Judgement is complicated by documented evidence of undercover Hong Kong police dressing up as protesters and acting like belligerent idiots .
That said I am fine with measured civil disobedience and symbolic destruction of government / quasi-government / tax-payer funded infrastructure when appropriate.
There are many impromptu homemade devices that can be used to deter tanks
Full video: https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
But, it becomes really complicated rather fast when rights get eroded.
When the Russians were caught unprepared for war, it wasn’t “right” to send their young conscripts to war with antiquated arms against a modernized force. But what was the alternative to certain carnage? Supplicant carnage? I don’t condone what the Soviets did to their own, but at the same time they had little alternative, though it was due to negligence at the highest office at the time.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -Wargames
The UK would have likely been forced out of the war before the U.S ever got involved. And then you'd give Germany all the resources of Europe to work with for their next war.
Truly, what are you saying.
Well, as a person of Russian descent I can say fk you with such offers. The Nazis had pretty clear goals for Slavic people. Hitler gave pretty clear picture in Mein Kampf what he planned for East territories, and there were no plans for anybody but Germans.
Here what Nazis did on occupied territories with people who "surrendered"
But we need compassion for those officers too, likely they didn't have many options, and dropping party loyalty because you're getting squeemish is a recipe for disappearing or at least a life of poverty and suffering (I'm guessing).
I believe that while protester's violence may very well be morally justified (I don't have enough data to judge, but I can easily imagine this case), I don't think that it can be effective to achieve protester's political goals. Violent protest is only effective when the violence reaches it's logical conclusion and opposing force simply withdraws or surrenders. As was the case in Ukraine in 2014, or in USSR in 1991, it doesn't even need to be a LOT of violence - just enough for the opposite side to get completely demoralized. But China's police and military are not only numerous, well-trained and well-funded - they're also very highly motivated and believe (I think, mistakenly, but truth of their belief is irrelevant) in their cause.
So, the only way for protesters to succeed is to make China look bad: and generally, peaceful protesters are much more effective at creating positive sentiment than armed ones.
Also, further muddying things, it shows a moltov cocktail nearly miss a cop right afterwards, and a cop tackle and arrest someone who is on the ground trying to attend to the protestor who was shot. It looks like total chaos on both sides and is way more complicated than someone swinging at someone else.
You argued that an incomplete video may convey a different story than what has been presented, but the best you could do to support your claim was presenting your own incomplete video.
If you care for the truth instead of forcing an agenda them the problems caused by selective editing don't cease to exist if you're the one doing the selective editing.
Gandhi's first stint at civil disobedience also landed him in jail for 6 years and there was a lot of violence that also played it's role in Indian independence.
Even with an Afghanistan style insurrection it's hard to see China bleeding enough money to give in, so I'm not sure violent means are much of an answer either.
Was THIS protestor being violent? Was THIS police officer justified in firing?
In this case, there is one video that isn't getting much viewership which very clearly shows the protestor who was shot, chasing down and beating a police officer on the ground. The officer that fired was coming to the rescue when the protestor attacked him with a pipe and was shot.
Here is that video from BBC Chinese: https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1179082367337713666
Furthermore, the same officer was actually carrying a rubber bullet gun on him at the time.
Why didn't he deploy rubber bullets at a distance, but instead charged in with his handgun drawn?
That's not how it works in several western countries. People can swing, throw rocks, even molotov cocktails at the SWAT teams, and they still don't shoot live rounds back - and it would be a huge political issue if they did...
He wouldn't be in power long because the economy would shut down and the US cities are extremely dependent upon a functioning economy.
And say California and Texas don't go along--now what? That's more than 50% of your military.
This is similar to Syria. Sure, Assad is still in power, but what's left of the country?
We actually have some data about that. See this comment for excerpts from a survey of "300 US Marine Corps soldiers". Short version of the results: 61.66% would not fire on US citizens if given the (illegal) order "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.", with 16% of respondents using very heavy pencil marks or writing comments in the margin for that answer.
We even have laws in more than a handful of states that allows people to run over protesters with their cars and enjoy legal protection.
Keep kidding yourself.
HK's homicide rate is almost 20 times lower than the USA's. To catch up with the US murder rate, adjusted for population, the HK police will need to kill about another 350 protestors for this year.
Do you know anything about China and Hong Kong? What exactly do you think China has done in Hong Kong?
EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?
First, although Hongkong has been peaceful in the last decades, it has had some pretty severe rioting before, in the 60s and at various other times. But what we see now is a drawn out result of the 1997 hand-over. There are many factors. One is that China (and the colluding business interests) have moved step by step in opposite direction of democracy. Another is more about psychology - Hongkong used to be a star in the region, but it's now in Chinas shadow and more and more dependent on the mainland, even "overrun" in certain ways. So there is a built up frustration in Hongkong around both of these things.
