I always find this paradox as interesting as sad.
This Lose/Win mentality evolved as a solution to small community of humans with limited resources. In that situation, how to split the insufficient resources is the main problem. The more others get, the less is left for me.
In current modern society, the more education and resources has the people around me the more they produce and I can benefit from it.
Or brain did not evolve to our modern world, I guess. Helping people to think Win/Win would be a great paradigm shift moving into the future of our society.
It's crab mentality  and you're right, it's extremely sad. We see it absolutely everywhere. So many people who (for example) hate the rich rather than loving the poor.
Not necessarily. Beijing is violating an agreement lodged with the UN.
The protesters just need to get the population in a G7 country pissed off enough to turn this bill into an international issue, thereby increasing the cost of its introduction to Beijing.
Why are these people not fighting for better rule of law in all of China? Where is the solidarity?
And asking "why are [Hong Kongers] not fighting for better rule of law in all of China? Where is the solidarity?" either betrays a serious lack of understanding of how the Chinese political system works or is a question asked in bad faith.
 https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4382509644815287 面对困难，香港警察从不畏惧，坚决捍卫法律尊严！@香港警察
Implying that she lied.
Secondly, what do you think all those Tiananmen Square vigils held in HK every single year for the past 30 years were for?
Also in 2013 "mainlanders" rush to Hong Kong to buy milk powder due to the poisonous milk power scandal in China,
causing a shortage of milk power in Hong Kong . I certainly wouldn't be happy if suddenly I can't buy milk power for my child because my neighbour had bought all of them.
It’s coming to the point where they’ve got nothing to lose.
If it starts to spark copycat riots there things could escalate.
This is a reply to a thread of photos from a WSJ journo on the ground from a few hours ago. The photos are interesting in themselves.
Nohow, at least in newspapers. Though, I see a lot of curious people checking out events on their phones. Most look at it with some bemusement.
Four paragraphs are dedicated to explaining that it is being proposed in order to ensure a murderer faces justice in Taiwan, when in fact the Taiwan government has stated explicitly that they will not request his extradition under this arrangement. Furthermore they claim that they attempted to liaise with the Hong Kong government for assistance regarding the murder three times prior to the bill being proposed and were met with silence.
If a Beijing-controlled propaganda outlet writes stuff like
In practice, however, given the political nature of mainland China’s legal system, the protesters took to the street in part because they simply did not trust the Hong Kong government or Beijing.
People in support of the law exist, but they’re in the minority. According to a recent survey by Hong Kong University, 17% of the 1,002 respondents were supportive of extraditing Hong Kong people to mainland China for trials. (66% of them were opposed.)
On the Chinese internet, messages about the demonstrations were heavily censored. Mostly posts by state-run media outlets were allowed.
then they're playing a very long game.
I downvoted you because you talked about your downvotes.
Please don't interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.
"Man who killed girlfriend in Taiwan could be free by October, setting effective deadline for Hong Kong government’s extradition plan...“There is no time to lose. We must strive to pass the law by the 2018-2019 session of the Legislative Council meetings – that is, by this summer,” Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said. “The Taiwan murder case has set the clock ticking. We don’t want the suspect to escape.”"
"Taiwan won’t ask for murder suspect if Hong Kong passes ‘politically motivated’ extradition law"
You're citing an SCMP article dated April 29, before Taiwan made those remarks, and comparing it with an AFP story published by HKFP on May 10.
How about comparing apples to apples, starting from this May 9 piece by SCMP titled "Taipei will not agree to transfer of Hong Kong murder suspect if Taiwanese citizens risk being sent to mainland China"?
> “Without the removal of threats to the personal safety of [Taiwan] nationals going to or living in Hong Kong caused by being extradited to mainland China, we will not agree to the case-by-case transfer proposed by the Hong Kong authorities,” the council’s deputy minister Chiu Chui-cheng said.
> “We want the relevant suspect to face justice but our government cannot ignore damages to the human rights of our nationals.”
> “We have to ask whether the amendment proposed by the Hong Kong government is politically motivated, as some have speculated,” he said.
The article selections put forwrad may not be ideal, but the point regarding the SCMP remains. I appreciate that as a writer you likely strive to present the truth in a balanced way, but the reality of the ownership structure of the SCMP cannot be ignored.
