Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Hong Kong Police Fire Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets at Protesters (wsj.com)
356 points by JumpCrisscross on June 12, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 211 comments

For the Hong Kong protesters to be successful perhaps they have to "export" their values and demands to be applicable for the rest of China rather than their microcosm. I suspect Guangzhou, Shenzen, Dongguan may have no sympathy for those in Hong Kong who have more rights and a better standard of living than they do.

> have no sympathy for those in Hong Kong who have more rights and a better standard of living than they do.

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.

I always find this paradox as interesting as sad.

It's crab mentality [1] 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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

It would have been possible, or at least HK thought that was going to happen 20 years ago. The whole of China will become more HK alike. Instead China's close grip on power meant any of these western Values were not allowed to be exposed. Even the spoken languages Cantonese is silently being killed at an alarming rate.

> For the Hong Kong protesters to be successful perhaps they have to "export" their values and demands to be applicable for the rest of China

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.

Beijing also detained the head of Interpol who has not been seen since (a Chinese citizen). Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-chinese-head...

Who says the UN (whose strongholds of power largely lie in Anglo and European countries) should have any say over what China does?

China is literally a permanent member of the Security Council. They are one of the UN strongholds of power in every possible sense.

Because China wanted to be part of the UN. If they don't want the UN to have any saying in their matters they should leave and face the consequences. I don't know if this says more about China or the UN, to be honest.

Hong Kong

I think you touch on something very relevant. I have been there quite a few times and I like it there but many Chinese see Hong Kong people as spoiled and snobbish. Back when China took over Hong Kong, Hong Kong was something special. Today many mainland Chinese cities are just as wealthy and almost as international as Hong Kong; yet Hong Kong clings on to its special status.

Why are these people not fighting for better rule of law in all of China? Where is the solidarity?

Many cities on the Chinese mainland are nearly as wealthy as Hong Kong but none of them are remotely as "international".

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.

How do you think your average Chinese in the neighbouring regions perceive these protest? Do you think they are sympathetic to your cause?

We have no idea of knowing, but from what I've heard, they are simply not aware. Almost anything with the phrase "Hong Kong" was censored inside mainland China today.

It's not too hard to find something on Weibo, e.g. this post in support of the police [1] where the highest-upvoted comment at 281 votes condemns the police violence [2].

[1] 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

[2] 拿枪射无辜民众及记者,一群警察围殴女孩,拿胡椒喷雾射向老人及外国游客,这样就是维护法治吗

The replies to [2] however, show that nobody believed what she claimed.

Huh? That not everyone agrees doesn't mean nobody believed her. The highest-voted reply complains about censorship. The second-highest talks about the police acting in self-defense. The third-highest fantasizes about shooting ... someone (I initially interpreted it to mean the police, but maybe they actually want to shoot the protesters?)

No, the third one says, if the police really could shoot, why did so many other events [that she mentioned] also happen?

Implying that she lied.

Makes sense, thanks. I still frequently misread Chinese texts that appear completely obvious with hindsight.

Chinese government is paying Chinese people 500 HKD (Hong Kong dollars) to cross the border and counter protest so that they can report there are 800k counter protestors.

It looks like you are blaming people for standing up for their rights. The reason they still have special status is also because they have not been shy about fighting for their rights in the past, otherwise it would have been taking away a long time ago. Instead of blaming people for defending their rights (bringing everyone down), perhaps a better avenue would be to stand up with them and also protest and ask for more rights (bringing everyone up).

Yes, that's exactly what he wrote.

Firstly, the proposed law in question affects mainland Chinese people just as much as local HK people (in fact, it affects everyone who steps foot in Hong Kong).

Secondly, what do you think all those Tiananmen Square vigils held in HK every single year for the past 30 years were for?

Not disagreeing, but just want to note that there's a huge difference between the people doing the June 4 vigils (patriotic, love China, older age, want a democratic united China) and the people doing the current protest (young, unpatriotic, hate China, want independence).