China has not yet brought down the hammer on Hongkong, and they have not removed property rights and the overall freedom. Sadly, these protests are more likely to bring the dictatorship closer. But all revolutions are like that. Almost inevitably they turn violent (on both sides). The government feel the need to push back harder to quell the fire. In any conflict, both sides lose. And yes, almost inevitably
Now, that's the nuance. Then you have the simple fact that China is not a democracy, it's an oppressive surveillance one-party state. All of the democratic world has a certain moral obligation to either attempt to transform or to oppose China. Unfortunately, most have gotten in too deep and have too much to lose on criticising China. Therefore the global response is weak, and large corporations tend to follow the money rather than the principle. This is very sad.
> Sadly, these protests are more likely to bring the dictatorship closer.
That's my fear as well. I'm all for peaceful protests, but I'm afraid the violent protesters are signing the death wish of freedom in Hong Kong.
> Then you have the simple fact that China is not a democracy, it's an oppressive surveillance one-party state.
(I'll ignore the "oppressive surveillance" you snuck in there, as that's not an exclusive to China, and many democracies are much further along in that regard.)
And that makes China automatically bad...how? China has on balance done less evil and more good than most of the democracies of the world. Can we be honest with ourselves and keep an open mind?
> All of the democratic world has a certain moral obligation to either attempt to transform or to oppose China.
China certainly should be kept in check by fellow world powers. But let's not get carried away with mindless ideology and dogma.
Not so hard to imagine these days.
I question the appropriateness of using a firearm with conventional lethal ammunition.
A rubber bullet in lower body would have had enough stopping power. What happened looks like a blatant violation of any reasonable protocol law enforcement would be supposed to behave in accordance with under the circumstances.
No, it wouldn't. I've sustained worse injuries than a rubber bullet and remained fighting.
A bat to the head is a lethal assault. Using a firearm against such an assailant is completely justified.
This has nothing to do with pro / anti CCP feelings. As far as I'm concerned the CCP should be eliminated.
Your assertion is devoid of any reality.
Not where I'm from
The only way to end such confrontation is simplistically to love your enemy; or at least stop being quite so mean ;)
Edit: I've never been shot or faced those injuries, but I've certainly been in worse situations than that police officer. So just on that basis that I'm judging his actions
To be fair, the comment you’re responding to is implying worse outcome than getting beaten up, claiming that the kid & his weapon posed lethal danger to an officer who was defenseless on the ground at the moment.
I do agree with the sentiment though
Were it simple fists I’d wonder what lack of training these officers have. Weapons are another matter.
Sorry @mieseratte, what you say is true. I exaggerated. Looking at the videos now though the boy was armed with a swimming float as a shield and a relatively thin white (plastic??) pole. It's true that that could still cause a lot of damage
But I wasn't there, and if someone is facing a baseball bat (and others in the crowd had hammers) to the head then you are right, that is a different ball game to what I was hoping for
Not reliably, which is why every organization that carries and trains with guns trains center of mass shots except for specialized marksmen training for specialized circumstances, who tend to train harder but even more lethal shots.
When you are using a gun, the choices for reliable stopping are nearly identical to those for maximum fatality. If you aren't justified in killing someone, you have no business firing a gun at them, and if you are justified in firing a gun at someone, aiming anywhere in the limbs doesn't make it nonlethal, it just raises the risk to yourself and bystanders by making the outcome less certain.
Without interruption? Then I stand corrected.
I imagine the point would be to confound, give the time to extract the officer from immediate danger, not to immobilize the attacker entirely with a rubber bullet.
(And you’re right, I should not have phrased that as an assertion not being an expert in the field.)
It's far from perfect but it's infinitely better than on the mainland.
Nothing justifies "resorting to violence" in HK today. The violent actions along with anti-Chinese displays are in fact counterproductive because they push the central government to tighten the screw and unite the mainland's public opinion against them.
Many of these protesters have no democratic culture themselves. Anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and an enemy that must be fought by any means.
If they're basically going to be steamrolled by a rather unsubtle up-and-coming superpower, perhaps they have no choice. In fact IF violence is all you're left with (and that does seem to be the case as legal recourse is blocked) then violence is necessary.
The CCP is not backing down until it has borged HK.
People look down on Trump and ridicule him endlessly when he spews bullshit about things he knows nothing about. But if you spew bullshit about China, you get lots of upvotes.
And if you dare to speak the truth and the nuances about the situation in Hong Kong, you get downvoted to oblivion.
EDIT: Case in point, downvoters! Go ahead, show me you know something about China and Hong Kong.
Of course it's frustrating to encounter inflammatory comments that are based in ignorance. But if you respond like this, you feed those comments and give them greater credibility, while discrediting the very side you're trying to defend.
If you know more, then a better way is to share some of what you know so that others can learn. In any case, if you post here, please stick to the site rules regardless of how wrong or ignorant other commenters are or you feel they are.
My apologies if it came out wrong.