Let's not forget the Zhao Wei interview, the Gui Minhai interview, and the various SCMP staff/contributor resignations over exactly this issue. To quote one:
I appreciate that you acknowledged the comparison wasn't ideal.
Zhao Wei, Gui Minhai, and staff resignations are all issues people have raised over and over again, and I think the scrutiny is justified. I wasn't around when those things happened, though, so I don't know more than you do.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning.
Also, I'm not sure people are getting the right idea about what being a CCP member means in China these days. I find this NYT (my former employer) article informative: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/business/jack-ma-communis...
But then again, social media brigaiding in the interest of shaping public opinion is very widespread, even lucrative business.
From years of looking at this data, I can tell you that beliefs about "brigading", "astroturfing", and so on almost always turn out to be imaginary. What's really happening is simply that the community is divided on divisive topics.
Although to be fair, criticisms and journalism also rarely make the distinction between "China" and "CCP".
Vox recently made a good video on the topic .
In 1984, Beijing agreed with Britain that after the handoff in 1997, China would respect Hong Kong’s political system . Hence, Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” .
Beijing is breaking that agreement. It already tried abduction . Now it wants to be able to extradite anyone to China to be tried in Chinese courts.
This is problematic. Hong Kong, like Japan, Taiwan, Britain and America, has an independent judiciary where the government must prove its case. So if a dissident is tried in Hong Kong, prosecutors have to prove their case in a relatively fair court.
Chinese courts are party instruments. (Consider that there is no way to enforce Hong Kong’s rights under the 1984 agreement.) Under the proposed legislation, said dissident would be shipped to China where a rubber-stamp conviction could be sought.
You forgot China having to approve candidates in Hong Kong elections: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32397179
Why the downvote? The Wikipedia article even backs it up: "The Basic Law ensured Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and freedom for fifty years, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China." -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems
"The lease consisted of the rest of Kowloon south of the Shenzhen River and 230 islands, which became known as the New Territories. The British formally took possession on 16 April 1899." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Growth_and_e...
That's not true.
> It allows for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China, Taiwan and Macau for suspects accused of serious criminal wrongdoing such as murder and rape. The requests would then be decided on a case-by-case basis. 
Lastly, as sad as it is freedom has a price (not just in the military sense as often echoed stateside). Sometimes that price is death without what everyone would called justice (which in this case is extradition). Abraham Lincoln’s words, you will have situations where people will be “sacrifices on the altar of freedom.”
I mean even the protesters are protesting against __their__ legislative council. 
 "forced the city’s legislature to postpone debate on a widely unpopular bill"
China selects the chief executive . Opposition members were recently removed from the Legislative Council . The law is wildly unpopular.
Beijing wants this law passed, Beijing controls the political future of those who with the power to pass the bill. The HK citizenry oppose the bill.
They've been slowly taking freedoms away from HK since the Xi Jinping got into office and declared himself President for life.
That agreement was part of a deal which also included "one country, two systems".
Hong Kong Island (where majority of people live) was given to UK with no lease limits. Kowloon and New Territories were leased to UK for 99 years in 1898. So, in theory UK only needed to return Kowloon and New Territories. Of course, this wasn’t practical. It’s like giving Manhattan to another country but keeping Queens and Brooklyn. So in 1994 UK agree to return all 3 (Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territories) in 1997.
They already made the promises, and lodged them with the UN.
Now they are breaking those treaties.
As to what it means to foreigners, another post earlier on the frontpage has some pretty good explanation there. If you land in HK, due to how jurisdictions work, and if the Chinese government charges you with anything, which can be arbitrary due to the trade war, you can be extradited to China from an allegedly free city.
HK is stuck right in the middle of some super-power geopolitical power play here.
The short version is that Hong Kong was setup as a territory with its own government and justice arms (separate from mainland China). The proposed law would effectively make it so anyone that steps foot in Hong Kong would be subject to mainland China laws. There are restrictions in the bill, saying that the crime must have a sentence >= 7 years, and there must be a similar law on the books in Hong Kong. But the people fear it will be used to further extend China's influence into Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has been doing more bidding of mainland China over the last few years (after the failed 2014 call for democracy). For example, back in October, they deported a reporter for a meeting they didn't agree with.
Taiwan is not China so an extradition law with mainland China does not matter for a case involving Taiwan.