If standing up for human rights is unpatriotic, the problem is with the country and not those who stand.

I wouldn't be so sure that they're a completely disjointed set. Many who attended the vigil this year were quite young, for example, while many older people were on the streets as well today.

The CPC will violently crush any attempt to ask for the rule of law in mainland China. If you protest in mainland China you may get Tiananmen Square'd. The authoritarian regime does NOT permit criticism, introspection, or questioning of the CPC regime. Public communication is censored.

That's like saying I shouldn't fight for my rights unless I fight for the rights of every person on planet earth. Where does our obligation to others start and end? No. First and foremost I will fight for my own freedoms.

One reason is simply that most of these cities exist today by virtue of top-down fiat, planning and investment. That is, they owe their present prosperity to the govt.'s policies.

Isn't that impossible without becoming a high ranking member of the Communist party? And isn't becoming a high ranking member of the Communist party impossible to do if you don't mostly agree with the current system of laws in mainland China?

I really, really wish these protests spread to mainland China.

That would not be possible.

Wishing isn't reserved for stuff that's possible.

No sympathy is right. A lot of people I've talked to in Shenzhen feel HKers 看不起大陆人 look down on mainlanders.

You have to look at this issue from a Hong Kong resident point of view (I am not a Hong Kong resident). Since the handover to the China government, the average living cost is higher than ever before [1], real estate price skyrocket due to huge amount of investment from China[2]. Some Hong Kongers may blame these issues to "mainlanders" for "disrupting" their live.

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 [3]. 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.

[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1143157/hong-kon...

[2] https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3002396/hong-kong-home...

[3] https://www.worldjournal.com/6148953/article-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8...

Interestingly a lot of HK people here feel the rest of China is looking down on / showing no respect to us and everything that makes HK different from the mainland.

Mainlanders don't share etiquette & hygiene standards that HK has from the west. If China would import anything besides human rights...

This relationship between Hong Kong people and mainland people is quite similar to immigrant issues in the West. Mainland immigrants are perceived to not work, receive free apartments in the world's most expensive city, and have poor judgment in things ranging from politics to obeying the call of nature.

Well, at least they are interested. Today evening on a metro, I think quite a few people were watching videos on HK events

That's from the same school of thought that brought us the Syrian red line on poisonous gas, the successes of the Arab spring and the democratic reforms after tieanmin square? Demanding a revolution far away from danger at the top of your voice while with your voting feet trampling these futures of choice? If you want to remain free get out of Hong Kong while you still can..

I don't know how you can export "mainlanders are locusts" to the rest of China.

Since this has been declared a riot, and that a riot is punishable with up to 10 years in prison, and the legislation their protesting about is about extraditing people with more than a seven year sentence...

It’s coming to the point where they’ve got nothing to lose.

How is this being reported in mainland China?

If it starts to spark copycat riots there things could escalate.

This is how it's being reported if it's reported at all: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkedition/2019-06/10/content_37...

Weird question, maybe a coincidence, but does anyone know why most of the signs are blue? Is that significant at all?

During the 2014 Umbrella movement protests, blue came to represent supporters of the police and the government and yellow, the protestors.

Awesome, thanks for the context. That's really interesting.

If this first-hand account from a person on twitter[0] is to be believed, it isn't.

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.

0: https://twitter.com/mbspinks/status/1138728407464796160

i suspect its not being reported at all.

That's the beauty of state controlled media and the Great Firewall of China. It doesn't get reported much, and the parts that are is only the pro-Beijing opinion. To appear to provide an unbiased opinion, they will quote pro-Beijing Hong Kong news sources.

It is probably being suppressed from news and public discussion.

> How is this being reported in mainland China?

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.

Does anyone from Twitter reading know why (or when) China, Hong Kong and Taiwan were removed as location options for trending news in Twitter?


