During the American revolutionary war, France was a tremendous ally and instrumental to the colonies’ secession from Britain. The Marquis de Lafayette came over to fight for us, without pay, in his early 20s, forgoing his family’s desires and aristocratic opportunities. His family was so opposed to him going to the colonies, that local governments were involved in finding and preventing him from boarding ships. He eventually made his way over here, and fought for glory and because of his own sense of morality.
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the HK scenario and wondering what I can do, but I can’t shake a nagging feeling that I could simply go over there and fight alongside the protestors. I often deflect with observations like “I don’t speak the language,” or “I don’t know what I would do to help,” and yet the thought keeps coming back.
I wonder whether Lafayette would have done the same if he were alive in our time. I think the answer is he would, and that I am more of a coward than I want to believe.
> Recently, I’ve been thinking about the HK scenario and wondering what I can do, but I can’t shake a nagging feeling that I could simply go over there and fight alongside the protestors. I often deflect with observations like “I don’t speak the language,” or “I don’t know what I would do to help,” and yet the thought keeps coming back.
Even if you stay on the sidelines, you could probably still help by being a witness, spreading their message, and maybe forging contacts to provide material and logistical support later.
Though, be aware that pro-government propaganda is using photos of Westerners near the protests to fuel a fake-news narrative that they're being orchestrated by the CIA, but don't let stupid, uncontrollable stuff like that that stop you.
Why not fight for your own country? The western world has its own share of issues, ranging from a steep increase in far right politics to corruption and poor administration. Not that i don’t support helping hk, but your plan sounds a bit rich.
Just to be clear: the HK protests are a legitimate, organic protest movement, and the allegations of CIA involvement are lies meant to discredit them. The protesters are actually getting their material support from older Hongkonger sympathizers, not foreigners: https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-dont-have-to-face-it-alone-...
> Wouldn’t this be a great opportunity for them to get involved?
There's no opportunity for their involvement. How, exactly would they get involved anyway? Direct CIA involvement would be counterproductive and against any goal they may have, since the protests are organically strong on their own and the CIA could only weaken them.
Presumably part of their calculation is "can we interfere without consequences" which I don't think we would say is the case with the PRC. That said, the US and PRC do seem to be doing a fair amount of cyberwarfare against one another, so maybe it isn't a foregone conclusion.
While I have full respect for you to preach what you believe in, I'd like to urge the consideration for a detachment of promotion for democracy with regards to morality.
Whichever mode of governance is simple a practice of value proposition that a particular regime sees as fit for their particular regional control/political reign.
While democracy has its ostensible upsides, is such a protest at length really what's on the high moral ground?
Many protestors are students who have a large amount of time, but have only seen less of this world, albeit believing in an idealistic view. The ones who suffer are the ones who reside in HK and are running out of methods to meet ends for their family that they have to feed. Consider the bus drivers for the tourism industry that are basically out of job and are powerless as figuring out what's the best course of action at this moment?
Sure, maybe you can say a change is in dire need, via a certain perspective, it's absolutely respectable, though in the wake of being respectful for the whole population and the region, is such a protest which has lasted over 100 days truly the right course of action?
Think for the HKers, is it truly better to pursue an unstable democracy in the merit of preaching a perceived sense of idealism, or is it perhaps better to focus on economic growth and enabling an entire population to a higher living standard? Nobody has the correct answer and it's definitely up to every single one of us individually to consider.
Disclaimer: I am a Chinese so I may indeed have perceived bias, or just bias. Feel free to have a rational discussion with me and educate me on other perspectives, or even downvote me, all opinions are welcomed and respected.
China has imprisoned over a million Muslims for crimes they "might commit in the future". Their concentration camps are so full, they are adding buildings to hold tens of thousands more every month.
They persecute, torture, and imprison millions of Falun Gong practicers simply because of their religious beliefs (peaceful beliefs I might add). It's been estimated that 65,000 were killed for their organs between 2000 and 2008 (and many more since then). Some alleged eyewitnesses claim the people are cut apart with anesthetic to prevent possible damage to the tissue (the same thing is done in the US, but the patient is brain dead instead of being in extreme agony).
Then there is the Tiananmen Massacre. People tried to speak out. Millions of people in cities all over the country. Even the local soldiers refused to do anything, so the government spent a while braining and hyper-indoctrinating troops from the far provinces to come in and start butchering the dissenters.
Faced with such deaf ears and manifest brutality, protests hardly seem to be extreme measures. They'd obviously rather have a little debate with democracy than the so-called peace resulting from China's evil persecution and butchery.
I think people of HK have tried other more peaceful approaches in the past and have received nothing in return from Beijing.
Do you have any propositions of what citizens of HK, or China, can do to get more freedoms like freedom of speech or from random arrests on trumped up charges which is how the current situation started? I don't think anyone in HK want to be in this situation but for many they see it as a last choice they are willing to risk their life for.