Secondly if you prefer a written summary:
Not that this answers your question, but in the past, finance pros have also protested when the Stock Exchange moved to shorten its lunch break.
Tl;dr Asia is...unique.
> Wherever the Mainland Chinese are expanding influence and power, resist. Do not trust them.
> If you are in Canada, and especially if you are in Vancouver or Toronto and any other areas where there's a major recent Mainland Chinese immigrant population, keep a very close eye on your neighbors as they, as required by Chinese laws and CCP's modus operandi, likely have set up local CCP branches wherever there are more than a dozen of them.
This is flat-out unsubstantiated, and reads like a vitriolic smearing of a broad class of minorities. You are asking for the impossible task of somehow knowing who to trust. What of second or third-generation immigrants? Are you going to judge people's recency by their accents, or perhaps just that they look Chinese? In the absence of that knowledge, what you are actually advocating for is broad discrimination and paranoia against 17% of the world's population, and the very small percentage of that who decided to start a life in another nation.
I understand this is a fairly extensive claim, and possibly very hard to swallow from a liberal, treat-everyone-as-an-individual tradition, so allow me to substantiate it.
In 2017, a group of Chinese scholars visiting UC Davis were discovered to have set up a CCP cell that was later dissolved due to FARA. The South China Morning Post article says the CCP charter requires any organization where people work that has three or more full party members to establish a party branch. It is also said that this practice has been going on since at least the 80s, when there were very very few Mainland Chinese working overseas, with a brief interruption after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.
That same year, the Australian Secretary of the Department of Foreign and Affairs and Trade has delivered as speech addressing the then recent revelation of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association's suppression of foreign Chinese international student's dissent by reporting them to the Chinese embassy. This is the same CSSA that exists in every sizable university around the world, in which many believe it's a part of the United Front branch of the CCP that infiltrates foreign universities. Similarly, an institute called the Confucius Institute is also attached to many universities worldwide, conducting so-called cultural exchange programs, which are in fact subversive influence operations.
Given that the CCP has almost 90 million members, that exerting "soft-power" has been an explicit goal for at least the past 15 years, that not every democratic country has an equivalent of FARA or the Communist Control Act, that Mainland Chinese students are the most numerous foreign student makeup by a wide margin in every major higher education institution around the world, that the Chinese has had a history of converting immigrants to voters for candidates favorable to the CCP, and their extensive surveillance and control methods inside and outside of China, I conclude that the CCP's tentacles has substantial worldwide reach, and that we are in fact dealing with the world's most extensive espionage and subversion network in history. This is not paranoia.
You are right, if you don't speak Mandarin, it's very hard to tell who's a Mainlander. But if you are in a hiring position, you will know their national origin, and I would urge you to keep a closer eye on your Mainland Chinese colleagues while not stepping outside the boundaries of any anti-discrimination law. If you are lucky, (or unlucky), you will have caught them stealing corporate secrets or IP, or breaching coworkers privacy before any damage is done. If you are unable to distinguish them, I would urge you to err on the side of caution in your personal and political life. A regular Mainland Chinese, despite their best intentions, are often unwilling to give up their Chinese citizenship due to family ties. The CCP is known to use that as leverage to turn them into agents when needed. As a person growing up in Hong Kong, from personal experience I know how the underground communists conduct their business very well. If you are able, you can attempt to free them from the CCP's control, but you will most likely be unsuccessful and pay a heavy price along the way. Therefore, I believe the best course of action right now is to contain the CCP while giving support to your governments' response to their new found realization of the not always clear, but certainly present danger of the CCP. Using state power to exert pressure on the CCP to free the Chinese seems to me the most effective way of creating a more honest and cohesive global society.
: http://www.china.org.cn/20171105-001.pdf, Article 30
Insisting that all Chinese immigrants (or is it only nationals now?) are likely CCP agents does seem to fit the definition of paranoia. Acting fully on paranoia of this magnitude will just bring about more extreme thoughts--and not to mention expressions of racism given the ambiguity between what being Chinese means in the west. What exactly is the containment and liberation strategy? A repeat of the US's Chinese Exclusion Act, internment camps, and a return to the good ol' "Better dead than red" days?