Reads like propaganda

How so? I'm a bloodhound for PRC propaganda but it passed the smell test for me.

Because they don’t add any concession statements around how CCP has no social power or respect in Hong Kong. The article was so sterile it understated the need for autonomy in Hong Kong. The questions it answered were loaded and the answers were Xi Pooh approved.

Not to mention paroting the red herring regarding the motivation for the legislation.

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[1]. 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.

[1] https://www.hkba.org/sites/default/files/A%20Brief%20Guide%2...

They accurately report what the claimed reason for the bill is. The next section contrasts it with the views of those opposed to the bill. That's not parroting, it's just an attempt to give an overview of different stakeholder's opinions on the issue.

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.

Writer of the articles, and an editor of Inkstone here. Thank you so much for the comment. You're describing exactly what that piece sought to do: a quick look at the views of the main stakeholders. You may also be interested in a thread I tweeted yesterday that goes a little deeper into the tensions behind the extradition bill: https://twitter.com/alanwongw/status/1138670655480639490

Thanks for sharing those. (I wrote them.)


Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvoting.


"And I am being downvoted for that. Interesting."

I downvoted you because you talked about your downvotes.

Please don't interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. Your statement is entirely accurate and the Inkstone piece is far from balanced. The SCMP is famously biased:


"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"[2]

[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...

[2] https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/05/10/taiwan-wont-ask-murder...

I work for Inkstone, part of SCMP but of a different division from the China and Hong Kong news desks.

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"? https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3009506...

> “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 Taiwan government had already mentioned back in March that they would not accept the bill, would potentially issue a travel alert on HK if it were passed, and that their requests to the Kong Kong government for assistance in the murder had been ignored three times.

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:



Totally not ignoring the ownership structure of the SCMP. As I said earlier in another comment in this thread, following the money is almost always a good idea. But I invite readers to decide for themselves by examining the goods, not just the money behind it. This applies to every publication that has an owner or a leader.

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.

An Inkstone editor here. It's almost always a good idea to follow the money, but I'd argue that there's no better way to determine our impartiality by examining our work. Alibaba owns Inkstone but we've received absolutely no editorial direction from them and/or from any of their executives, including Jack Ma. This editorial independence matters to readers and matters to those of us who work here.

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...

Tinfoil hat time: on HN posts critical of world powers (not just nation states, but incl. tech giants) seem to get brigaided.

But then again, social media brigaiding in the interest of shaping public opinion is very widespread, even lucrative business.

If you think you see evidence of abuse, bring it to our attention so we can look into it: hn@ycombinator.com. It's against the site guidelines to go on about this in in the threads without evidence, so please don't.

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.


I'd be really interested in hearing of HN moderators have observed that kind of thing. It definitely feels like it from time to time, but it could also just be that the topics are inherently polarizing, so only the loudest voices on each side come out.


It's against the site guidelines to make insinuations of astroturfing without evidence.


This is very important -- Chinese people and CCP are separate. Yet years of very successful propaganda have resulted in even fairly well educated Chinese (overseas nevertheless) to treat any criticisms on the party as an attack on all Chinese people.

Although to be fair, criticisms and journalism also rarely make the distinction between "China" and "CCP".

Could someone explain my why they really protest? Anybody from Hong Kong here? I read a couple of different explanations and I'm not sure.

> Could someone explain my why they really protest?

Vox recently made a good video on the topic [1].

In 1984, Beijing agreed with Britain that after the handoff in 1997, China would respect Hong Kong’s political system [2]. Hence, Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” [3].

Beijing is breaking that agreement. It already tried abduction [4]. 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.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappear...

> Beijing is breaking that agreement.

You forgot China having to approve candidates in Hong Kong elections: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32397179

The agreement between China and UK was for 50 years, so by right China can start changing things totally in 2047. So the issue is China is 28 years too early.

