest positive population growth rate in India, 3.44%; highest Human Development Index (HDI), 0.790 in 2011; the highest literacy rate, 93.91% in the 2011 census; the highest life expectancy, 77 years; and the highest sex ratio, 1,084 women per 1000 men.
Same core reasons as Kerala . You're looking for places which would remain stable if America collapsed and where America would have a hard time projecting influence if it didn't.
I mean, it's not even a particularly great choice in South America by that standard.
India didn't exactly have to put anything on the line for this considering the Dalai Lama was sponsored by the CIA when he first went into exile...
Edit - downvotes but no response? It's well known that the CIA was involved in the Tibetan uprising that forced the Dalai Lama into exile, and that he was on their payroll at the time. Not even conspiracy theory stuff, just documented history.
People from HN expect links when you use such words. Could be the reason for downvotes I guess.
The whole presentation was plagued by gremlins; the substance begins with Sönke Iversen's part of the talk around 13:45.
There's not a lot of revealing new info here, but wonderful people in dire need of support.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13276396 and marked it off-topic.
Bannon is a "white supremacist" because he was accused of making a single antisemitic remark by his ex-wife, during divorce proceedings, which he denies.
Trump is a "fascist" and a "white nationalist" because he wants to bring down legal and illegal migration, and is skeptical of Islam's role in modern day terrorism.
People who voted for the U.K. to remain in the EU are being branded "enemies of democracy" because they're pleased that the representatives elected to parliament will get final say on what was a non-binding referendum, in a country which is not a plebiscite.
"Genocide" is being used on Twitter to describe the decline of the white race as a % of the population as a whole in North America, despite the fact that genocide is a legal term which the UN's OSAPG defines as requiring dolus specialis. I.e. to believe it's actually genocide you have to believe that not only are actions being undertaken which singularly target and try to kill white folks, but also that there is a specific intent from those in power to do so: that the tens and thousands of white people in government, the CIA, the NSA, etc. are trying to kill themselves off.
Maybe it's just that compared to the atrocities of the early twentieth century the bar is now comparatively low, and what constituted "disaster" in 1935 is incomparable to what constitutes a disaster in 2016. But it feels like we're not using the precision and care we should with words.
I do think people are often too quick to go to extremes when using terms like "fascist" and "socialist" (abused by both sides), but I don't think it's a stretch to start applying those to Trump.
Can explain what you mean by the use of the word "courted"?
I'm not overly familiar with the ordeal, but according to this from the Washington Post:
It doesn't sound like he is attaching himself to David Duke in any way. Politicians (everyone, really) have to communicate with people whose politics they may or may not agree with.
Did he? I haven't really followed this, but I can't remember seeing anything even remotely suggesting this.
It seems like he used to retweet lots of random people, was he regularly retweeting any specific white nationalists or specifically white nationalist content?
The reaction to Bannon is not because of a single incident. Go peruse breitbart.com to take in some of his editorial direction - be sure to check the 'black crime' tag.
The reaction to Trump is not about a bland policy disagreement; the reaction is to claims of "Mexican rapists" and promises (revokable depending on moon-phase, apparently) to target Muslim immigrants specifically.
You are correct that nobody is firing up the Zyclon-B factories right now, and nobody knows what will actually happen. But concerns about the use of hyperbole cannot be an excuse to downplay people's clear words and actions. Doing so falls for a rhetorical strategy called the Overton Window that's been used successfully for quite some time. Look it up if you're not familiar with it, and view the history of a hot-button issue of your choosing through that lens. It works, and it leads to extremism.
That doesn't make him a white supremacist I'm afraid. There is a level of precision one would commonly associate with that term which is not simply the result of him allowing neoconservative interpretations of crime statistics.
I think its a science-fiction scenario at this point. Trump is a petty authoritarian with a history of scamming and self-promotion. He will do some amount of damage but nothing irreversible state-side.
The best thing to do is to stay where you are.
There are enough sane rational people to turn things around if everything really goes to hell. Mainstream republicans won't go "all the way", there aren't enough alt-right maniacs to sustain a fascist revolution, and the honey-boo-boo crowd who actually got The Donald elected will soon enough realize/remember what it means to trust a scammer.
If you can freely choose to leave then that's a strong indicator that your nation is not fascist.
So the people who decided to flee from Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union or North Korea were not fleeing from a fascist country?
1. OP said strong indicator. It's by no means the only indicator and a state can be fascist whilst still allowing people to leave.
2. Many people who were not targets of the regime were unable to flee Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea.
OP said that:
> If you can freely choose to leave then that's a strong indicator that your nation is not fascist.
I'm saying that it isn't an indicator for fascism: there is no country where every person who wants to leave, is unable to (whether it's illegal to leave is another question). Therefore, in all countries, fascist or not, there will be people who can freely choose to leave.
I think that a better indicator would be:
> If no ethnic/religious/politic/whatever group of people are prevented in a legal or physical way to leave the country, then that's a strong indicator that your nation is not fascist.
These tropes show up all over political speech of course, but I think it is undeniable that Trump has pulled together an unusually large concentration of them.
Make no mistake, Trump is no Hitler and he might have autocratic tendencies but the US is not a fascist state. I agree with you there. But criticism of Trump is more than the usual "someone I disagree with got elected". Trumps election heralds a crisis of liberal democracy of a magnitude I have not seen in my lifetime.
Well, Hitler was no Hitler either. Until he suddenly was.
The thing is, power is continually being increased and concentrated in the hands of fewer people, thanks to technology (which by definition has an exponential rate of growth of efficiency). Technology can make the transition from "weak democracy" to "fascism" potentially instant. And that is the danger.
Being the opposition doesn't make you exempt from justice, and being the press doesn't mean you can lie (more like the opposite)
There's many things wrong with Trump, but these things aren't among them. (the things that are are "the wall", his conflict of interest, his stance on climate change)
I consider myself a proud Trump supporter, but I also think there's things about him we need to question and watch out for - and comparing him to fascists or casting undue doubt on the legitimacy of the election is just distracting from the real important things. For the sake of both "camps" (though I hate to see the world divided up like that - we're all on the same side, really) I wish we could stop this nonsense and focus on the future.
But I'm going off topic, so I'll leave it at that.
Many of the more wacky people surrounding Trump are almost certainly a modern American spin on fascists. The major test of Trump as President will be whether he will let those folks define his presidency (the way Cheney usurped Bush 2) or whether he will kick them to the curb. He lacks political allies, so watching the trusted family members he surrounds himself with is crucial to understanding what is happening.
Politically, a major part of the conservative movement originated from the "western convservatives", whose funders are people who run extraction industries (oil, mining) who joined "conservative democrats" (ie. southern racists) after civil rights. Western conservatives hate government because any government intervention (except for giving them leases on Federal land) increases costs. A great resource to learn about the early days of this phenomenon is Robert Caro's series of biographies of Lyndon Johnson -- particularly "Master of the Senate".
Not really, yet. But, trust me, America will have the best fascism you can get. I'm highly educated. And I have the best words. And let me tell you, it's gonna be tremendous. It's gonna be yuuuuuge.
Edward Snowden escaped from Hong Kong.
If you're going to ask someone to do you a favor it's more effective if you dispense with the snark.