Every working-age Chinese national I've gotten to know in the US would jump at the chance to get a green card, get citizenship, and get their aging parents over. There's a separate debate to be had there, but my anecdotal experience has shown that most immigrants are motivated by hard work and seeking a better life for them and their family, and not by surreptitious and opportunistic exploitation of their new home.
On soft power for those few that try to project it, they don't seem to be doing well as your links readily show controversies and suspicion. If anything we should be more concerned about soft power projection into Africa and the cheap UN votes it buys.
While 7% isn't even close to the majority, it's a little higher percentage of democidal, genocidal, dictatorial co-conspirators, or would be co-conspirators than I would have liked. Mind you, this is only considering CCP members.
You probably think I'm evoking McCarthyism, no, I'm simply evoking vigilance. In a mature and democratic society like the US, there is a spirit to give everyone a fair chance to succeed, this spirit is embedded into laws that ensure equal opportunities and strengthen civil rights, and I believe this is admirable values that are worth protecting. On the other hand, it is exactly for the protection of these rights and freedoms, mechanism needs to be put in place to prevent their destruction, and they do exist already in the forms of the Constitution, FARA and the various anti-sedition/treason/espionage acts in the US.
In a controlocratic police state like the PRC, where all the sticks and carrots steer people away from basic human decency and morality their entire lives, there's no reason to believe a majority of them will suddenly become decent and moral once they leave the border, especially not if many of their expat friends still have ties with the CCP's foreign branches. They are either too scared to do the right thing or worse, still don't know what the right thing is. The good thing is, democratic institutions have all kinds of defense mechanism against behavior against the host's national interests and freedoms, I'm simply suggesting you use them. In the UK, the Tube broadcasts "see it, say it, sort it" every 10 minutes or so to alert passengers to report any suspicious activity, possibly as a defense against terrorism. I believe the US and elsewhere should also practice this when it comes to CCP infiltration operations.
As to containment and liberation (the political and foreign affairs circles use the term liberalization) strategy, this Wikipedia article isn't a very good start but it's a start. If you google the term, you'll dig up at least 30 years of articles and papers from publications like Foreign Affairs and the DoD's archives. Also, see TPP and neo-liberalism.
The recent anti-Chinese drumbeat has been a long time coming. Anybody who's been paying attention on the ground in Hong Kong since the handover knows the mainlander are only there to encroach and erode "western" ideals and institutions to advance the CCP's interests of staying in power forever. Hong Kong has suffered quite a number of substantial blows in recent years, this extradition bill on the table is the last straw, I really hope other nations don't have to bow to such regime anywhere in their territories.
1) don't buy Chinese goods.
2) share news like this and other examples about how China treats dissidents on channels like LinkedIn which are frequented by Chinese and those doing business with China pretending it's all good.
3) protest outside a Chinese embassy (don't forget your umbrella)
4) if you're in the loop and aware of such things then call out those Western politicians pandering to Chinese bureaucrats (I'm aware of infrastructure projects in SE Europe and Africa where plenty of dark money flows ... hello Croatia Tourism board, BiH, Serbia, Montenegro ...)
Here's my concern already. I have in-laws that live in China. I have a Chinese visa, and need to travel to China for work sometimes.
Won't doing this jeopardize me in some way? I'd be happy to participate if only I knew I'd never return to the country or had no ties there.
Anyone know what the tech scene there is like?
The Tech scene in Singapore, to answer your question, is about 10x what it is in Hong Kong. The big two are Grab and SEA though, which might not be for everyone. Tons of startups and a sizeable Google office (among others) as well.
Taiwan is Taiwan: democratic version of China. I've sung its praises too much here, but it is a superior alternative to those looking to involve their business in the Mandarin speaking world.
Where can I find those communities you mentioned in Vietnam?
Just hit one or two, get in with the local expat crew, and it'll all fall into place from there. Facebook groups sometimes a good way as well. Saigon seems to be the main city for it but Hanoi has crews as well, and they're also spread out somewhat in some of the other cities.
Wait a minute, that doesn't sound too good after all…
Our police force is significantly more violent than the German one, and I think the English one as well.
From what you said perhaps sadly it does happen in France too.
But that's not what we talk about most here. The main problem is more the general scare tactics. For instance with the Yellow Vests movements, there were several instance of the cops encircling the protestors without giving them an out, and then they threw tear gas at them. This terror technique is not just scary and uncomfortable, it's pretty darn dangerous, just because people get so tightly packed together. (One can be chocked just by the pressure).