I think the concept of "freedom of speech" is highly subjective. If you go to China you would find very little consideration for a lack of freedom of speech aside from a few radicals whose mission is to cause turbulence to the existing regime.
In Beijing, you can walk in many taxis and hear the driver blabber on to no end regarding the state of existence in China and state defamatory words regarding the Communist, the past, or the current presidency.
In contrast, in America I often find myself in fear of coming forth and stating any merit that I thought of the potential Trump presidency, and the now presidency. In professional careers I'd fear a sense of being seen as a "demoral" person and I would fear for silent retaliation.
Propaganda and ideology come hand in hand, I certainly do not disregard Chinese propaganda, but likewise I am no different to the narrative on China's own political structure that's becoming ever stronger in the West since the uprising of China.
On the other hand, what is true "freedom of speech"? The narrative has been sounding more and more to me like a "freedom to uprise and overthrow the government". Due to my limited existence in the world, I can't claim merit or demerit to such ideal. But I am simply no fan of chaos caused due to the act of "trying to overthrow a government to seek ideal in the face of perceived oppression", especially when an entire region is almost shut down and hurt for many months.
This is a total misunderstanding of freedom of speech and the first amendment.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything to anyone and never face consequences for your choices. The concept of freedom is to be free from the government officially and legally restricting your right to publicly address your grievances.
China's citizens do not have this freedom. Just because taxi drivers are not afraid to express themselves in the privacy of their cab to other citizens does not mean they wouldn't fear for their livelihood to say the same thing on a stage where it would actually make a difference.
True freedom of speech is this:
In America, anyone can stand in the middle of a public square and shout whatever they want about the government and the police will do nothing. Other people are then allowed to also shout and demonstrate that that person is an idiot, or maybe right, but the government never gets involved.
In China, any demonstration like this is swiftly punished by authorities. On an exchange trip I went on about ~10 years ago an American college student decided it was good idea to shout "Free Tibet!" over and over in the middle of Tiananmen square. An unmarked white van appeared in < 5 minutes and he was gone. He was unharmed but that evening he was on the first flight back to America.
People may hate you and retaliate against you in America for what you say, but they cannot and will never arrest you.
>People may hate you and retaliate against you in America for what you say, but they cannot and will never arrest you.
Edward Snowden is in exile because of the things he had to say about America. The publishers of his book are being sued to ensure he is financially crippled and unable to support himself.
Sure, the charge is something other than speaking but the effect is the same. I'm sure in China people who are arrested for speaking out are not charged with the crime of "free speech" either but are instead charged with some other crime. The effect is similar.
I'm still happy to live in the USA over China but I still think that we can do better on this front.
> Edward Snowden is in exile because of the things he had to say about America
This is a false comparison. Edward Snowden is in exile for revealing state secrets. That’s different from freedom of speech. He is not targeted because of what he said, but revealing state secrets. It’s distinct from freedom of speech.
Thanks for the perspective, I will openly admit that my understanding of freedom of speech is lacking/different than others' understanding.
I think what's interesting is the idea behind. Either your example or my example of freedom of speech is purely political, which we must recognize.
Let's take a step back and consider a company. The management sets up an orderly system (or so they think). If the company is progressing well, everyone is working towards a common goal, would there be a need to have people standing up to voice their opinions to influence others which they can't even claim righteousness to? Sure it's freedom, but I'm sure less would need it. When the company goes downhill however, and people want to uprise and cause a change, this is where having this freedom appears to be a necessity.
I think inherently there is a discussion hidden here somewhere between order and chaos. And with everything being a spectrum, we must recognize that the level of "freedom" people will need, and people should have will also need to vary depending on the current state of existence.
To many of those in China who do not wish to practice in politics, especially since the Communist has produced an unprecedented growth in the last decade, little are finding a need for such a level of "freedom". Sure this system will not be perpetual functional. When the economic growth slows or when China becomes a super power level entity, global clashes causes ideology shifts and needs, China may need to continually seek a structural shift in its own pace.
What's being preached often in the western world however, is a utilization of a "lack of freedom of speech" as a weaponry towards an uprising China that will threaten US's dominance. There is nothing wrong with that, it's only a bit hypocritical that's all, but thus is politics.
I think what's important is that, if HK must feel like they will need the fight, then I respect the fight and wishes them best on achieving what they can. Though I do at the same time wish for a peaceful resolution versus a degraded society after an endless fight to achieve a perceived ideal ideology. I have friends in HK and I definitely wish for them to prosper.
> To many of those in China who do not wish to practice in politics, especially since the Communist has produced an unprecedented growth in the last decade
The Communists certainly take credit for that growth, but did they cause it?
> What's being preached often in the western world however, is a utilization of a "lack of freedom of speech" as a weaponry towards an uprising China that will threaten US's dominance. There is nothing wrong with that, it's only a bit hypocritical that's all, but thus is politics.
