I'm offended by his backpedaling. That makes me right, right?
China really needs to get a grip and understand that with seven billion people in the world, not everyone is going to agree with everything it wants.
In China the CPC exercises strict control over what topics are allowed to trend on social media, so what appears to be "mob justice" is actually a carefully curated event. The state media chose to report on this rather than ignore it. The Cyberspace Administration chose to allow this outrage to gain momentum while topics that do not toe the party line are squashed.
You cannot really compare the kind of social media "mob justice" people speak of in the west to how things are managed on the Chinese internet.
Hide Taiwan emoji flag in Hong Kong:
The other is an authoritarian government shutting down business ties based on one employee opinion.
How do people not see the difference in this? On twitter, people are to speak whatever they want and can choose to buy whatever they want.
In China. Not so much.
"Fight for Freedom, Stand with Palestine"
I wonder what the reaction would have been?
There lies in the difference. In Spain, it would be the people demanding it. In China, its the authoritative government that is not only demanding but also threatening.
Its not quite apples to apples.
People can be patriotic on this matter, but it still doesn't represent all the people.
Authoritarian governments do not
Do the Hong Hong people count?
How about Tibetan people? Or the sadly famous Uyghur?
And does Taiwan has a say as well?
Hongkong's takeover by the British has been a humiliation for China and the Chinese people, which has been provoking strong feelings on their part since well before the Communist Party was even founded.
That China must get Hongkong back is a highly consensual opinion among the Chinese. This was a policy of the Communist Party because that really is something that every Chinese strongly wanted.
There are elements of wanting independence for Hongkong in the current protests and of foreign interference (whether it is true or not, this is how it looks). This is an absolute red flag for Chinese. In fact if TVs were showing everything we are shown in the West the government would have to act more strongly against the protesters by popular demand.
The Chinese government may not be democratic but that does not mean that it can ignore public opinion or that its policies never align with what the people want.
Campaigning for democracy was always going to be a uphill struggle in Hongkong, but these violent protests (which can be qualified of 'riots') have been highly counterproductive.
Except, I'm just a one person boycott, since I don't have to agree with what my government tells me.
1.4 billion of those people are Chinese, and they can get outaged over whatever ridiculous shit they want.
I'm curious because I don't know how that information would spread in China or if it is talked about much.
when I was young, there was no GFW. I remembered that I visited lots of western medias about it to better understand it by two-sided stories. and I believe that I did better understand it.
I do use VPN as many of others when I am in China. It's a common thing.
"just"? Not being able to say something in public is like not being able to say it at all. What you just talk about with your friends or family is as relevant to the public sphere as your private thoughts are.
buddy, being so cynical is not really helpful for any constructive discussion. not mention that I was telling a fact not argument.
even in many democratic countries, in terms of political correctness, you don't want to talk about some subjects in public. Does it really mean not being able to say it at all?
Yes, and to the degree that happens, things disappear from the public sphere.
I'm German, and the Nazis are not a happy subject one wants to talk about, but being forbidden from talking about that would be so much worse. And while not everybody "wants to hear about it", there is no difference between "in public" or "in private" really, it what matters more who you talk to, or who overhears it. Neo-Nazis don't want to hear about the Holocaust, Antifa has no problem with it, for example.
The way Tiananmen is taboo in public discussion in China is an entirely different thing I would say, simply because it mainly comes from the CCP and repression, rather than the opinions of people. People may say they "don't feel the need" to talk about it, but if someone talked about it in public and wouldn't stop, they would be stopped, and people know that.
> Does it really mean not being able to say it at all?
Yes, for all practical purposes in context of what we're talking about. Maybe this will help explain:
> For Arendt the public sphere comprises two distinct but interrelated dimensions. The first is the space of appearance, a space of political freedom and equality which comes into being whenever citizens act in concert through the medium of speech and persuasion. The second is the common world, a shared and public world of human artifacts, institutions and settings which separates us from nature and which provides a relatively permanent and durable context for our activities. Both dimensions are essential to the practice of citizenship, the former providing the spaces where it can flourish, the latter providing the stable background from which public spaces of action and deliberation can arise. For Arendt the reactivation of citizenship in the modern world depends upon both the recovery of a common, shared world and the creation of numerous spaces of appearance in which individuals can disclose their identities and establish relations of reciprocity and solidarity.
In China one might even say the CCP allows criticism, but tries to keep that public sphere non-existent, regardless of whether it is supportive or critical: https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-Censorship-China-...
But I agree that this also is a problem in the West, the public sphere isn't exactly healthy, though at least it still exists. A quote by Arendt I posted recently also applies here, both to China and the West: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21175000
And from "Origins of Totalitarianism":
> The deprivation of humans of their rights, the killing of the juridical person in them is just a precondition of their being totally controlled, for which even voluntary agreement is a hindrance.
What is voluntary can change, and this is not permitted with some things (or under totalitarianism, a lot of things, until history gets rewritten and then it's not permitted to not change them).
