Massive Chinese Armored Police Convoy Mobilizing Towards Hong Kong, Beijing Based Military Expert Says It's Only For Drills

Fubuki

Member
Jan 1, 2018
263
Singapore has dominant party semi-authoritarian rule which is a no starter for protesters.

I said earlier universal suffrage / democracy won't fix HK's fundamental problems, the interests of the rich and powerful will be kept, and the tire would be kicked.
The way I see it is slightly difference, interests of the rich will always be prioritize, that is true in ALL modern countries. But the key word here is check & balance. Like, the reason you didn't need to work like a slaves in US, is because you have law and justice to protect your right. And your vote can remove some (not all) of the unfair disadvantage against you. In Hong Kong, nothing like that exists. Because we do not elect our government and they have zero incentive to balance the interest and desire between corporations vs civilians.

If Hong Kong every become fully democracy, I would expect it is somewhat similar to Japan & US. Hugh corporation still have a strong say in our government policy. But our government will at least give a token gesture to protect our basic rights.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,401
Cant believe there is going to be a new Tiananmen


Tiananmen

The people of China deserve to be represented by a better government than they have. I think many of us do. Westerners need to be prepared to pressure corporations to make what they're about to do painful, because "western democracies" seem ready to shrug and get on with life, unless normal folks make an issue of it.
LMAO, people care more about their electronics being cheaper than they do about the people of HK
 

mercenar1e

Member
Dec 18, 2017
527
Most likely. That said, Crimea isn't an important world financial hub so there is probably a very slight chance of the world actually doing something. Hong Kong's stock exchange is 5th biggest in the world. Only China, Japan and the USA have bigger ones. I wouldn't doubt it what is happening in Hong Kong is scaring people more than Trump's trade war.
Trump doesn’t want war with anyone which is the perfect time for China to pounce because nobody will risk defending Hong Kong against one of the biggest militaries in the world. The UN will issue statements and the US will say they are monitoring the situation but nothing will be done.
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
Trump doesn’t want war with anyone which is the perfect time for China to pounce because nobody will risk defending Hong Kong against one of the biggest militaries in the world. The UN will issue statements and the US will say they are monitoring the situation but nothing will be done.
Let's not kid other-selves, no country / alliance of countries can defend Hong Kong militarily against the PLA.
 

hanshen

Member
Jun 24, 2018
974
Chicago, IL
My favorite moment of the whole protest: A Global Times reporter being beat up by a Hong Konger holding an America flag.


Feel free to get all your symbolism out of it.
This is inevitable. This decentralized movement consists of so many different factions with different goals, it’s as if antifa, alt-right and bernie bros held a rally together.
 
My favorite moment of the whole protest: A Global Times reporter being beat up by a Hong Konger holding an America flag.


Feel free to get all your symbolism out of it.
People like that are gonna make them lose outside support. Even if most of the ppl are peaceful, it’ll be easier to report on the violent things
 
Last edited:

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
Ah yes more posts praising authoritarianism
It's an effective tool for certain time, place, and situations if applied sparingly, wisely and in balance.

See:

As with all systems with people, they can be abused and corrupted. Even democracy is not immune to it.

Having a culture of virtuous leaders and institutions to make virtuous leaders help greatly ensures against the bad. Downside is stagnation.
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,175
When autocracy works, it works very well. When it fails, it fails incredibly and tends to bring down entire countries.

Some of our "greatest" works of art and architecture weren't made by free laborers working for fair wage. They were made by royal decree.


Thought I was in a different thread. This isn't the place for this kind of post, and I apologize.
 
Last edited:

Charamiwa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,422
Good lord do we really need the moral relativism bullshit in here when discussing these protests?
 

Dekuman

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,329
It's an effective tool for certain time, place, and situations if applied sparingly, wisely and in balance.

See:

As with all systems with people, they can be abused and corrupted. Even democracy is not immune to it.

Having a culture of virtuous leaders and institutions to make virtuous leaders help greatly ensures against the bad. Downside is stagnation.

1) Dictators were temporary offices, the later Roman emperors aren't even dictators, they held a bundle of powers, including pontifex maximums , and as imperator , which is where the word Emperor came from. The position of Emperor were more autocrat than authoritarians (as in the regime). Rome wasn't a police state for example. China is. So comparison is not the same.

2) downside is not mere stagnation, when you get bad ones, they are hard to get rid of. Again the same Romans you cited

3) Worshiping authoritarianism from afar is convenient in cozy Seattle Washington.
 
Last edited:

leder

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,271
After 2016, I am past multi-party democracies. I am big fan of Singapore's system.