If you post in the flamewar style, everyone's going to just go rigid and fire on all cylinders. This mechanism works the same way regardless of what the topic is, and regardless of whose position is right or wrong.
I think the HN's algorithm also contribute to the problem: the fastest and most upvoted response leads the discussion, and normally not the most valuable.
You should try to enjoy it too. It gets lonely sometimes :)
But another question is, what people in Beijing supposed to do?
Think of that. To many, it's very clear that men in black will not be content even if given suffrage. Then they will want places in legislature, own foreign policy, armed forces, and ultimately sovereignty.
The popular sentiment that it's "poor HK kids" coming out at large out of desperation for their material situation can't hold water. Most of activists are children of very well off people, well educated, with a lot of life experience overseas, who had their future well being secured by their parents. No way they will be appeased with just a carrot.
The Party is well aware of that. There for long been a sentiment that Hongkong is a "trojan horse" the West gave to China, and the current crisis only reinforces this opinion among people in Beijing, and down to junior-mid-level cadres. There is no way the Party will back down.
This mess will take years to settle down in any scenario.
That's why I point to the crisis being irresolvable. No way out of this for both sides.
The General in Nigeria who overthrew the President in a Coup then handed power over to a new democratically elected President a year later.
Yes. Good, honest upstanding men (and women) will destroy their own position and power when it's the right thing to to.
The hard part is finding the Good and honest ones, and I suspect they are very few are far between in the Chinese leadership.
People on level municipalities, and provinces may show some rare signs of common sense from time to time, but them moment any of them (yes, even a provincial governor) will rise a hand, they will instantly be politically terminated.
And you have a system where tops are incapable of integrating any input for plainly neurological-biological reasons, and anybody with a shade of influence on them is super duper afraid of getting politically railroaded by both higher ups, and peers contending for promotion.
This is modern China for you.
Blind and dogmatic utilitarianism says "it's in the politician's best interest to suppress the citizenry". Ethics says "it's in the people's interest for the politician to be nice to them".
Do you have data or reference to back them? Surely there could be rich kids among the protestors, but is that a majority of them?
The best proof of what I said is that all convenience stores and seven elevens are fully staffed, and running. Janitors, taxi drivers continue to work like nothing happened.
HK Poly is more or less preserving minimal functioning, but HK University is effectively defunct now. All kinds of banks, business services companies work in severely reduced capacity.
All of well of Hongkoners I know myself either: 1.) ran away to Mainland, 2.) ran away to Vancouver, 3.) are on the streets right now
> All of well of Hongkoners I know myself either: 1.) ran away to Mainland, 2.) ran away to Vancouver, 3.) are on the streets right now
So, among them, what kind runs away, and what kind goes to the street?
The super rich of HK are surely out, they do so every time when there is trouble. Hongkongers who bought foreign property or passports in past years are certainly moved out by now too.
So, that leaves your typical petit bourgeois behind. Clerks, government workers, part of white collar workforce
You may be playing devil's advocate for the "party" but it comes too close to sounding like you're defending them.
That's funny, I thought Saudi Arabia was America's close ally. Yuuuge deals on military hardware, great against defenseless Yemeni citizens. Free bone saw with every 10th missile!
Please don't confuse PR posts conducted by China's 50 cent army lauding absurdities such as the virtues of a totalitarian regime as "dissenting comment".
I'm not saying it is wrong, but expecting that democracy means all opinions are valid is a very basic misunderstanding. Very basic.
This is not a discussion on a technical or scientific topic. This is not black and white.
In fact, and since someone mentioned the American nationality of HN, the lack of subtlety and the need to see everything in black and white, right or wrong, is a common 'criticisim', so to speak, about Americans.
> This is not black and white.
Potentially true, but I feel you're fogging the issue (something that happens a surprising amount of time in these discussions involving china).
I distinguished between dissenting comments and bad comments. While that's not utterly B/W it's actually pretty clear.
> In fact, and since someone mentioned the American nationality of HN, the lack of subtlety and the need to see everything in black and white, right or wrong, is a common 'criticisim', so to speak, about Americans.
Ah good old racism! And it is racism BTW. Americans are crude, stupid and gunslinging morons. Well, I've met a very few like that, very few indeed.
Can I make some obnoxious and unfair generalisations about the chinese? You're OK with that I take it?
I'm a brit BTW.
This event will only harden HKers more. In the short term it might prevent mainstream protesters from taking to the streets out of fear of violence. But it will make the average HKer more resentful of Beijing's long arm and empower radical factions. And there are many ways to weaken a government's control outside of public protest.
EDIT: Protester is in critical condition. He was not killed.
Are these backed by evidence, or just rumours? Of course the protestors will blame the police, and the police may blame the protestors too.
There's been other instances today where police was just looking to fight protestors, and as soon as they realized protestors weren't having any of it, they drew their guns and shot in the air. There's a difference between an officers' life being in danger, and the officer stupidly putting his life in danger.