People in the West do that all the time, too: pretend like "that's just how the world is" and they are adapting to it, rather than, as they say that, acting in a way which, together with millions who act similarly, creates and continues the situation they claim to simply adapt to. We don't fear the secret police, we just don't want to be frowned on, we just don't want to lose sleep or our appetite. That's much worse, but two wrongs still don't make a right.
I don't think the CCP is "the villain" and the rest of the world free and saintly, at all, it's just that I can't make an exception just for the CCP and pretend 2+2 is 5 in their case. So while I mean all my "cynical" (I would call it blunt) words, don't take them as just aimed at the CCP (and people who may think they might not be sooo bad etc.)
>Its not of course always the correct information that is on the first results
That seems like it would pertain to any google search query tho. I don't think I ever just click a single link when I'm trying to find information about a subject.
Only in your own thoughts and dreams (for now). You're not allowed to outrage on Weibo or WeChat. Is this correct?
As we all know, VPN is very popular in China. It's just an easy job to access information out of Great Fire Wall.
thinking critically, could you be "brainwashed" by some degree when you assume more than 1 billion people got brainwashed?
And brainwashing does not start with the internet. education is a major source of brainwashing and do not discount mass media either which still shapes culture even in hyper connected countries like the US.
Brainwashing works, its not even a remotely disputable claim, we have had two large countries going thru major brainwashing efforts in the 20th century with the Third Reich and the Soviet Union and the results were very convincing in terms of how effective brainwashing can be. Not sure why you would discount brainwashing when China went thru the Cultural Revolution to basically make all dissident voices extinct or irrelevant.
How much of your belief that the Chinese are brainwashed people who's opinions should be ignored came from school and media?
If brainwashing really worked greatly like you said, Soviet Union would still exist now. It was their people who overthrew Soviet Union.
exactly because of China going through the disaster like Cultural Revolution, many people just don't believe these propaganda anymore.
my point was not there is no brainwash. it's everywhere including China and US. my point was in the era of Internet and the popular use of VPN in China, i don't think the brainwash really works greatly like you'd think.
i encourage you to find out the answer by yourself.
Today the Vatican is still a state. The Catholic church remains influential. The USSR has fallen and the Soviet system has been discredited.
The above article would not have been written if the CCP's objections were an effective way to silence western critics. It would not be unreasonable to expect a truly powerful entity to be unconcerned with criticisms from a basketball team's GM.
History will tell all.
The Russian federation still exists, is controlled by a former KGB operative from the Soviet Union, and is actively waging war in Europe while annexing parts of neighboring countries.
And the pope still has zero divisions to oppose that.
In the first Top Gun movie Maverick's (Tom Cruise's) jacket had the flags of Japan and Taiwan. Images from the upcoming sequel show that they're gone:
I wonder if they'll be any modifying done for the final release: one set of flags for China print, another set of flags for not-China.
It’s worth a lot of money to them to make a product which sells well in the Chinese market.
Unfortunately it's not possible.
Nearly everyone on HN would rather invest in a total stock market index fund, simply because it gives better returns. How much different? Approximately 1% more.
So there you have it. People will sell out for 1% of their portfolio. Myself included.
But yes, you do have to be careful not to let them become a large enough percentage of revenue that the company would be in danger if China started threatening to pull out.
Not sure if it's a contractual thing to get the coveted release window there or extra $.
Or look at The Meg, which was a US-Chinese co-production that was like a tourist video for Sanya Bay towards the end of the film.
But Hollywood isn't going to stand down over taking Chinese money. Right now, most of the money is made overseas on the big movies. Much like Germany was a huge overseas market in the 30s.
Actually, no: companies are pure amoral profit-seekers, and so if the most important market in the world demands these companies fall in line, then they do, freedom and Western values be damned. Womp womp.
Many American C-level execs at many large tech companies are huge pro basketball fans.
So in the end, the thing that rules over you is actually money.
Also consider: you can ask a PRC official what they think, and you'll get a response. Try to do the same thing to a pile of money? Crickets.
The time for such conversations is long past, and it certainly wasn't me assuring people that this massive experiment will undoubtedly work out just fine.
In the back of my mind, I also recognize that isolation and division breeds more isolation and division. No NBA in China means less Western and Eastern cultural exchange. China doesn't have that kind of influence in our country, yet our American sport is hugely popular there.
For example, Tencent already bought two popular esport game companies from U.S.(riot game /epic game). Not only for making money, also for ruling esport world.
Which is essentially: keep your enemies close and be their friend and milk them for all they're worth while learning their weaknesses then wait until you grow stronger than them and when they're vulnerable, you pounce.
When China tells American business to jump, they ask how high.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
On a related note, this thread went from #6 on the front page to #105 (as of right now) in mere minutes. Maybe the mods, who are quite willing to pop in and tell people off whenever someone mentions astroturfing or censorship, would like to explain how a very recent thread with high upvote and comment count can sink so fast all by itself? It's not like users can downvote threads on HN. Threads mentioning China in a bad light tend to de-rank at astronomical speed, for some mysterious reason...