If I lived as a citizen of authoritarian country such as China / Russia I'll might be worshipping it and demonizing the American system. So I don't understand your logic.
Voluntarily giving up essential liberties based on the result of a single election is amongst the most pathetic things I’ve ever heard. Jesus. The sheer scale of privilege on display here.
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
Voluntarily giving up essential liberties based on the result of a single election is amongst the most pathetic things I’ve ever heard. Jesus. The sheer scale of privilege displayed here.
It's essential because textbooks and media taught you that it's essential. It's not even in the Bill of Rights.

We have a man in charge who can and is causing generations of irreversible damage to foreign policies, civil rights, and the environment. This one result is one too many.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,908
Madrid
When autocracy works, it works very well. When it fails, it fails incredibly and tends to bring down entire countries.

Some of our "greatest" works of art and architecture weren't made by free laborers working for fair wage. They were made by royal decree.
I mean, if you've managed to convince yourself that the metric for "works very well" is how exquisite the works of art are rather than frivolous stuff like basic human rights and liberties, then I guess it's little surprise to hear dictatorships and slave labor praised.

Holy freaking shit.
 
Jan 10, 2018
3,725
It's because everyone knows triads are criminals. So the news isn't gonna make criminal groups being violent seem like a "shocking" thing
You weren't interested in understanding.

Having violent people on the goverment side, committing violence against protesters, will never paint the goverment in a bad light.

Some protesters being violent, will as you correctly pointed out, completely delegitimatize the entire protest.

Always been that way. Everywhere.
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,175
I mean, if you've managed to convince yourself that the metric for "works very well" is how exquisite the works of art are rather than frivolous stuff like basic human rights and liberties, then I guess it's little surprise to hear dictatorships and slave labor praised.

Holy freaking shit.
I thought I was in another thread when I wrote that, this isn't the place for it and I apologize.

I used quotation marks for a reason, though. Civilizations older than 1700AD are not remembered for their liberty or human rights, but for their production of art and other material objects that survived the centuries. The one notable exception to this, in the West at least, is Greek philosophy.
 

capitalCORN

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,323
I thought I was in another thread when I wrote that, this isn't the place for it and I apologize.

I used quotation marks for a reason, though. Civilizations older than 1700AD are not remembered for their liberty or human rights, but for their production of art and other material objects that survived the centuries. The one notable exception to this, in the West at least, is Greek philosophy.
Please understand the goal is utopia.
 

leder

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,271
It's essential because textbooks and media taught you that it's essential. It's not even in the Bill of Rights.

We have a man in charge who can and is causing generations of irreversible damage to foreign policies, civil rights, and the environment. This one result is one too many.
And the alternative is...? How do minorities fare under authoritarian governments? Or is this something you’ve never had to consider?
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,466
I mean, if you've managed to convince yourself that the metric for "works very well" is how exquisite the works of art are rather than frivolous stuff like basic human rights and liberties, then I guess it's little surprise to hear dictatorships and slave labor praised.

Holy freaking shit.
Hong Kong under Murray MacLehose is probably the greatest example in history that autocratic government can "work very well" (I challenge you to come from a definition of that term that doesn't cover HK from 1971 to 1982).
I don't think you must draw from that fact that democracy is bad, I personally don't, but I don't think you're taking a moral stance when you ignoring history.

p.s.
I feel like I should say fuck colonialism like 50 times now, I'm not coming at this from that angle.
 

Ocean Bones

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,079
It's essential because textbooks and media taught you that it's essential. It's not even in the Bill of Rights.

We have a man in charge who can and is causing generations of irreversible damage to foreign policies, civil rights, and the environment. This one result is one too many.
Totally not happening in China and Russia. Smfh get real.
 

capitalCORN

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,323
Hong Kong under Murray MacLehose is probably the greatest example in history that autocratic government can "work very well" (I challenge you to come from a definition of that term that doesn't cover HK from 1971 to 1982).
I don't think you must draw from that fact that democracy is bad, I personally don't, but I don't think you're taking a moral stance when you ignoring history.

p.s.
I feel like I should say fuck colonialism like 50 times now, I'm not coming at this from that angle.
History is a separate term from historical. There is only one goal.
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
And the alternative is...? How do minorities fare under authoritarian governments? Or is this something you’ve never had to consider?
How did minorities fair or is fairing under the democratic US? How did we treat the natives?

It's way too complicated. Every system can be abused. Every system has its difficiencies. Im just pointing out a specific difficiency in our current system. Singapore is not even close to full authoritarian.
 
Last edited:

leder

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,271
How did minorities fair or is fairing under the democratic US? How did we treat the natives?