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

In that first video he states Hong Kong was leased to Britain for 99 years. Not exactly true. Hong Kong Island was seized like Gibraltar. Only the New Territories were leased. (the footage admittedly corrects this).

"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...

Note that, besides dissidents and the obvious human rights risks, major international firms have often used Hong Kong as a regional headquarters for their Southeast Asian business (or just as a headquarters generally). This is also threatened, as these businesses thrive in an environment defined by capitalism, property rights, and the rule of law — rather than government-run enterprise, property seizure, and the whims of China's rulers.




> Now it wants to be able to extradite anyone to China to be tried in Chinese courts.

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. [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-48591001

You would have to be a credulous fool to expect that the Chinese government would not manufacture “criminal wrongdoings” for political purposes. Therefore, the GP post is essentially correct.

Case-by-case basis is a slippery slope to unchecked power. Let’s also not pretend that China hasn’t fabricated charges against those it doesn’t like (e.g. Ai Weiwei’s “tax fraud”).

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.”

How is China the one violating the agreement when it's the Hong Kong Legislative Council passing the extradition law.

I mean even the protesters are protesting against __their__ legislative council. [0]

[0] "forced the city’s legislature to postpone debate on a widely unpopular bill"

> How is China the one violating the agreement when it's the Hong Kong Legislative Council passing the extradition law

China selects the chief executive [1]. Opposition members were recently removed from the Legislative Council [2]. The law is wildly unpopular.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/24/hong-kong-sele...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/hong-kong-pro-...

The HK legislature and executive aren't democratically elected, but directly or indirectly chosen by Beijing. Moreover, Beijing's control over the legislature was increased when they "reinterpreted" the agreement and removed several pro-democratic legislators a few years ago.

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.

China is the one pushing the law. Influencing and eroding the HK political system to make it so they have more say over what HK people can say and do.

They've been slowly taking freedoms away from HK since the Xi Jinping got into office and declared himself President for life.

I am unsure why beijing would be obligated to make any promises to UK as they are essentially just taking back their property after a lease ended?

They weren't just taking back their property after a lease ended. The UK had leased the New Territories, but the Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong island had been ceded. When the lease expired, the UK could have given back the New Territories and kept the rest, but it was agreed to hand over the whole lot.

That agreement was part of a deal which also included "one country, two systems".

China made these promises in part to assure the residents of Hong Kong (and international observers) that their rights would be respected, and also to prevent economic collapse caused by businesses deeming the island an unsafe place to do business.

What most people call Hong Kong consists of three major areas: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territories.

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.

Kowloon south of Boundary street was also ceded in perpetuity to the UK in 1860. Kowloon north of boundary street was leased for 99 years in 1898. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Street

Well they did sign an internationally binding agreement over how Hong Kong would be treated after handover.

They already made the promises, and lodged them with the UN.

Now they are breaking those treaties.

To ensure a smooth transfer and a certain degree of self-determination for the people who lived there, were reasonsably content with the existing set-up and would have been most unhappy if the UK had simply washed its hands and disapeared.

Because they signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

Basically, not long after Huawei's CFO was arrested in Canada, the HK gov has, using a murder case that happened in Taiwan as a pretense, to revive a long dead extradition bill that will, for the first time since the handover, that HK will have an extradition agreement with a totalitarian government that has long known for human rights violation and lack an independent judiciary. Given the current rigged power structure, the gov has well over the majority in the legislature to pass this bill, which many believe, will effectively end the separate legal jurisdiction of HK and China, and effectively end the only protection HK still has from becoming just another mainland city.

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.

You don't have to land in HK to be extradited. You can simply be extradited in transit through HK.


And so is Canada. High time someone does something about it. Back channel diplomacy appears dead.

If the extradition law passes, anybody in Hong Kong (citizens and foreigners) can be extradited to face the capricious justice system of China. This is an existential crisis for Hong Kong. They can protest now, but they might not be able to protest in a year from now.

(this is based on my reading from various WSJ articles).

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[0].