That's a misreading. Free speech and the suppression of civil rights are genuine and very important moral issues in the western world. It's not some hypocritical political "weapon" deployed to maintain "dominance."
I think we would do well to explain to our Chinese friends what we mean by the communist party taking credit for the economic success of China. For one, the latest and most pronounced grown spurt of the last ~20 years coincides with the admission of China to the wto, under the support of the USA, with the explicit understanding that china would liberalize it's economy and in general, play fairly. Seeing this exchange as a zero sum game has benefited china even more in the short term at the detriment of others, although Western naivete has been changing.
I don't understand why people are down voting this comment, as I think it is an accurate reflection of what many mainland Chinese would consider an honest and balanced opinion. When the primary goal of the last generation has been stability and the promotion of economic growth over personal freedoms and liberties, this is probably the opinion many non Chinese would have when placed in a similar situation. This does not exist the complete hypocrisy of the Chinese government, but I think it would be tragic to stoop to their level in drowning out the honest, good faith opinions of others.
People are downvoting it because he presented a misrepresentation of freedom of speech. Please read the adjacent comment by the other user which explains freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the prohibition of government interference in peoples' ability to express themselves. That's why the first amendment of the US constitution starts with the words, "Congress shall make no law". This is a very objective standard.
If you understand LegCo and how the system is currently setup to benefit pro business and pro Communist government, you will realise changing it from within is a farce.
The game has been rigged specifically to benefit China alone. The system is slowly being corrupted by pro Chinese force. Out of the last 3 CE, one was indicted for corruption. One took 8mil USD in consulting fee and then through China having to save his face, had his investigation dismissed by firing the investigator. The current one even admits she solely takes orders from Beijing.
There is no good faith governance from the beginning.
Countries who have successfully gained independence have often sacrificed a lot of blood for it. And built strong armed forces to back that independence up with.
Whatever we may think is morally right, HK does not seem to be putting together that hard resistance, nor is it building up its own armed forces to declare and maintain independence with. China thinks HK is legally theirs and nothing we say or do will change their position over it.
That's why I don't see these protests achieving anything.
Note that there has historically been another way, to force the oppressor to be brutal enough that they, or the people sent to do it, will turn on the government. This worked in India against the British and almost worked in Tiananmen, rural army units had to be called in. I don't think it will work currently against China, but it is the only thing HK protestors are willing to do which I respect them for.
In a democracy you don't get abducted by the governent for criticizing it, like it happened to Ai Weiwei and countless others in China. So I guess these idealistic students know better.
I understand that Deng Xiaoping's doctrine was first economic growth and only then political change, but I highly doubt the CCP would ever allow itself to be challenged by organising truly free elections.
Interesting idea. I would def donate a lot of money to a non-profit fund that financed independent armies with pro-democratic aims. To me, democracy and individual rights have been essential to my livelihood and happiness. I want everyone to have what I have.
What about Chinese Communist Party, which has no problem performing "insidious foreign intervention" at scale in Hong Kong?
What about the people who say they want support? Do their needs matter? N
ational govements are convenient fictions, not natural laws. We are all kin on this planet Earth.
Imagine if the US civil war was never fought, because it was up to the slaves to "speak for themselves" (by which you mean fightby themselves) about their slavery.
Imagine if the US never joined WW II, because it was up to the Holocause victims to "speak for themselves".
See, the problem is that these slogans work for all sides. People want to group up and go out to "fight for glory" against the hated enemy. That natural instinct is what the commenter I was replying to was feeling. It's what we felt when we joined WWII, and it's also what the Axis citizens felt when they started WWII. It is what the Union soldiers felt and also what the Confederate soldiers felt. It is the same impulse that had cavemen bashing each other's skulls in during the stone age.
If you view this conflict as only an opportunity to go out and "fight for glory" in a foreign country, to have some fun punching out foreigners, without understanding what precisely it is about, you're no better than a mercenary or a caveman with a club.
A basic test to see if you have this understanding is if you know what the other side would say to justify itself. And no, "they hate freedom" is not, and never has been, the right answer.
If you see no more than "slogans" in that, that's on you.
> People want to group up and go out to "fight for glory" against the hated enemy.
No. Speak for yourself. You simply and repeatedly omit the part about the moral dimension, and fighting against injustice, a person or nation becoming the enemy just because of what they did to others. Would you want to be put into a concentration camp just for the sadistic fancy of others? And if you were, would you say nobody should care about it? Unless the answers are yes and yes, you aren't practicing what you're preaching.
Yes, Hitler said he had to kill the Jews to save the world, and the world says Hitler was a mass murderer. You have to make up your own mind, you can't just shrug and say both sides think they're right, so it's neutral. I also wonder how much you actually know about the atmosphere under the Nazis, I would recommend a few books by Sebastian Haffner to start with. And do the people who fled the country to fight against the Nazis count, or the people who didn't dare to speak up, etc.?