And protestors obviously looking to fight police. They swarmed the other officers partner who was being beaten on the ground and he was next.
I find it shocking so many people were expecting him to just take it the beating or 'run away' and leave his partner there.
There's a very good argument for having police on the streets when there's protestors running around throwing petrol bombs and swinging metal pipes. This is basic civil society 101 stuff. I'm not convinced the solution to China's totalitarianism is random street violence and property destruction by teenagers.
They are not just teenagers engaging in random street violence and property destruction. There are people from 12-80 on the street. Professionals, part-timers, students, retirees, everyone. Over a million people turned out last August in one of the largest protest marches in human history.
All the escalation is the result of CCP/HK not providing a political solution. They just send riot police to peaceful protests every weekend, and more violence occurs.
Admittedly it's hard to stay on top of all this stuff. The CCP's propaganda machine is working overtime and here in the West we're not doing a great job sounding the alarm in the press (in fairness, we have our own problems). But it's a serious protest movement fighting as honorably as it can for democracy and human rights, with global, fundamental consequences. We should be backing them 100%.
When you're a public servant, this should be expected of you. Especially when the crime you're trying to brutalize members of the public for is "exercising freedom of expression"
While true, protestors can't just resort to drawing their guns and firing warning shots. Police have a civil duty to uphold the law and be professional, not to go out fighting protestors and then flash their guns to scare them away when they're losing.
That's what the protesters are expected to do.
Attacking the police was definitely a bad idea, especially for strategic reasons--this illustrates why Ghandi and King preached 100% passive resistance. Protesters can allow themselves to be brutalized for months, and the moment a few of them hit back, the narrative starts to shift to "violent thugs."
If you want to retain the moral high ground in the face of organized propaganda, you're not allowed to physically defend yourself even once.
Which police force trains their officers to shoot people in the leg?
My understanding is that, if you need to shoot someone, there’s an immediate threat. You shoot for the largest target, so you won’t miss and so you do the most damage.
If you aim for the leg, you’re likely to miss. Even if you hit the leg, there’s a femoral artery in there. If you hit that person will bleed out in just a few minutes.
There was a video going around a few years ago where a policeman shot a robber in the thigh. The round hit his femoral artery and he was dead within five minutes.
The police used to have smaller caliber pistols, and IIRC they put 14 rounds in someone leg, which didn't stop him from approaching the policemen doing the shooting. He still died though! This incident was one reason why they were later equipped with the more powerful SigSauer for more stopping power.
Do the police there have tasers? That could be a good tool for this type of thing.
I am torn on tasers. It’s a viable tool. I am just very pessimistic. I fully expect them to used VERY liberally in all sorts of situations where we got along very fine without them. It’s yet another way of dehumanising an encounter
It's just that I think you will be attacked with a taser instead of being asked to lie still on the ground until they can handcuff you. Suspect neutralized. Or tased in the cruiser for being unruly. Except they were just angry with you. And so on. Unless tasing comes with the kind of paperwork that comes with discharging a firearm, I think it will be misused a lot.
There's significant high chance to shoot through arteries at leg shots.
But I might be wrong, I've never shot a gun.
Another comment mentions training for center of mass, and I would assume that's what they do.
Let's say 80% of your shots constitute a "tight grouping", 20% being somewhere other than where you were aiming. Aiming for the middle of the body would likely mean you have a very high success rate of hitting your target individual. Aiming for the shoulder/leg/arm (each one harder than the last to hit) you are looking at a very low success rate of hitting your target. If you choose to use your weapon, I would hope you are confident you will hit your target and only your target.
Shooting to hit is all you can do.
When there is no margin left, fire to stop. (Which means in practice, often death.)
So in theory its a kind idea. But hardly ever significant in practice?
Against an already drawn gun and a trained as well as attentive officer? Do you have a source for that? I have a hard time believing that. Or is this the case after factoring into the US mentality of "there may not ever be any residual risk for a cop"?
Problem would be how you train people to hold their cool
Are they fired close to the target, but far enough away to miss? Can this only be done if there is no one behind the target, are they shot into the sky? If so is their no danger of bullets hitting people falling back down? Or do they lose enough speed on the downward arc to be safe? Or is the chance of a warning shot hitting someone innocent so staggering low that it isn't worth worrying about?
shows cop ran into the crowd and had a clear exit path (not necessary to shoot to remain safe)
Longer video of the shooting: https://streamable.com/qtyii
But isn't it pretty obvious these people are physically attacking armed officers as they are retreating? And they are beating up and kicking another downed officer in the head?
Whilst I might have sympathy for their cause the kid struck an armed officer with a weapon whilst he wielded a gun as his friends beat another armed officer. I have very little sympathy for anyone who makes such poor decisions in a group delerium of impunity.
Edit: If anyone downvoting would care to offer another option, that would be appreciated
Good grief. Would you please review the site guidelines and take care to edit such flamebait out of your posts to HN?