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-ousts-journalist-who-...

In 2018, a Hong Kong man killed his pregnant girlfriend in Taiwan, returned to Hong Kong, and then admitted that he killed her. However, the police could not charge him for murder or extradite him to Taiwan. In response, the Hong Kong government proposed a bill which established a way to transfer fugitives to other countries on a case to case basis. This bill of Hong Kong caused some fear that Hong Kong would be affected by mainland Chinese laws.

The Taiwan case is just an excuse. Taiwan already said they will refuse the transfer under such bill: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-extradition-expl...

Taiwan is not China so an extradition law with mainland China does not matter for a case involving Taiwan.

The BBC has a couple of explanations, first this video:


Secondly if you prefer a written summary:


Here a few short videos with protestors explaining why they're there in their own words: https://twitter.com/selsdon1/status/1138819361135661056 https://twitter.com/selsdon1/status/1138822264818769920

This video give a good summary:


@JumpCrisscross covered it pretty well, tbh.

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.

Can anyone close to the situation share the best way to support the protesters from outside of Hong Kong?

Make the sacrifice of ethical consumption. Refuse to support companies that are in the business of selling technology, weapons and other tools of subjugation to the party or allies of the party.

Buy products from Hong Kong protesters, while boycotting products from those who support the Hong Kong government.

They should sell yellow umbrellas and t-shirts. I would buy one.


The best possible interpretation of this comment is that you are warning of influence from people who have ties to the CCP. The worst possible interpretation, however comes from:

> 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.

> This is flat-out unsubstantiated

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[1] that was later dissolved due to FARA. The South China Morning Post article says the CCP charter[2] 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[3] 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[4]. 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[5].

Given that the CCP has almost 90 million members[6], that exerting "soft-power" has been an explicit goal for at least the past 15 years[7], 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[8] the[9] world[10], that the Chinese has had a history of converting immigrants to voters for candidates favorable to the CCP[11], 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.

[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/21...

[2]: http://www.china.org.cn/20171105-001.pdf, Article 30

[3]: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/au...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Students_and_Scholars_...

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius_Institute#Reception_...

[6]: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-06/30/content_299522...

[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power_of_China

[8]: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-studen...

[9]: https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research--Policy/Statistics/Intern...

[10]: https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/International...

[11]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-east-asia...

But the sum of members, sponsors, and even half-hearted supporters of these and similar organizations does not add up to 1.3 billion or so nationals, no? I don't think it's a liberal or conservative stance to practice arithmetic. You can say that some Mainland Chinese are not trustworthy, but you just cannot conclude that most or all have nefarious intent.

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.

Let's only consider Chinese Communist Party members, which is still a deeply Leninist organization. My rough math is 90mil/1.3b ~ 7% chance that any Chinese from the mainland I encounter belong in an organization that has enacted laws that turned the entire population into informants, an army that will literally crush your scull with a tank if you participate in any protests, an organization that thinks shipping millions of Uyghurs to gulags is an education and jobs training program, an organization that thinks exterminating languages and cultures are okay in the 21st century, an organization that is at the helm of a totalitarian police state.

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[1] 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[2] 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]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_containment_policy

Please don't use HN for political or nationalistic battle. When people start importing pre-existing political cases into the threads, with long lists of links and talking points, curiosity has been left far behind. This site exists for curious conversation, not agendas.


I think I've made some points not often made here on HN, as I find most thread on many similar threads since years ago rather superficial. I was hoping they will be educational.

in order of effectiveness:

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 ...)

> 3) protest outside a Chinese embassy (don't forget your umbrella)

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.

Wear a mask :)

China has pioneered biometric measurements of people on things other than face, like gait, so also, maybe wear a single platform shoe :)


This crosses into personal attack as well as being flamebait. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this.

More and more people are going to flee to Singapore.

Anyone know what the tech scene there is like?