> No. Speak for yourself. You simply and repeatedly omit the part about the moral dimension, and fighting against injustice, a person or nation becoming the enemy just because of what they did to others.
I've been on the other side of this sloganeering. I'd say I'm a relatively patriotic American. I recently went to Europe and talked with a lot of very liberal Europeans, and they asked me precisely the same questions. To them, America had long ago become the enemy just because of what they did to others. They put kids in cages. They flagrantly violate international law. Their healthcare and police systems kill their own citizens just for the sadistic fancy of others. How could I live in such a terrible country, they asked me, and not spend every moment trying to leave or overthrow its government? Didn't I know that America had no respect for human rights?
The problem was that their favored news sources were incredibly biased, reporting nothing but the worst events happening in America, and ascribing the worst possible motivations to all Americans. They had literally heard about nothing good happening in my country in years.
That's the kind of distortion you get if you listen to stories for only one side. In that kind of bubble, you can be convinced that any group is morally reprehensible. That's why so many people enthusiastically signed up for the Nazi party so many decades ago. That's why I met Europeans that think America is its successor.
If the narratives you hear are so one-sided that you can't ascribe any motivations to your enemies besides pure hatred, then you don't understand what is actually going on. Think about the number of news stories you have read that attempt to paint a group in a bad light. Divide this by the number that try to paint it in a good light. If this ratio is worse than 10:1, then you never actually made a moral choice -- your emotions were decided for you by editorial slant.
By talking about those people and the questions they asked, you can skip questions of mine, such as "Would you want to be put into a concentration camp just for the sadistic fancy of others? And if you were, would you say nobody should care about it?"
> That's why so many people enthusiastically signed up for the Nazi party so many decades ago.
Is it also the reason people condemn them? Does some people you know not being aware of anything good about the US change the fact that the Iraq war was a war of aggression, for example? You seem to think no atrocities or crimes are real.
> If the narratives you hear are so one-sided that you can't ascribe any motivations to your enemies besides pure hatred
Keyword being "if". And if that's not the case at all, but claimed, then that's you talking about a straw man, and who you met, completely ignoring what I said and asked. For all I know, you treated those people the same way, so until I talk with them, I won't take your word for what their positions are, either. I asked you to speak for yourself, you did anything but that.
> your emotions were decided for you by editorial slant.
No, they aren't, and more importantly, you don't get to tell me they just because it would fit your narrative.
I think what you describe is a very interesting experience.
I'm not an American, but I lived there for many years as a young adult, and I now live in Australia.
One thing both our countries have in common is that we both lock children in cages - refugee children - and we pay private contractors to do it in out of the way places - and extraordinary lengths are taken to avoid public oversight.
Terrible things happen in both countries, and overseas on behalf of both countries.
Currently a prominent former Australian solider appears to be under investigation for kicking civilians of a cliff (to their death) in Afghanistan because it was inconvenient to keep them prisoner. I say _appears_ because there is a lot of secrecy around the case.
Being challenged on the the ugliest truths about our nation or group is difficult, and it is rarely done in a way that is an example of elevated standard of generous and noble behaviour the speaker suggests we should be held to - If there is a European country that is an example unbroken principled dignified conduct I would be delighted to learn of it's existence.
That said, the anger at the hypocrisy of the person challenging us, is probably best separated from the shame we feel at the truth about the darkest sides of our nations.
Everything that is good and true about the United States and Australia as immigrant nations that allowed people fleeing poverty and war a new and better life, is not invalidated by, nor does it invalidate the reality that both nations were built on a genocide of the original inhabitants, that slavery and oppression were used to build the foundation of the wealth we now enjoy.
I think we are a better kind of patriot, when we see the horrors of our own countries and do no look away or excuse them, and we are even better when we work to fix the parts of our nations that are broken.
I've always felt the phrase 'my country, right or wrong', is a more noble statement if is taken to mean I take responsibility 'right or wrong' rather than the double speak interpretation of "right even when it's wrong".
If you are anything like me, then probably both of us are guilty of not being patriotic enough, of enjoying the privileges and wealth our nations provide and taking too little responsibility for helping steer its course.
There's one thing you can always do: help the separation of money and state. I believe it's going to happen globally, but it will be painful at the same time.
You can buy physical gold, silver or Bitcoin (I prefer the 3rd option, though I know that it's the most controversial).
The thing was that France and Britain actually engaged in a shooting war during the American Revolution. Without the direct military support of the French, Lafayette's efforts would likely have been in vain. It was the French Navy that bottled up Corwallis and Yorktown and forced the surrender that ended the war.
To be honest, the reality is that Hong Kong is just not worth the costs of a US-Chinese military conflict. Given the Chinese view of history and how they view the partition of China among the European powers in the 19th century, this is likely a red-line issue for them that they are willing to go all out on. For good reason, no other country sees it that way.