But it's not as bad for PR as hitting a defenceless teenage girl.
Can we find something else to compete with? ...
If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed?
I'm all for talking politics by the way.
Charlottesville was an internal protest of limited global consequence. This is the disassembly of a system of limited democracy and rule of law. It’s much more meaningful on a broader scale, and interesting as a result.
I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic here.
Edit: no really, I'd like to know what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. I have absolutely no idea what foreign policy decisions "oshitsdom" is referring to, which have supposedly been influenced by a "rise of white nationalism". That would be a very serious event, and I genuinely want to know if there's some legitimate way of squinting at our shared reality which could give that impression.
Edit 2 because I'm rate limited:
This is not a rhetorical question, except that nobody has answered honestly. It is a question that is answerable. To form it more explicitly: "Name an example of a consequential foreign policy decision of the current administration which is white nationalist in nature (invokes a desire to create a state where citizenship is contingent on having white skin), and which has clearly been influenced the a cultural force of a 'rise of white nationalism'."
You are very wrong about the latter part. Trump's response to Charlottesville was so bad that the phrase "both sides" became a meme. To this day, he continues to downplay the problem.
Also that is not foreign policy.
You can certainly argue that he does, but please come up with things that aren't quite so easily argued around. (and I've yet to hear an argument for how he's a Nazi when his favorite daughter is literally an Orthodox Jew) The more we allow easily refuted arguments to propagate unopposed, the easier it is to assume that there are no legitimate arguments for a position.
I think the increased visibility of extremist groups even if said groups aren't increasing in number fits the recent trend of increased polarization. Both sides are screaming their heads off about "look-at all these terrible people on the other side"
Edit: The fact that the down-vote to "legitimate answer so my question" ratio right now is 3:1 makes me think that this is a very ideologically difficult question for people here.
* The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic increase in the number of white nationalist groups in the U.S., from 100 chapters in 2017 to 148 in 2018.
* The Anti-Defamation League reports a 182 percent increase in incidents of the distribution of white supremacist propaganda, and an increase in the number of rallies and demonstrations by white supremacy groups, from 76 in 2017 to 91 in 2018.
* A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators quadrupled in the U.S. between 2016 and 2017, and that far-right attacks in Europe rose 43 percent over the same period. Among those incidents, CSIS states, the rise of attacks by white supremacists and anti-government extremists is “of particular concern.”
'After years of smearing good people with false charges of bigotry, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has finally been held to account. A former Islamic radical named Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” and this week the SPLC agreed to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public apology.'
Also a thing to note: They've put pepe as an official hate symbol. (Sigh.. poor pepe)
I think the FBI is neutral whereas other sources tend to have biases so they’d require additional scrutiny.
Measuring this sort of thing is hard, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Interest groups, although well meaning, are like internal organizations preparing next year’s budget. Borderline issues cease to be borderline. (Was it domestic violence, was it hate? Obviously there is potential for both, but there’s interpretative subjectivity)
Anyway, this is speculative. I think I trust the FBI to be more neutral than interested parties for these numbers.
> According to the FBI, there were 7,175 hate crime incidents in 2017, a 17 percent increase from 2016 and the third year in a row with an increase. The number of incidents in 2017 was also the highest yearly total since 2008. About 58 percent of the hate crimes in 2017 were motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry.
In addition, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified back in April that White nationalist violence is a “persistent, pervasive threat”.
The SPLC is an extremely unreliable source, who has been successfully sued for arbitrarily defaming people. Their classifications of incidents are deliberately misleading, and classify anti-government acts as "right wing", despite the fact that a huge number of lefty anarchists exist in the U.S.
> Among those incidents, CSIS states, the rise of attacks by white supremacists and anti-government extremists is “of particular concern.”
Why combine these? This would include lefty anarchists, who have a consistent and increasing record of well documented political violence. It completely obscures the point you're supposedly trying to make.
(P.S. wtf did they have to call it CSIS? Very confusing since this is the acronym for our intelligence services here in Canada)
I do that too, if you look at what I said. But surely an unreliable source can't be allowed to burden everyone with continually disproving them. The SPLC has no credibility, I don't see why anyone should have to dismantle their arguments any more than any other activist publisher (occupy democrats, the daily mail, the daily stormer).