Oh that's a great idea. From a one-party state to another one-party state. Though of course those two can't be compared, I admit.

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.

Try Taiwan or Vietnam - well, Vietnam another one party state, but a burgeoning tech scene and HUGE population of like-minded hackers.

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.

> Try Taiwan or Vietnam - well, Vietnam another one party state, but a burgeoning tech scene and HUGE population of like-minded hackers.

Where can I find those communities you mentioned in Vietnam?

Well, meetup is a good start https://www.meetup.com/topics/entrepreneurship/vn/

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.

It's a one party state whose entire raison d'être is to be economically competitive, so I wouldn't worry.

(pw;dr) Well, that doesn't sound too bad, right? Here in France we have our tear gas and our rubber bullets too. All complete with torn hands and lost eyes.

Wait a minute, that doesn't sound too good after all…

Don't know about girls specifically, but I recall having seen images of something like 4-5 cops hitting one protestor in a similar manner.

Our police force is significantly more violent than the German one, and I think the English one as well.

Not being sexist here. By girl I literally meant the teenage girl as shown in the video or a teenager generally. I should've said a weak and scared person who's obviously incapable of defending him/herself nor willing to fight back.

From what you said perhaps sadly it does happen in France too.

I understand what you meant. And there is a sexist bias where hitting a teenage girl or an old lady is worse than hitting pretty much anyone else.

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.

Firing rubber bullets at an unarmed guy's head, spraying pepper sprays down the stairs into a metro station behind people's backs...

Can we find something else to compete with? ...

So apparently this is deemed to be "some interesting new phenomenon" so that it does not violate the guidelines and stays "On-Topic".

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.

> If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed?

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'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.

Thank you for putting this here. White nationalism has blinded many people who are unwittingly pushing the agenda to move past this difficult conversation.

Charlottesville was actually the downfall of those white nationalist groups. Ever since then they have lost supporters, been deplatformed, and pushed back into obscurity. Also, the type of militant white nationalism you saw at Charlottesville has definitely not had any real influence on the administration (just like how antifa protesters don't have any influence on the Democratic party).

> Also, the type of militant white nationalism you saw at Charlottesville has definitely not had any real influence on the administration (just like how antifa protesters don't have any influence on the Democratic party).

I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic here.

No, I am not. Many of these white nationalist types want to send all African Americans to Alaska gulag-style, yet you don't see Trump talking about that, do you? Where's the wall? What happened to Steve Bannon and all the non-mainstream Republicans that were in the white house? Why isn't Trump talking about deporting all Muslims? Moreover, these people also hate Israel because they are anti-Semitic, yet Trump is one of the biggest champions of Israel. You see, I am not talking about alt-lite people like Ben Shaprio, I am talking about the neo-nazi, "Defend Evropa" people who were the main sources of outrage during Charlottesville. These are not Fox news Republicans. These people have no actual power compared to the Koch Brothers and lobbyists who are the actual influencers in the white house.

Ah, I was looking at this the other way around, as a lot of people would say that Antifa protesters do in fact have some influence over the Democratic party.

> I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.

Like what?

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'."

This question seems rhetorical and insincere. If you disagree, then it might be a better approach to say so than to feign curiosity.

>>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.

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.

Sure, if you make every possible bad faith effort to misinterpret and obscure what somebody is saying, you'll come away with lots of spicy memes to share with your friends while you're busy agreeing with eachother. That doesn't so much mean you've made a sober assessment of the facts.

Also that is not foreign policy.

Trump saying that there were "good people on both sides" does not mean that he supports white nationalists, since not every group on the "unite the right" side was made of white nationalists.

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.

Is it actually rising or is everyone not a part of it just becoming more aware of it because they're being reported on more?

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.

From https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/the-facts-on-white-nationa...

* 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.”

SPLC has come under increasing scrutiny as of late for making false accusations https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty...

'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.'