One is, what it the police officer right there and then supposed to do? Police forces across the world have faced similarly violent protests, and even riots while managing not to shoot anybody. It's part of their job. Police in the UK in riot situations aren't even armed with firearms. Pretty much the only situations in which UK police ever get issued firearms is when facing similarly armed criminals. If they are getting themselves in situations, against protesters not armed with guns, where they feel the need to shoot their way out, they have badly screwed up.
Secondly, HK police routinely assault and very severely beat even non-violent protesters. They have frequently provoked and incited violence. This isn't an isolated example of defensive violence by peace keeping law officers. This is a further escalation to potentially lethal violence by a hostile force that has repeatedly upped the scale of violence in HK.
Secondly most world police forces have weapons, and the citizenry in those countries are aware of that. At the end of the day, a small group of officers were being attacked by a larger group of people. An officer is on the ground being kicked as violently and as brutally as possible. Another officer is being attacked despite warning use of his weapon and I'm afraid seems well within his rights to protect himself here, with unfortunate outcomes.
You cannot excuse the role of the protesters in provoking this action.
I said myself it’s not the same elsewhere, many other police services are armed but even so using live ammunition against protesters is unacceptable anywhere.
I agree the protesters know what they are doing, but just as I cannot deny their role, equally can you really deny the role the HK police have played in deliberately provoking and escalating the violence? Do you think that is acceptable?
I think it irrelevant. You don't hit a guy with a gun pointed at you with a pipe and expect not to be shot. The wider situation is not relevant unless the chap wanted to be shot.
> but they are backup not front line.
Also incorrect. I see armed patrols every day
That last comment was referring specifically to police in riot situation.
There is no strategic advantage to physically attacking a police officer in this context. It didn't further a cause in any conflict. If you go and hit someone with a gun pointed at you it is undeniable that the person acted in self defence.
I hate to be defending these things, but the hypocrisy and hyperbole are unhelpful in understanding the truth
> The Boston Massacre is considered one of the most significant events that turned colonial sentiment against King George III and British Parliamentary authority. John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on March 5, 1770, and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence. Christopher Monk was the boy who was wounded in the attack and died in 1780, and his memory was honored as a reminder of British hostility.
This is an example of the same disconnect you describe in the comment
Or are these cops from mainland China?
You can't mob the guys with guns. Not in HK, not in the West, not anywhere.
There's a complete breakdown of trust on both sides so likely a long time before this defuses.
1. Withdraw the bill - which finally did happen, after much stalling.
2. Independent investigation of the police intervention.
3. Not classifying the mostly peaceful protests as riots.
4. Release of the many arrested protesters. (Who could face very long prison sentences because of previous point.)
5. Democratic elections of the HK government - which seems wildly optimistic but is apparently in the HK constitution.
1. China has a totalitarian ruling system. They intend to realize George Orwell's 1984.
2. Present-day China essentially has no ethics. Take the US in comparison. No matter how perverse the people in power become and even if they do messed up things, the US has some founding morals and principles they do not forget. China, in comparison, systematically rooted out these values since the Great Leap Forward. The happenings at Hong Kong and Xinjiang epitomize that.
I do think China's expansionist policy bodes poorly for all of humanity.
Source? I lived in China and didn't ever feel like I was in a place without ethics. Different ethics, sure, but it really looks to me like you simply don't know or understand China.
The Great Leap Forward had nothing to do with routing out values, it was about hyper-fast industrialization, and it failed.
There are real problems with modern China, and, separately, with the CCP, for example a lack of separation of powers and a lack of rule of law. But your statements look much more like fear of the other and demonization of what you don't understand that well reasoned arguments.
If you live in China, you'll experience some things that are much better than they are in western countries. I'm not saying there's any comparison really, but the fact is that the reality is far more complex than you're making it out to be.
The quality of the high speed rail system barely needs mention, and while the hospital system has some pretty glaring faults the cost of care was low and it was easy and affordable to get medical care. Think of this: when I got an X-ray in China I payed upfront and the radiologist _gave me the x-ray_ so I could bring it to more than one doctor if I wanted a second opinion. The transparency there was refreshing.
Again, there are plenty of brutal negatives, but I just want to show that there are some good things that don't get press.
China is not famous for the quality of it's high speed tail system. China is famous for two things:
1) throwing huge amounts of money/resources to build their high-speed railway network
2) stealing intelectual property from manufacturers of high-speed railway rolling stock, whether through industrial espionage or hijacking production processes after enticing European companies with contracts to build European rolling stock designs in China.
Also, China's high-speed railway is also infamous for their accidents, particularly by the inhumane way that chinese officials decided to cover them up (i.e., burry wreckage next to crash sites without recovering dead bodies)
In the US you can always get your medical records just by asking for them and you can always get a second opinion.
2) Getting a second opinion in the US is generally easy - I would guess China has cheaper healthcare however
China/<Country's name> == The government of China/<The government of Country>
The Chinese == The inhabitants of China
No, it's not.
> China/<Country's name> == The government of China/<The government of Country>
> The Chinese == The inhabitants of China
I've had some rather deep political conversations with a few Chinese people, and it's my understanding that education there doesn't stress the distinction between the Chinese nation and the Chinese government. So, using the word "China" to condemn the government can will often be interpreted as condemning the nation and does encourages ordinary Chinese to stand by their government, right or wrong. Don't do that.
If you want to condemn the Chinese government, name the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) in your condemnations, for clarity's sake.
Where did the CCP get all the doctors and nurses who carry out the vivisections and transplantations?
I don't want to engage in what I call the "calculus of evil".
I wonder how many Americans would fly to China to get organs to save their lives knowing where the organs come from.
Unit 731 was ethical because Tuskegee.
The Opium Wars were ethical because the CCP does nothing to stop the flow of fentanyl overseas.
All of these are as ridiculous as what your comment implies, they're also equally relevant.
I can probably give out examples of "unethical" behavior for every government on this planet, and then no one will be ethical any more. What then?
With advancements in technology (particularly machine learning), I'd say more like a cross between 1984 and Minority Report. E.g. https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/china-ai-crime-minority-repo...
It doesn't get much worse than thought-pre-crime.
Earth has known far more extreme climate in the past than even the +4 degrees that we could reach because of human CO2 emissions. Some species may disappear from some parts of the globe, but for sure new ones would emerge thanks to increased temperatures in colder places.
However, never has a single specie had such a huge direct mechanical impact on the habitat of all the other species all around the world.
Do you have a response to this?
CO2 is fertilizing plant life on the earth. And satellite data confirms this: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
Since plant life is thriving, so too will overall animal life. Although extinction will continue to occur just as it always has throughout the history of the planet.
If the yields and plant mass overall increase by more than 14%, then perhaps the trade-off is worth it. And this is perhaps why commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 into them up to 1200PPM.
At any rate it does seem like an interesting question. What sort of species will thrive in a high CO2 environment? I do have faith in plants and their ability to adapt to such conditions, as it was the conditions they thrived under in the Mesozoic and beyond.
At any rate, thank you for the interesting studies.
> The state of various species is always in flux.
You asked for instances of climate change causing an extinction, this is your response to me fulfilling your request?
And don't forget in your other conversation about CO2 and plants about the increased temperatures predicted under climate change: "the diverse impacts of higher temperatures on other metabolic processes are likely to feed back on carbon metabolism in ways that we do not currently appreciate."
The basic rundown is that a country sets up international financing institutions, then loans money for infrastructure projects to less developed countries. This is supposed to be spent to hire engineering and construction companies from the lending country, with the promise that your companies will help up-skill the host countries favored companies, which may or may not happen.
The effect of this is that you basically use someone else's money to build up companies and build expertise that you can continue to sell around the world.
Its an obviously great business practice, but very prone to corruption, and ineffective at creating real economic growth in the host country (which is go-to cover story for why its not imperial aggression). The Belt and Road Initiative is basically just this exact strategy writ large.
Maybe he said something like "it looks like benevolent, because they use finance instead of guns" or that compared to using military force it's relatively benevolent, but after watching some of his talks, I highly doubt he'd call it a generous ethical policy.
Yellow man's burden?
Wars of aggression against two neighboring countries (Vietnam and India) in the past 50 years, active territorial disputes with basically every other significant country nearby. The creation of client states like which are then used to undermine stability (North Korea), or to undermine international organizations (Cambodia and ASEAN).
This is as expansionist as the American Civil War... I.e. it's not expansionist but really a 'domestic' matter.
There is big amount of propaganda from Western media on this topic as well: If Taiwan had been in a position to fight the communists to retake the mainland the US would have supplied help and call this 'liberation' of the mainland. But of course any plan of the communists to complete the takeover of the country by getting their hands on Taiwan is labelled 'expansionist' and 'a threat to security and stability'.
Same old games...
The Chinese government, the CCP and everything they stand for regarding liberty and freedom of thought and expression is against the fundamental values of the West. The ideas are not equal in value. China is wrong. Oppression of thought is wrong. Incarceration without trial is wrong.
The US and other countries don't get it right all the time, but at least our citizens have the expectation of rights the Chinese can only dream of.
Moreover, even if we accept that China is evil and wrong, some of the best 'friends' of the West are at least as evil and wrong, if not more, as China, which should really finish off this line of argumentation.
This is self-interest among states, standard geopolitics, there is not right or wrong, including when it comes to determining the US' foreign policy.
It took the US around 200 years to fully live up to those founding morals and principles.
The PRC is a relatively young country. Only 70 years as of today. Give them a hundred more years and perhaps it’ll change drastically.
Case in point: the freedom to openly criticize or even outright mock/ridicule a politician is demonstrably far stronger in the US - and historically has always been - than it is or has ever been in the PRC.
I view Chinese people individually, and on the whole, as very humanistic. The real question is what would China look like if its system represented the sentiment of its people?
I think they like private property, inheritance not being taxed, and in general focusing on their own lives without interruption.
Like anywhere else, many Chinese people enjoy civil engagement.
If China broke up into multiple countries and had a union to reduce redundancy/inefficiencies in common areas, that'd be a huge improvement.
This also preserves Chinese culture/customs on a more granular basis.
Not to mention some 50M+ Chinese that don't live in China.
> Overseas Chinese (traditional Chinese: 海外華人/海外中國人; simplified Chinese: 海外华人/海外中国人; pinyin: Hǎiwài Huárén/Hǎiwài Zhōngguórén) are people of ethnic Chinese birth or descent who reside outside the territories of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Although a vast majority are Han Chinese, the group represents virtually all ethnic groups in China.
Chinese culture is much bigger, older, and grander than the CCP.
Excuse my french, but what the fuck are you talking about?
How about imprisoning and torturing US citizens without due process in the name of a nebulous war that only gets worse the more we fight it?
What about all the puppet governments we've set up so that our corporate overlords can make a quick buck at the expense of some country who's resources we want to plunder?
The US is an empire. Not based on governmental control, but based on financial control. The difference between surveillance in the US and surveillance in China is that we've managed to keep our surveillance largely in the private sector; but that doesn't mean 1984 doesn't already exist here! In fact, you carry 1984 with you in your pocket everywhere you go!
I'm not saying I'd rather live in China than the US, but putting the US on some high moral pedestal is extremely ignorant of all the terrible things we've done as a country.
But people in the US can remove legislatures and the top executive(the President). Do people in China have that option?
It's scary that many actually believe this and thus self-fulfill their prophecy because they don't get involved and don't vote.
To further amplify this detrimental affect, there are state-sponsored trolls/propagandists actively driving this wedge and these narratives online to attack our Democracy from within.
Also, my responses were a reality check in the face of the propaganda you're speaking of. The "the US is the most free and moral country!" folks are getting a much bigger dose of force-fed freedom than anybody else.
I've been involved. Will continue to be. It's still the truth.
Ask yourself, how come when America's chief global rival does bad things, it's cause for condemnation, but America must be protected from criticism?
Nobody cares about Yemen but everyone is very sure Hezbollah are bad guys?
Our system of control is so much more effective than state censorship. And the trains don't even run on time.
How much you want to bet that in 2020, for the umpteenth time in a row, we get a choice between two billion-dollar-funded candidates who are absolutely not going to buck their sponsors, ever? Taste the freedom.
The fact that we have the illusion of choice between candidates who will all do mostly the same things, and won't affect the bureaucracy that much anyways, doesn't make us meaningfully more free.
"But my candidate had a great take on the bathroom bill controversy!", as we continue bombing weddings in afghanistan, imprisoning more people than China (!!!), etc..
I'm not saying China is better, but the fraction of control the average US citizen can exercise over the government in the defined political process is much, much smaller than `1 / 330,000,000`...
> I am unsure about what exactly you are complaining about.
I wasn't. I was refuting common propaganda about the wonders of the United States. How can we fix any of our problems if we don't admit to ourselves that they exist?
With that in mind, on the balance of it, America is overwhelmingly a rule of law jurisdiction, and the PRC is not. There's definitely magnitudes here.
My point is neither side is all good or all bad, and looking at it that way is harmful to the discourse.
China is also the top source of plastic in the ocean.
Tangent but: the way China turned out has IMHO been the major factor in the collapse of the post cold war neoliberal narrative in the West. The idea was that freedom and prosperity are a reinforcing cycle has been disproven. China shows that at least the business parts of capitalism work just fine without human rights and that therefore prosperity and totalitarianism are compatible.
The collapse of that narrative has in turn unleashed a revival of hard right fascist and hard left socialist ideology in the West.
Also, according to this, China's per capita emissions are half that of the US.
Emissions per GDP is probably the best we have as GDP is a decent proxy for productivity, making it a real measure of efficiency. If the goal is to actually reduce emissions the goal must be to reduce CO2 emitted per unit of productivity, so you want to emulate the wealthier nations that have low CO2/GDP scores. That means emulating policies like renewable energy, efficiency standards, well designed cities, etc.
China is (last I looked) the least efficient large economy in terms of pollution per GDP. The USA is toward the middle of the pack.
That's the story of every country's industrial development since the British industrial revolution. Bread comes first, clean water and air come second. For rich western countries to forget that and demand that China and India put environment ahead of pulling people out of poverty is myopic at best and, realistically, highly hypocritical.
I disagree with that point.
maybe, but climate change is around number 20 in that list for me.
Of course there are outliers but it seems clear that "I'm not going to be alive when the shit hits the fan" does a lot to assuage existential anxieties related to climate change.