It is very difficult to win a defamation suit in the U.S. The SPLC have been proven a fraud in the courts, that's an extremely high bar of bullshit.
Yeah, my latest soap box is, companies have no right to tell us how great their rights support is, human, privacy, or otherwise, if they continue to produce product in a country like China, which seems to be doubling down on suppression.
A quick search:
The CIA files have also been leaked which provides more information about that happened that day. As always the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. Not as bad as the western media says it was but worse than the Chinese government admits.
I always find it weird that no one seems to care about the Nanjing massacre which was much bigger or that Tulsa massacre which most Americans seem to be unaware of...
I'm not sure how that is relevant and I believe the declassified material you are referring to was an NSA cable sent on the day of the event, when very little was known. Wikipedia has details on the various sources for anyone interested.
The Nanjing Massacre was a horrific incident and I would urge anyone visiting Nanjing to visit the memorial.
That said, one incident was a wartime civilian massacre from an invading army where that army has been defeated and is largely a different country now. The other was the killing of protesting civilians by their own government, which is still in power and broadly unchanged.
Given this, it's clear why one is more topical than the other
I was never taught about the Nanjing massacre or Unit 731 but we spent a lot of time talking about Tiananmen square and Holocaust.
I now know that a lot of my education was biased and I assume other people are completely unaware. Most people I've talked to don't know about the rest of the video which is why I brought it up.
Now I found out that the media has had this footage the whole time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk
My favourite part is the grandmother that comes up and tells him off for annoying the tank.
Please do research before posting comments on a sensitive subject.
There was more to Tiananmen than Tank Man.
I've never heard anyone say that he was.
It turns out that there was a video that shows him being taken away by other civilians the whole time.
I always find it weird when people spring up in threads like this to spout disinformation and whataboutism then act so innocently about it.
Meanwhile, insinuations of disinformation, ill intent, shillage, spying, foreign agents, and all the rest of it, poison the well of this community. It's a big problem. Please don't do it again, regardless of how strongly you feel about some issue or country.
I was just told disinformation growing up along with virtually everyone I grew up with. Maybe your country was more honest about it but mine wasn't (Australia). Most people that I talk to still think he was run over.
I made the point because I assume other people don't know either...
The videos on him were released only much later on.
My teacher should have known about it.
Now I found out that the media has had this footage the whole time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk but didn't air it.
I understand why. It was blatant propaganda from the west. It makes the story more interesting since people wonder if he was run over which was never stated but implied when I was told: "we don't know what happened after this photo was taken".
Why are you assuming that it's propaganda? You are the only one in this thread who seems to have associated Tank Man with being run over. Nobody else thought that happened, because there was no footage of it. It's just you.
The reason why I call it propaganda is because it is. The photos and videos are true. But the media decided to just show a small clip of the footage to make it more dramatic and suppressed the whole clip for years. The whole clip is less dramatic. Basically the same as the 3rd example https://www.boredpanda.com/examples-media-truth-manipulation...
Look at all the videos for the 30-year anniversary. None of them use the full clip. All the ones I've seen either just include the photo or cut out as the 3rd tank roles to a stop.
I've become more disillusioned with the media the more I travel and experience news as it happens and see how biased it is.
When I want this kind of content I open reddit.
Going into the comments and posting that you don't think something belongs on the site rarely leads to a productive conversation.
ps: i'm not telling you why because #1) I won't do it justice and #2) it's worth watching the whole YT video.
Because legitimacy of legal documents can be a joke, in a "human-based rule of law system" China. Judges and lawyers are openly oppose to this themselves since they can only decide base on prima facie evidence, so they have no real power.
Because China can and does lock people up base on speech, or even thoughts.
In other words, there will never be a robust process because that is simply impossible.
What is accurate?
Yes, perhaps mainland China could exert influence over the independent court or counsel and create bargaining chips.
Yes, perhaps many of the protestors don't know the existing and proposed flowchart of how deportations work. Perhaps many do and feel compelled to broadcast their ideological stance.
This is primarily an ideological issue, this is more about the principle itself. The people of Hong Kong want the representatives that they are skeptical of already to know that merely creating the avenue for deportation to China is an ideological line not to cross.