It's way too complicated. Every system can be abused. Every system has its difficiencies. Im just pointing out a specific difficiency in our current system. Singapore is not even close to full authoritarian.
Way the fuck better than Uyghurs or Rohinga. Are you legitimately that ignorant of history and current events or are you just trolling? You’re cherry-picking the one example of an autocratic government ruling well (in a tiny extremely unique country nonetheless) and ignoring the hundreds of examples of it going extremely poorly.

And now you’re worried about the environment? Last page you were extolling authoritarianism because it allowed societies to become rich without having to worry about the environment or public health. So which is it?
 

Dekuman

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,329
After 2016, I am past multi-party democracies. I am big fan of Singapore's system.

If I lived as a citizen of authoritarian country such as China / Russia I'll might be worshipping it and demonizing the American system. So I don't understand your logic.
So it's purely an academic question to you. And really doesn't matter if your typing in seattle or some undefined multi-party democracy
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
So it's purely an academic question to you. And really doesn't matter if your typing in seattle or some undefined multi-party democracy
What about people that live in authoritarian China? Is the purely academic question for them to debate the virtues of authoritarian vs democracy? Is it only non-academic for HKers, specifically for the ones protesting and not the pro-establishment ones?
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
Way the fuck better than Uyghurs or Rohinga. Are you legitimately that ignorant of history and current events or are you just trolling? You’re cherry-picking the one example of an autocratic government ruling well (in a tiny extremely unique country nonetheless) and ignoring the hundreds of examples of it going extremely poorly.

And now you’re worried about the environment? Last page you were extolling authoritarianism because it allowed societies to become rich without having to worry about the environment or public health. So which is it?
It's because I am knowledgeable of history and current events that I moved past western-democracy = good, autocracy = bad. Every year we have hundreds of Americans die in because we can't get gun control passed. We continue to have inner city crimes, no infrastructure, and increasingly racism. Our politics has become merely a game between two sides. It's only by the strength of our civil society, institutions, and diversity (thanks immigrants!) that we maintain our high standards of living for SOME.

If we have dejure dominant party with no term limits for the head of state, or democratic meritocracy, along with the current institutions / check + balances we have, you bet you we will solve all of our problems.
 
Last edited:

leder

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,271
User Banned (2 weeks): Antagonizing another member. Digging up user's history for personal information
It's because I am knowledgeable of history and current events that I moved past western-democracy = good, autocracy = bad. Every year we have hundreds of Americans die in because we can't get gun control passed. We continue to have inner city crimes, no infrastructure, and increasingly racism. Our politics has become merely a game between two sides. It's only by the strength of our civil society, institutions, and diversity (thanks immigrants!) that we maintain our high standards of living for SOME.

If we have dejure dominant party with no term limits for the head of state, along with the current systems we have, you bet you we will solve all of our problems.
Where am I arguing that democracy is perfect? It's simply better than the alternative in the VAST MAJORITY of cases if you have any sort of perspective, knowledge of history, or ability for human empathy. And yeah, I can hear you clutching your pearls about "inner city crimes" from fucking [Mod Edit: Removed] all the way over here. Those ignorant inner city folks just need an iron fist to keep them in line, amiright? Everyone knows there's no crime or murder or suffering in dictatorships. Jesus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,908
Madrid
Hong Kong under Murray MacLehose is probably the greatest example in history that autocratic government can "work very well" (I challenge you to come from a definition of that term that doesn't cover HK from 1971 to 1982).
I don't think you must draw from that fact that democracy is bad, I personally don't, but I don't think you're taking a moral stance when you ignoring history.

p.s.
I feel like I should say fuck colonialism like 50 times now, I'm not coming at this from that angle.
That's precisely one example of autocracy resulting in a functional, progressive government versus the endless ocean of nightmare scenarios it has generated over history and today. It has precisely zero to do with the merits of autocracy, and everything to do with the person appointed actually caring about the people he was governing, which in turn is a product of the political apparatus of the UK being a democratic one.

Your example doesn't so much support "autocracy can work well" as "autocracy worked well in one instance, a colony of a democratic country". It doesn't work that well with your "but fuck colonialism, OK?" tacked at the end. :D
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,466
That's precisely one example of autocracy resulting in a functional, progressive government versus the endless ocean of nightmare scenarios it has generated over history and today. It has precisely zero to do with the merits of autocracy, and everything to do with the person appointed actually caring about the people he was governing, which in turn is a product of the political apparatus of the UK being a democratic one.

Your example doesn't so much support "autocracy can work well" as "autocracy worked well in one instance, a colony of a democratic country". It doesn't work that well with your "but fuck colonialism, OK?" tacked at the end. :D
Is this the first time you heard of the concept of benevolent dictatorship?


Again, I think you're assuming there must be some anti-democratic or pro-authoritarian conclusion to this, but there isn't, or at least I personally don't think that there is. Note how nobody is talking about batting averages of forms of government or whatever. This is not an assessment of "which is better" or a call for political action, this is something historians noticed and noted.
I don't think you're making a moral stand by ignoring historical facts.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,908
Madrid
Is this the first time you heard of the concept of benevolent dictatorship?

It's certainly the first time I've seen it used unironically.

Again, I think you're assuming there must be some anti-democratic or pro-authoritarian conclusion to this, but there isn't, or at least I personally don't think that there is. Note how nobody is talking about batting averages of forms of government or whatever. This is not an assessment of "which is better" or a call for political action, this is something historians noticed and noted.
I don't think you're making a moral stand by ignoring historical facts.
OK dude. The people saying authoritarianism is like democracy, that both have good and bad points, and that it's actually better in many situations, aren't making any anti-democratic or pro-authoritarian points. Just as Trump wasn't making any points when he praised how much North Korean people respect Kim Jon-un, or when conservative old people (and young racists that weren't even born back then) here in Spain praise our own, thankfully long gone dictatorship. You're all "just saying".
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,466
It's certainly the first time I've seen it used unironically.



OK dude. The people saying authoritarianism is like democracy, that both have good and bad points, and that it's actually better in many situations, aren't making any anti-democratic or pro-authoritarian points. Just as Trump wasn't making any points when he praised how much North Korean people respect Kim Jon-un, or when conservative old people (and young racists that weren't even born back then) here in Spain praise our own, thankfully long gone dictatorship. You're all "just saying".
You are literally the only person here making those connections. Seriously, this is a pretty normal observation that most mainstream historians will have zero problems with. And you know, regardless of the nomenclature that you want to insist on using, being hostile to the very idea that you can discuss a non-democracy in anything but the harshest terms will make it very hard to understand the history of places like South Korea or Taiwan, and again, I don't think it's the moral stance you think it is.
I don't know in what ways can I swear to you that I'm not trying to trick you into a mind-trap that will force you to support despotism or whatever.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,908
Madrid
You are literally the only person here making those connections.
I'm going to go with "OK dude" again:
It's an effective tool for certain time, place, and situations if applied sparingly, wisely and in balance.

See:

As with all systems with people, they can be abused and corrupted. Even democracy is not immune to it.

Having a culture of virtuous leaders and institutions to make virtuous leaders help greatly ensures against the bad. Downside is stagnation.
I'm pretty done with your "if you don't think dictatorships are so hot, you're just historically ignorant" ad-hominem routine, especially after you literally ignored my point that your shining example of benevolent dictatorship was actually instated by a democracy, so I'm going to just put you on ignore and move on. Good day.
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,633
Seattle, WA
That's precisely one example of autocracy resulting in a functional, progressive government versus the endless ocean of nightmare scenarios it has generated over history and today. It has precisely zero to do with the merits of autocracy, and everything to do with the person appointed actually caring about the people he was governing, which in turn is a product of the political apparatus of the UK being a democratic one.
Throughout history? The period of the 5 emperor's were great for it's citizens. The Tang and Song dystanties were some of the most liberal ancient civilizations. British Empire during its hey-day, the King had limited monarchy and had powers.

Obviously they can't be compared to the liberalism of today...

As for modern autocracies that were functional and progressive, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, German Empire. China is functional and has progress, but the definition of that progress might not line up with Western ideals.

Personally the only aspect of autocracy that I found to be a plus is the head of state is not directly elected via plurality nor representative means.

The biggest plus for democracies is that they don't go to war with each other.

Liberal democracies work for some cultures, population size, level of development, racial diversity etc. It's not a one size fits all glove. It's clearly not working in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not working out for the USA these days.
 
Last edited:

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,466
I'm going to go with "OK dude" again:


I'm pretty done with your "if you don't think dictatorships are so hot, you're just historically ignorant" ad-hominem routine, especially after you literally ignored my point that your shining example of benevolent dictatorship was actually instated by a democracy, so I'm going to just put you on ignore and move on. Good day.
If the position you're staking is that democacy is the only form of government where leaders has in the past exhibited good decision making then you're just wrong.
If it's something else then I really don't get it.

And please, stop assuming that people who disagree with you on that historical factual question must be dictatorship stans or whatever.
 

hanshen

Member
Jun 24, 2018
974
Chicago, IL
You can't have a functioning democracy without the rule of law. lack of the rule of law is a big obstacle to democracy in China. It doesn't help that the government has been jailing lawyers and legal scholars for years.