They've done this for a while. They've even put subreddits (theredpill) as a hate group as well. (Yes, they're a less savory sub.. but an organized group no).

Also a thing to note: They've put pepe as an official hate symbol. (Sigh.. poor pepe)

I see that they made one mistake in that opinion article. FRC is a hate group and Charles Murray is racist, or at least he was when he wrote The Bell Curve.

It's hard to see how this one case invalidates the research presented by the GP.

I think the FBI numbers are more reliable, though not perfect, and they show a 17% increase but that figure also includes anti-white violence. So there is s rise but not to the degree claimed by those other orgs.

I think the FBI is neutral whereas other sources tend to have biases so they’d require additional scrutiny.

And even the FBI's numbers are vulnerable to a reporting bias. (People may report things as a hate crime today that they would not have five years ago due to interested visibility)

Measuring this sort of thing is hard, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

The FBI is required to collect data about hate crimes, but local police departments are not required to report the data. So the FBI data only represents voluntary reporting.

Unless that changes from year to year (NYC reports this year, but not next), this should still be representative of the overall trend.

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)

Unless red areas become increasingly politicized and decide to report less or end reporting.

But that’s counterbalanced by blue areas who may be inclined to report more...

Anyway, this is speculative. I think I trust the FBI to be more neutral than interested parties for these numbers.

The point is the FBI is a neutral collection point, but the source of data isn't as stable or systematic as those by advocacy groups trying to make more complete estimates.

From your linked article, as well:

> 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 Southern Poverty Law Center

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)

Rather than attacking the source, perhaps you could consider the findings?

> Rather than attacking the source, perhaps you could consider the findings?

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.

Because China is emotionally distant enough from most HN commenters that it does not trigger a flame war.

Apparently posts are considered too political when several people flag them. There are no hard rules that actually apply.

The difference between "politics" and "world events" typically comes down to the geography of the observer.

Because white nationalism is alive and strong even here.

Well for me, many technology companies do their best to do business in China. Apple, which loves to tell the world how much they support human rights, builds iPhones and other products in China regardless of how bad China's record is and more.

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.

HN like other social online spaces is not neutral or free from influence. For example I would imagine upvotes are trivial to astroturf.

A quick search:


The rules are only enforced in order to reduce flame wars. They're not strictly followed and generally speaking whatever the mods feel like goes.

Exactly. It’s not enough to say “oh we are trying to stop flame wars” when we are trying to talk about these topics to stop literal wars from occurring.

You know why :)

This is one way to commemorate Tiananmen Square protest’s 30th anniversary

Massacre. It wasn't just a protest. Hundreds were gunned down and their bodies squished by tanks.

Be aware that the famous "tank man" was not actually run over. You can see the rest of the video if you look online.

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...

*>Be aware that the famous "tank man" was not actually run over. You can see the rest of the video if you look online.

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

Growing up I was taught about the "tank man" and that no one knew what happened after the photo and if he was run over or not ... a partial lie. We know that he was taken away by other civilians and wasn't run over.

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.

The identity and fate of Tank Man is generally unknown. If you have information to the contrary, please share it.

When I was a young adult I found out there was a video BUT this is the only section they showed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4woMuFZAx88

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.

That's not really conclusive evidence that he wasn't identified by the government and rounded up later, though.


Please do research before posting comments on a sensitive subject.

There was more to Tiananmen than Tank Man.

What is your goal in bringing up these unrelated massacres? Neither one is the same as the Tiananmen massacre, as in neither of those two cases was the government killing its own people in response to peaceful protest.

> Be aware that the famous "tank man" was not actually run over.

I've never heard anyone say that he was.

When I was at school I was told that all we had was this one photo and we didn't know what happened to him. I assume other people were told the same thing.

It turns out that there was a video that shows him being taken away by other civilians the whole time.

This might be the most transparent and desperate “whatabout” I have ever seen on Hacker News.

So did the PRC run over its own citizens with tanks and shoot them with bullets, or not? Nobody brought up Tank Man except for you.