It has long been illegal to wear face masks at protests in Germany, as well as wearing things like bike helmets or other protection against police force. They call it "protection weapon" or "passive weapon". German police usually films every attendee of a protest.
Same in France. They make it illegal to bring respiratory masks or saline solution to protests, then they flood them with tear gas; they launch military-grade grenades (GLI-F4) into crowds, harming and maiming indiscriminately, and prosecute those who kick them back. And when people stop going to protests they can claim that they won the battle of ideas.
Will this have any practical effect on the protests? Haven't the authorities already declared that protesters are engaged in illegal activity, so what's one more act of civil disobedience?
Also, aren't the "masks" worn by many of the protesters the kind of thing that's often worn in Asia for hygiene and pollution reasons, so this would ban even innocent behavior?
The thing is, the ban will stay in force long after the protests are over, so that participants of peaceful assemblies can be fired from their jobs or banned from China (if they're foreigners).
What isn’t talked about is that the pro China people want revenge. They are seen taking photos of journalists and protestors so they can ensure those people have a hard time once the protest dies down. The anti mask law ensures they catch everyone. Most pro China people says it’s so that these protestors face justice, but their hatred for protesters is only just under the surface. You can literally tell they want to ruin these people’s lives permanently.
It's another tactic to justify increased force against protestors. The more "rules" that the protestors are breaking, the more the police/PLA will be empowered to assault them.
I think it odd that we have to look at another country losing its rights to understand the feeling of loss. Much of what they have been doing in Hong Kong would never have been allowed here in America.
How about Waco? Or the Bundy Stand off (2014 armed civilians illegally using federal lands for commercial purposes took up arms and the Federal government backed down)? Although not armed movements, how about they Occupy Movements?
Can you come with some concrete examples of what would have not been allowed? The US is still a very free country with robust freedom of speech and mostly fair and open court cases.
If protesters in the US were throwing petrol bombs, the police in the US would begin shooting people en masse.
If there were months of mass protests in the US, the national guard would be called in to stop them, with full military equipment. This is what happened in Ferguson, for instance, and the police there did shoot and kill at least one protester.
What happens domestically, we refer to as riots. What happens internationally, we refer to as protests. During the LA Riots, over 10,000 national guard troops were called in, and the police and Guardsmen killed at least ten people - either rioters, or protesters, depending on your perspective.
IMO, once you are no longer peaceful, you are rioting. You can’t claim to be protesting if you’re running around lighting cars on fire because you’re harming innocent bystanders. Once you harm someone who is not involved, you’re rioting.
And that's a perfectly defensible position, as long you apply it equally.
Many of the protests in Hong Kong have been anything but peaceful. They are throwing Molotov cocktails, destroying buildings, smashing and flipping cars, setting fires, breaking into the Legislative Council building, taking over the airport, physically attacking the police.
In Hong Kong, the protests began over an extradition bill which would have subjected Hong Kongers to Mainland China's opaque justice system. That's a pretty good cause for protest, but it doesn't strike me as significantly more noble than wanting the police in the US to stop shooting young black men, for instance.
Here's my weird position: I support the Hong Kong protesters and their goals, and even their methods. At the same time, I think it's weird that Western media consistently portrays the police in Hong Kong as aggressive. To my mind, they've been significantly _more restrained_ than the police in most Western countries would be.
If people are rioting, it's perfectly natural the police would take aggressive actions to stop that. No one gets to decide that it's okay to riot without repercussion.
At the same time, some of the fastest positive change that has happened in society came as a result of rioting. Only history gets to decide if it was justified.
I remember when Black Lives Matter protesters were blocking highways, and they were all arrested. I can’t imagine what would happen if they tried to riot at an airport or destroy subway stations.
Near where I live (in America) a planned BLM protest (that would've blocked a major highway) was diverted by the city emergency response- police, but also fire fighters and EMS held a big barbecue nearby.
No arrests, nobody got hurt. There is more than one way to operate.
I don't know of any places in America where you can protest wearing a mask. Even if you are "legally" allowed to, I don't believe the police would allow it.
Protesters in America need permission from the government. If we were to block roads like they are doing in Hong Kong it would spell certain disaster. More than a few places offer legal protection to people who run over protesters with their vehicle.
Agreed. They've been educated about history and understand what's at stake. I wish the rest of democratic societies would already be taking a strong stand with them. The tyrannical powers in control of China at the moment, much like Trump's rise, will be countered at the HK situations wakens us to the behaviour of China's tyrants until now relative limited light being shone on their bad behaviours.
Edit: Especially curious if downvotes in heavily political, democracy vs. tyrant topics are legitimate or suppression; another reason downvote mechanism is terrible: if you have something legitimate to counter, then spend any effort writing something qualitative.
They aren't close because they don't need to at the moment. All "western" nations populations have been divided and conquered long time ago so that for every group of righties/lefties protesting down the street there's an opposed lefties/righties countering group somewhere making the news, so that for any 50% of the population the enemy becomes the other 50%, not the rulers, and thanks to well crafted propaganda the reasons for protesting usually reflect that. This is done on purpose of course.
The day any western government fails at dividing people and does something that can unite all protesters is the day you will see police and the military shooting at people. In every country or culture the 1st rule for any government officer is protect the status quo at all cost (then picture as traitors whose who refuse to). People start to die when they no longer are lured into fighting against their peers, and both them and police (which now is seen rather as enemy than external player) refuse to back off.
Give people enough important motives to protest united against their government (that is, no food, no house, no jobs) and you will see bullets and corpses pretty soon, no matter their nationality/religion/color/sex/whatever. Maintaining the status quo at all costs against well motivated protesters always escalates into violence and deaths; it happened in 3rd world countries and in one of the most developed places in the world, why should we believe it can't happen to us?
The scenario you paint here would only be true if a society's population truly were "enemies" and holding very different human beliefs, wants - which fortunately isn't the case - because the people of a nation evolve together generally; the problem arises when you mix two different people from different nations with different cultures, where this "50/50" destructive behaviour can exist - say when the native Americans were mostly wiped out, another scenario would be if somehow you dropped 10%+ of China's population into America all of a sudden or vice-versa. Historically this was a common war tactic - and still to this day we can see it in Canada, for example, with student protestors who are pro-China, indoctrinated into pro-China doctrine - the hypocrisy of having the freedom to protest in support of a nation state who disallows free speech and reigns supreme with censorship; we can't judge these people harshly, with compassion we understand they've been indoctrinated - their own safety and that of their friends and family may also rest in the balance - and it makes me feel like an important part of immigration should be education to de-brainwash them to make sure they understand these mechanisms of tyrants, suppression-repression of freedom, of control.
Otherwise you paint an unrealistic, bleak picture which isn't grounded in reality if there's optimism and humanity included.
"Otherwise you paint an unrealistic, bleak picture which isn't grounded in reality if there's optimism and humanity included."
True, still many western countries had examples of episodic police brutality causing tortures [1] and fatalities among protestors, and probably it was other people humanity and optimism, along with public outrage, to keep these events episodic. But the point is: what happens if after the first protestor dies the crowd doesn't disperse and the public is too distracted? I don't see either police or the military saying "oh sorry, we pushed it too much... feel free to continue but please don't smash windows".
I also see as a revealing sign of corruption the almost ubiquitous police immunity: keeping them untouchable is what ensures their total alignment to the higher powers.
[1] plenty of examples in the 60s, also search for "genoa 2001 diaz": the Wikipedia article sums up pretty well what happened, and there are some rather graphic videos around showing it. That carnage, whose most explicit videos needed some time before surfacing, didn't make the news globally as it should have probably for happening less than 2 months before 9/11, an event which obviously hit the reset button on just about everything.
The biggest difference between now and "then" is the internet and our connectivity, audio and video + live streaming for real-time evidence gathering; yes, I'm aware bad actors are capable of signal jamming in an area or at scale, or taking down the internet - is why the democratic nations and people that are free must strengthen in case of a future confrontation with these bad actors, and likewise technology like mesh networks are expanding - although a nation could block mesh networks too with enough effort - and really then blocking communications is more a signal to the rest of the world that we're dealing with a tyrannical government.
Police brutality, lack of adequate accountability, is an evolving process that is trickling through society - through different states at different speeds: it's one of the values of giving relative sovereignty to each state so society can compare and contrast the different societal "experiments" based on their policies - allowing people to freedom to move between states and therefore the leadership they're under at the state level-context.
I'm sorry, did you just seriously say, "The Chinese are not fundamentally good human beings"? Because I'm trying to read your comment as anything other than unbelievably racist and coming up empty.
They are absolutely leading toward the same path, outcome. If you're up for reading I've heard the book Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maps_of_Meaning - will be a deep dive or good introduction to referencing patterns and tyrannical governments through history.
It’s probably mentioning Trump that gets you downvoted. He definitely leans authoritarian on many issues, but so do most of the democrats he’s running against in 2020. Where these two flavors of authoritarian differ is the issues they are authoritarian on. Whether or not someone downvotes you probably has most to do with which issues they are most concerned about with respect to the authoritarian we get. If someone is more worried about Democrat authoritarians than Trump-flavored authoritarianism then it’s likely they’d downvote you.
Having lived in China for several years, my opinion is that Warren and Sanders are probably the two politicians pushing big government ideas that if unchecked are most likely to devolve into something resembling Chinese style authoritarianism. Both are the "I know what's best for you" central planner fallacy. Unfortunately, that that think they know what's best for you are never the ones that pay the price for being wrong. China is a place where big government is never wrong and the population is disarmed just in case they disagree with the government.
Anyways, that’s my theory on the downvoting you’re getting. That said, I wouldn’t worry too much about downvotes on HN these days. It’s become far more ideological on here in the past few years, that it's highly likely that you’re going to encounter downvotes out of disagreement. With tech being mainstream and a major social justice battleground, the HN on yesteryear is long gone. We've had several years of eternal september by now.
This is just not true. Authoritarian governments are kept in check by free speech and openness of government. Sanders and Warren are clearly if favor of citizens being in charge of the government.
"citizens" is a term vague to the point of meaninglessness. Not sure what you're definition you're using, but pretty much all authoritarian communist governments in the 20th and 21st century had citizens in charge of the government. That didn't do a whole lot of good for the citizens that were not in charge. The DPRK is pretty much the only one where the responsibility of who was in charge was passed on from parent to child.
I mean all citizen, not some special citizens or a few citizens. Of course if the power is in the hands of the few it doesn't matter at all which label you put on them.
Basically every form of government that has ever existed at scale has devolved into an oligarchy. I know of none where "all citizen [sic], not some special citizens or a few citizens" are in power. A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens". I haven't seen a single proposal from them that would have then operating any differently from any previous executive administration this country has seen since 1776.
> A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens"
I'm not proposing an alternative. I'm happy with our Constitution and our three branches of government with checks and balances enforced. We have the 1st and 2nd amendment as a Plan A and the Plan B, respectively, to prevent tyranny.
No it would not, both Warren and Sanders are strong supporters of transparency and voting rights and want to reign in lobbying and power of big corporations.
I think we need to understand why the Chinese government "is never wrong" from a cultural context. In traditional east Asian culture the patriarch / Lord / boss is never wrong. The same power dynamics of government exist at every level of society. The superior owes some responsibility to the subordinate but (in practice) ultimately is not accountable, which lends itself to a corruption of power.
Except in practice "all of us" learn through experience that there is a different better way, assuming someone's learning isn't stunted early, along with obedience taught - preventing learning and critical thinking development necessary to contrast different possibilities.
People feeling a quick reward by a dopamine hit of clicking the downvote certainly isn't based on someone's political leanings, who they like or dislike, and certainly is due to laziness - regardless of whatever labels you give yourself.
Likewise, Trump's behaviour is in a completely different league than what any other politician in the US has presented - regardless if self-labeling as Democratic or Republican; albeit it is becoming more and more clear who is a disgrace to humanity.
Warren I'm not sure of, with Sanders I agree - at least with the Federal Jobs Guarantee is the wrong solution because it kills the power and efficiency that capitalism allows in a free market, fluid system - that efficiency which requires hierarchy of expertise to lead and teach, and that require making micro and macro decisions quickly for every decision possible; a bureaucratic government agency simply can't incentivize people, leaders, to reward them for what they deserve for who they are and what they know they are leading towards. I agree with your sentiment that "big government knows best for you" is badly implemented in most cases - and why I believe POTUS candidate Andrew Yang (yang2020.com) will win: his Freedom Dividend (UBI, Universal Basic Income) of giving every adult American $1,000 / month is taking the decision making away from the government and giving it to each individual to decide for themselves; the small, simple role of the government here then is simply collecting the VAT tax and distributing the $.
I don't worry about downvotes - however the mechanism generally infuriates me though as it's horrible for learning opportunities, self-development, communication/language and community development. A huge thank you to you for taking the time to respond, even though someone (not me) downvoted you - someone lazy or inarticulate - under developed, unchecked thoughts through critical thinking process nor peer review perhaps fear of ridicule or finding it would be a "waste of time" - so they simply "contribute" by a quick click of the downvote.
P.S. I had to wait initially 1 hour before I last tried replying - as I apparently some mechanism triggered - presumably by the small number of downvotes all of my comments were getting - to say I was "posting too frequently." And it's been 3+ hours now that I try again. If this doesn't work then I've been blocked from commenting - for how long then I wonder, and why.
doesn’t a federal jobs guarantee just mean that if you can’t find a job, there’s at least somewhere you can go to get one, regardless of the state of the economy?
this is just my interpretation but, i’m not sure that would kill capitalism as much as mean that employees wouldn’t be scared as much from being fired, would be less afraid to be entrepreneurial (worst case in failure, you have a job until you can try again or find a better job in the private sector) etc...
same goes for medicare for all and tuition free college... i don’t see the authoritarian part (as your previous post alludes to) but maybe i’m missing something.
The only way I'd be okay with a federal jobs guarantee is if it were a job that truly sucked so much that no one would want to do it and that they'd work hard to qualify for literally any other job but the federally guaranteed one. We'd also have to get rid of welfare. Sucking on the teat of the state should never be an attractive proposition.
Society only functions well if everyone makes a reasonable effort to be useful to one another.
> It really feels like democracy is slowly dying all over the world.