1- voting got implemented over there only a few years before the handover. It's a relatively new and fluid concept to them.
2- industries/businesses get to vote. These are increasingly owned by China
3- China maintains veto power for any political candidates
If only it were as simple as "just vote"
We have a lot of poverty here so it's very easy to buy votes by just hosting a dinner at a average restaurant, telling the people all the wonderful plans you have for HK then giving them a trinket to help them remember to vote for you.
This is a false narrative originally perpetuated by VJMedia.hk, pro-democracy activists in League of Social Democrat that managed to gain traction on English internet via QZ. The primary sources (FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo) used to substantiate these claims has nothing to do with democratic reforms but UK seeking HK sovereignty as a self-governing dominion like Singapore (not just democratic reforms) as an alternative to handover because it would stabilize investor fears - the concerns were purely economic. Obviously China would reject this proposal which basically tried to circumvent handover by making HK dejure independent in 1997. The reason why UK/Patten introduced some democratic reforms near handover was a last minute effort to maintain some political and economic influence over the colony. There was never any effort in the 60s to grant HK democracy within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease - they asked for sovereignty which was never an option - and what little that was given was a last minute geopolitical power play.
"Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong"
Political commentary is not new in the NBA. LeBron was told (indirectly) on Fox News to "Shut up and dribble" as an example. So if China/Hong Kong was an untouchable topic as it now appears to be, why not send out communications to teams that people aren't to comment on it? Does that stop someone from doing so? Not really, but in this particular case he walked it back and the NBA now has to be incredibly defensive. This seems like it could've been avoided so it is an unforced error on their part.
And though it is likely that China helped make the people aware of this event, nationist individuals using blatant propaganda to attack people on Twitter is not a problem unique to China.
"Chinese censorship is good, actually"
"Also it's easy to get around"
...Is this a parody account?
The companies and people of the Western world need to stand up to authoritarian China ... or else, in 25 years our kids are all going to be tasting the boot heel of whatever god emperor China has on its throne at that time (probably still Xi).
We are all underestimating how authoritarian China is and how much crime the Politburo members get away with.
I suspect this might just be their Twitter guy who screwed up, and might now be out of a job.
Why not just shut the fuck to and promote sport?
This is how we know some (many?) successful people just got lucky with the birth lottery and generally being in the right places and knowing the right people.
Which is why we’re here having this conversation.
Second, perhaps because most Americans haven't been to China and cannot read Chinese, they can't really appreciate this situation. Hong Kong is a part of China, and they are in the middle of a transition period from British rule. It's inevitable that they will be incorporated into the country, and it's really too late to try to turn that around. They could have tried to stay under British rule, but they gambled on the fact that they expected a very different future for China. The gamble did not pay off, and it is what it is. The rest of China (not just the government) wants them to assimilate, and it will happen. If you live in Hong Kong and you don't like that, really your only reasonable option is to move. It's not a given that the protestors are in the "right" and it's not a given that there is a right side on this. Just misaligned interests.
As if this was a choice for people from Hong Kong
Hong Kong was always going to return to China in 1997 due to a British-China deal. There's no way for HK to NOT return to China.
revolt isn't a very flexible means of expressing the wills of the people.
Edit: further there is no way to express dissent in China, the HKers are taking their life in their hands by expressing dissent. I can think of no time this happens in the west.
What does the supposed "inevitability" of anything have to do with what should happen?
Any argument that employs "well just move if you don't like it" is probably wrong.
I agree completely that the angst in HK is caused by outsiders. It has to feel terrible for HK people having their representation grabbed by agents of Beijing. They should apologize and grant universal suffrage to all people born in HK.
Most important in this is HK establishing its own military service, intel service, constitution (not just the Basic law oath of fealty to PRC), and UN representation. These are the remaining things HK needs to be treated like any other nation.
Since the rule of law is what matters, it will be important that judges and lawyers have adequate time to adapt to the any changes in the legal process after transition is complete.
The thing that has yet to be decided is how the legislature in HK will be structured though. Maybe in /r/hongkong they can bring it up.
But most important will be China staying out of meddling in Hong Kong's internal affairs. This is about Hong Kong people planning new system separate from PRC. After that is complete PRC has the same right to establish treaties the same way as Japan, USA, etc.
Which could feasibly be done within the confines of the basic law. It is true many pro-democratic HKers don't want independence.
For some more context for those reading into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests
But I should also be complete and let you know there is a fledgling and growing movement, the so-called "Republic of Cantonia", who believe all Guangdong should be break into its own nation. You can see the flag here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_active_autonomis...
Would highly recommended reading about Taiwan. Taiwan is what China should be but with the amount of manipulation and corruption i don't see it ever happening.