I suspect the lifestyle of an average 20-year-old today puts much more burden on the environment/climate than the lifestyle of their parents in their twenties.
ADD: The amount of time each spends _talking_ about climate change is a different matter of course.
American CO2 emissions per capita reached their highest level in the 1970s and declined later:
We should consider instead the current consumption habits of both cohorts for an appropriate comparison.
Didn't mean to make it sound so harsh, "dishonest" wasn't meant to be a reflection of your intention. I chose the wrong word.
- collapse of bird, insect, reptile populations over all the developed world due to pesticide use, habitat loss, etc.
- decline of natural environment, waters, forests, etc.
- loss of linguistic/cultural diversity around the world
- decline of institutions and social cohesion in my immediate neighborhood
- society-wide addictive tendencies
- the commercialization of more and more aspects of human life
Do you doubt that climate change will displace 100s of millions and destroy many large and distinct cultures (e.g. island states) at current emission rates?
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves ‘the good of the whole’, because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.
This quote is from the condensed edition, because my paper copy is at home: https://fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-condensed-edit...
It is domestic enemies of the public. People with money and power, who are happy to push the rest of us under the proverbial bus, in order to acquire more money, and more power.
They have, historically, caused incalculable misery the world over, democracies have, historically, not had a great track record in dealing with them, and they have, and will continue to have a lot more impact over my life than China ever will.
Unsurprisingly, it is in their interest to point fingers at foreign boogiemen.
If you disagree, please consider enumerating the ways in which China has been a threat to your, or your fellow citizens' prosperity, life, or limb. Then consider enumerating the actual threats to prosperity, life, and limb that you and your neighbours have to deal with in your lives - or have had to deal with in the recent past.
With the recent "trade war" and whatnot the stage has been set pretty well for a US intervention.
It's not a faux dictatorship, it's the real deal.
But, the idea of the US “stomping out” the PRC (or even somehow “just” rejecting it from Hong Kong) and installing its own preferred government is downright insane.
But it's not "insane", because we have precedent for it: it's exactly what happened in WWII: the world's largest economies and industrial powers going into an all-out war, culminating in nuclear attack, and resulting in the deaths of tens of millions. It's happened before, and so it could certainly happen again.
The US overt, initial war aim would be an existential threat to the Chinese regime, and China is a nuclear power with intercontinental delivery capability. It would see multiple times more total casualties than WWII, and that's just be on the first day that China was convinced that the US was serious about the effort.
NYC, LA, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Huston, Dallas are all potential targets if the US declares war. Most of the US army would be going to war with no home to go back to.
Remember, the US's nuclear arsenal is far, far larger than China's. Such a conflict would be devastating to the US (and to many other places due to fallout), but China would cease to exist.
> Remember, the US's nuclear arsenal is far, far larger than China's. Such a conflict would be devastating to the US (and to many other places due to fallout), but China would cease to exist.
And if the US's war aim was to liberate the Chinese people from dictatorship, it would have failed miserably in that case, having destroyed them instead.
The proposal was that the US would attempt to invade, decapitate, and replace the Chinese regime; the idea of Chinese nuclear action was as a response to that.
So the Army would already be involved, and US nuclear annihilation of China would be nuking our own army.
Lets break it down
- tens or possibly hundreds of millions of people would die
- there would be almost a 100% chance of a hot ww3 but this time with hydrogen bombs, there is a good chance if this happens all life will be wiped off the face of the Earth
- starvation on a massive scale, modern society with its on demand supply chains would suffer greatly in a new world war
- automated drones targeting people
The only success story seems to be South Korea, but I would argue they wanted democracy and fought alongside the US for it.
The problem was less with democracy and more with trying to impose a common state on a set of opposed communities that had previously only been “united” in the sense that the one the US was least friendly toward was effectively oppressing the others, and even that might have been successful has the US had needed its own past occupation experience and preserved and reformed state security institutions rather than disbanding them with no transition plan, leading to an internal war before the US even got started with establishing democracy.
Not, to be sure, that that makes the idea of the US trying to impose democracy in all or any part of the territory of the PRC even remotely sane.
I'm not super knowledgeable on the topic, but although the new governments didn't really work out, didn't the mass murders and other atrocities stop with the removal of the old dictator? Those countries may not be "stable" (yet), but is the situation really worse that it was?
Was Saddam torturing a limited amount of dissidents and his sons raping and murdering people as they pleased better or worse than ISIS ruling significant parts of the middle east? Was Gaddafi better or worse than Libya in civil war, slave markets being revived etc? Was life under Assad better or worse than civil war in Syria?
Even with bloodthirsty dictators, there's usually a way to make it worse, and NATO/US is pretty good at finding it.
I'd imagine that mostly look like sowing internal discord within the CCP. The party already has a lot of corruption, so most likely many senior officials could be blackmailed and manipulated. The long-term goal would be to weaken the resolve and coherence of the CCP to the point that a non-violent democratic revolution could take place.