I always find it weird when people spring up in threads like this to spout disinformation and whataboutism then act so innocently about it.

This comment breaks the site guidelines. There's no reason to assume that adinobro is commenting in bad faith. It's far more likely that he or she simply has a different background than you, and therefore a different view.

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.


Everything that I've read said that they did.

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...

I also grew up in Australia (Melbourne) in the 90s and whilst we were told at the time we don't know what happened to him -- and it's true, at the time we didn't know -- there were no assumptions made about his fate. In fact we were explicitly told not to make any assumptions without facts, as part of the lessons on how to consume news media.

The videos on him were released only much later on.

I found out (as an adult) that the first 10 seconds of this video had been aired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4woMuFZAx88

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".

I mean, we do not know what happened to him after the photo was taken. He very well could have been rounded up later and executed.

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.

Roughly 1,000 people died. The population of Beijing was roughly 10,000,000. Chances are he went home and was ignored since he wasn't a student protestor and was basically a nobody. The most boring answer is most likely to be true but no one ever says that. Everyone always says "maybe he was killed".

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.

"As far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square." But hundreds of people did die elsewhere in Beijing. https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananm...

Sorry but this is not why I read Hacker News.

When I want this kind of content I open reddit.

There's a huge variety of stories here, from Hong Kong protests to category theory. You could just skip over the ones you aren't interested in...

I did not see this on reddit, so thank you HN

If you feel something doesn't belong on the site, please use the flagging feature.

Going into the comments and posting that you don't think something belongs on the site rarely leads to a productive conversation.

I can't flag content, for some reason. Maybe I'm not active enough on this site.

You're right. I tried to delete my message but the option wasn't there.

Could there be a reasonable compromise? For example each extradition case must be reviewed by an independent court or a board made of independent citizen representatives. A very high bar for extradition with sufficient due process can hopefully minimize CCP interference while preventing Hong Kong from becoming a safe haven for criminals and corrupt CCP officials.

The case you're mentioning is well understood by the Honk Kong citizens, and your suggestions has already been addressed. In fact, the extradition to China was at first only allowed if the crime required 2 years of jail time in Honk Kong to make a case, then after the protests it got pushed to 7 years. But watch this YT video, as the HK citizens tell you why this is still a bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0i9yVphOZ8

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.

That is exactly what was proposed by the HKBAR, but obviously it was refused. This isn't really just about extradition, it's about giving China enough power to capture anyone passing through Hong Kong that's worth a bargaining chip or two, which could mean a lot of investors and truly innovative founders here.

I still don't understand why a robust review process cannot prevent China from capturing anyone passing through Hong Kong. What about letting protesters to form a committee to decide how can be extradited?

Because we don't have an army, so naturally power flows to pro-beijing camps. In this game you win by being pro-beijing. ANd there's the effect of diffusion. There's already news on the LegCo security team having to proclaim their political inclination, who're supposed to have to act politically neutral. The only person who refused to take pro-beijing side got bullied, sidelined to the point where she had resort to psychiatrist.

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.

Because the only thing the local courts in HK will be able to do is to simply review the "evidence" presented and not able to launch their own investigations as to whether the allegations presented are valid.

In other words, there will never be a robust process because that is simply impossible.

Why not? Firstly it doesn’t have to be a rule based traditional court. A jury panel of hk citizens could examine evidence and have a vote of conscience. Secondly hk citizens who are reviewing extradition cases could be representatives from the protesters, who have shown their will to fight against oppression.

But this is not how the proposed legislation is written, is it?

I should have made this clearer. This proposal wasn't refused by the protestors, it was refused by the government.

I see. I’d agree that the hk government should have done more to convince people that the extradition law will not be abused.

The new law does that, the prior/current law does that. The new law REDUCES the number of codified crimes you can be extradited for, from over 45 down to 37.

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.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2021

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact