At the very end author compares hong kong island to langkawi portraying lankgawi as some unatractive island and that hong kongers should be happy they are connected to mainland. This is where I started look more critical at the whole article having been in those islands before myself - it was a great reality check that you have read everything very critically these days.
I recommend everyone not only to check google images how langkawi look like but even more recommend to go there for a holiday [1]. It's called 'bali of malaysia' and popular tourist destination. Very close to another great malaysian island - penang.
Author says "You can rent this island for 99 years and start to develop your economy." I would happily rent it for even 10 years if the price is right!
I'm majorly surprised you needed to read until the end to figure that out. To me it was and is impossible to read from the beginning without having my propagandometer going off-limits nearly instantly. I wanted to take parts and comment here to substantiate my claim, but the post is too extreme and long. It's obvious. The linked post is outright /r/sino material.
The quora question is "How mainland Chinese feel about protests in Hong Kong", and the answer IMO is same as the reality of how mainland Chinese really feel about it.
Oh my. That post is drooling of authotarianism and disgust for individuality and freedom, and it has an alarming amount of nationalism and militarism. If this is how the Chinese government is thinking and working, then we are in for a bad time.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
The last thing we need is for a thread about food production to get sucked into the nearest black hole, which is precisely what comments like this one invoke.
As others have pointed out, the original article features an ideological undercurrent that remains mostly implicit. I referred to another article of the same author which makes those ideological assumptions explicit, thereby clarifying his political stance. If this is considered flamebait, then it seems that clarity needs to be avoided where it might cause controvery.
Let's assume that's so—what does it matter? The article was interesting for reasons other than its implicit ideology. Making it explicit so as to fight it is stepping into the ideological battle that we don't want here. We have more than enough of that. Everything is implicitly ideological anyway.
Re "avoiding clarity": if you change the subject, that deprives the thread of clarity on the points that actually made it interesting. And if you change it to a flamewar, that just fills the comments with fire and smoke, which does nothing for clarity. It just gets people venting and yelling at each other.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-mainland-Chinese-feel-about-the...