If it seems that way, it's because we've stopped fighting for it. Any regime without some basic level of true democratic representation and civil liberties should be the subject of official embargoes and individual boycotts. Unfortunately, many have sold out democracy to please the all-important shareholders or just to take advantage of cheap stuff.
The supremely naive "end of history"-era thinking has a lot of inertia. Now it's unclear who's left to fight for Democracy as the old champions are all dead and current generations have no concept of what that would even mean since they've just been reaping the rewards their whole lives.
Ah yes, all us youngings reaping the rewards of those that have come before us. Insane housing and real estate prices that few can afford, insane university tuition that few can afford, the pharmaceutical industry pushing dangerous drugs with impunity, the war on drugs costing trillions of dollars and leading to the militarization of police and a massive amount of incarcerated non-violent offenders, the destruction of the environment being covered up and lobbied for by massive oil and gas corporations, social security being depleted before I'll ever get to utilize it, huge downturns in the economy caused by irresponsible spending and lending, and countless other "rewards" from the older generations that we now have to fix while simultaneously getting whined at about how we're all lazy slackers that are really causing the downfall of society. I don't buy into the "end of history" thinking, but it is incredible how many people take no responsibility for things that happened during their life time and completely ignore all of the extreme negative impacts those had on younger generations and society as a whole
And what have we done about that? I'm technically Gen Y, and I'll be the first to admit that with regards to protesting my generation seems:
- Uninformed
- Undisciplined
- Lazy
- Uncoordinated
People were self-organizing large civil society organizations and marching through clouds of tear gas and worse in the 1960-90s... and yet this current generation seems to think that posting a rant on Facebook is valuable?
Most of us just don't think we CAN do anything. It seems the world is run by the rich for the rich. We vote but we don't feel that anything we can do actually will effect any change.
One could make the argument that wealth inequality is higher than it was in previous eras.
But there's always been a major disparity between capital owners and everyone else. Even in the 60s. And certainly at the turn of the century (1850-1920), when US antitrust law was actually first created.
So maybe media centralization? But the 1960s featured a limited number of media channels controlled by a few owners (albeit with some paragons of objective, journalistic integrity). And the turn of the century was the heyday of centralized newspaper control.
I'm honestly casting about for an external why and am hard-pressed to enunciate a coherent narrative.
And in lieu of one, the only thing that's left are that people simply aren't actively protesting.
Whether they're making that choice because of hopelessness or laziness, I don't really care. Because ultimately, it's a choice.
Make the other one.
(And it seems we might finally be, with regards to climate)
The end of history claimed that basically all countries will turn to liberal democracy once they see how awesome it is. You can look at China to see how well that worked out. It doesn't really have much to do with US internal policies.
The system is just being pushed to its limits. There is no perfect political system, and given enough time a political system will be gamed somehow. Simply, the means of gaming this particular system are even easier now.
This is how processes naturally strengthen themselves. A system (democracy) becomes unstable, sick, dis-eased - which highlights the gaps and weaknesses, which is in part is a lack of attention - lack of individual health, strength, leading to lacking community. Trump for example was a wakeup call for the potential energy that has been building. Hong Kong is now a wakeup call for us - and we globally need to take an economic stand against the tyrants in China's leadership as an act to punish bad behaviour + as an act to strengthen ourselves with the stresses it can put on us.
Edit: Especially curious if downvotes in heavily political, democracy vs. tyrant topics are legitimate or suppression; another reason downvote mechanism is terrible: if you have something legitimate to counter, then spend any effort writing something qualitative.
In the context of China's facial recognition capabilities, social credit score, and general ability to make people it doesn't like disappear, to me it's a lot more than just a face mask ban.
I wouldn't say that democracy is dying so much as freedom is dying. You can always vote yourself into oppression, but you can only shoot your way out (2nd amendment) if you first fail to talk (1st amendment) the masses out of voting for their own oppression.
True. But those in power can suppress voter turnout through a variety of means, whether thats spread of misinformation ("voting is [wrong day] at [wrong location]!"), literal voter suppression (intimidation tactics at places of voting, illegally collecting and destroying mail in ballots), to structural rigging, like gerrymandering.
We're definitely seeing a mixture of both. Democracy is certainly facing a lot of challenges. Many of them have been around for years, but are finally having a light cast on them... while others are newer, more nefarious.
The most potent way to suppress is to control money. Deny any unwanted opposition access to funding and suddenly they don't exist as they are unable to compete medially.
(Obviously this means that any party not pandering to rich is doomed to lose, unless there's a general uprising.)
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the HK scenario and wondering what I can do, but I can’t shake a nagging feeling that I could simply go over there and fight alongside the protestors. I often deflect with observations like “I don’t speak the language,” or “I don’t know what I would do to help,” and yet the thought keeps coming back.
I wonder whether Lafayette would have done the same if he were alive in our time. I think the answer is he would, and that I am more of a coward than I want to believe.