China wouldn't just say "ok you can keep it". Could have started world war 3 depending on how it went.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Massive Chinese Armored Police Convoy Mobilizing Towards Hong Kong, Beijing Based Military Expert Says It's Only For Drills
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
the bootlickers of the 21st century aren't going to use censorship tactics
rather, they're going to use mass surveillance and the availability heuristic to always argue "both sides" and encourage inaction in the face of oppression while those in power continue to tighten the noose
attempting to suppress information only leads to the streissand effect - but flooding the internet and other avenues of communication with misinformation is only going to become easier and easier
rather, they're going to use mass surveillance and the availability heuristic to always argue "both sides" and encourage inaction in the face of oppression while those in power continue to tighten the noose
attempting to suppress information only leads to the streissand effect - but flooding the internet and other avenues of communication with misinformation is only going to become easier and easier
If you think hold the view countries are interchangeable, then you should maybe think that the same model governance wont work across a spectrum of development, cultures, population size, etc.
We're already seeing the disadvantage of multi-party representative democracies in a country as large and diverse as USA, despite it being a developed nation without the need to lift it's people out of poverty.
A lot of China's progress was only possible under an authoritarian govt. Authoritarian govts can get things done in a short amount of time, since they can pretty much do whatever they want ( Even If theyre bad things).
Pretty sure that most of India's problems wouldn't magically be solved if they had the Chinese system in the past though. It'd be amazing if the world was that simple
There is no basis on which to believe that the success of China is predicated on the government being totalitarian. While I actually agree with the point that you're making about the Chinese people not seeing the Chinese government as evil incarnate due in no small part to the fact that two decades ago the country's population was quite poor and now it very simply isn't, your assertion that the country's success is due to the antidemocratic government is unsupported. For one thing, there are massive differences between India and China that make it impossible to simply say that one country represents the route of democracy and the other the route of authoritarianism.
Your link is 80% bullshit and 20% truths reported in such a misleading way that it might as well be bullshit. Follow the paper trail on that link and it will become apparent to you that it is hardly the work of objective journalists in search of the truth.
It'd be exhausting and pointless for me to debunk such a large quantity of bullshit. I think it sufficient to say that the characterization of the protesters as nonviolent and of the police as instigators is mostly, if not entirely, true, and if you start getting your information from credible sources you will see that to be the case. Indeed, a lot of what is posted in that document - such as the outlandish claim that a "protester" fired a grenade launcher into a crowd and then ran into a pack of journalists to avoid retribution (yes that is really a thing that the pro-Chinese government camp claims happened) - is disproved by primary sources linked within that very same document.
The border of Hong Kong is that white line right below Futian, so yeah at the border is pretty accurate. Plus 25km from the city is hardly far.
it takes far more effort to refute contextless bullshit like that than it does to spread it
and that's what authoritarians are counting on
i honestly have no clue on how to deal with this rising threat of misinformation
Last edited:
Scum cheerleading oppression.
"The border of Hong Kong" is not a bad description. The Shenzhen Bay Sports Centre is right next to the border (about 5 miles away).
If we take the nations that have developed very fast in a short span recently.
We have:
South Korea: Authoritarian
Taiwan: Authoritarian
Japan: Authoritarian (meiji government)
China: Authoritarian
Singapore: semi-authoritarian because of dominant party.
As for democratic countries?
Can't really think of any examples. The democratic and developed western nations didn't have to play catchup.
I think it'll be harder for third world countries in the future to catch up, unless another technological leap happens ala the industrial / digital revolution.
Yeah i know. But some people are acting like they're sitting outside of tsz w
Yeah i know. But some people are acting like they're sitting outside of tsz wan shan instead if a completely different city. I feel like when China is preparing to do something they'll move way closer to downtown"The border of Hong Kong" is not a bad description.
Shenzhen is on the border of Hong Kong. Ask anyone who lives in Hong Kong or has spent any decent amount of time there what's on the other side of the border, and they'll tell you Shenzhen. Everything south of Shenzhen in that map is Hong Kong; what you are seeing is the relatively sparsely populated areas of the New Territories.
Yeah i know. But some people are acting like they're sitting outside of tsz wan shan instead if a completely different city. I feel like when China is preparing to do something they'll move way closer to downtown. It sounds scarier than it is (for now)
Perhaps, but there are many, many people in HK and Taiwan that are willing to put their lives on the line to keep that government on a relative leash
In the case of HK, mainland has all the leashes. They depend on mainland for food and water.
pick your poison.
The conflict right now is between people who want to choose totalitarianism for the production buff and people who want liberal democracy for the cultural and happiness bonus.
I still don't get why mainland China cares so much about eating Hong Kong and Macau. It's not like mainland China randomly gets more economic benefits when the 1 country 2 systems ends. It'd probably get even less in Hong Kong's case by scaring companies away.pick your poison.
Just let them pick whatever govt lol
There are lots of reasons why you would see most of the governments making significant progress between the 50s and the 90s being authoritarian that have nothing to do with some sort of advantage to authoritarian governance. The most obvious of these is that all of the places on that list except for China and Japan (although Japan is not an example in your favor since much of their development happened postwar under an arguably very free system) had their authoritarian regimes propped up by western powers for geopolitical reasons. There's also something to be said about the implausibility of a "poor but democratic" country where rights are respected despite a lack of financial resources that has the effect of predisposing poorer nations into self-selecting for authoritarian regimes.
Again, in the absence of actual evidence that authoritarianism facilitates growth and expedites the process of becoming a developed nation, this is all just correlation without causation.
Okay, but the significant event would be them crossing the Hong Kong border, not them crossing into Kowloon.
Could it be industrialization and globalization? No, it must be the authoritarianism. Handwaving away that most of the population in many western countries were dirt poor before industrialization doesn't really help your argument.
Taiwan and SK haven't been authoritarian since the 80's I think....they have mostly free elections there now.
Yeah of course. I was just saying it for people who thought they were like down the street or something from where the protests are mostly going on. They're not gonna be able to surprise attack the protests if they decide to do something
Can't have someone stealing your closest city state, that's how you get Germans or Zulu at your door.
They were also far more authoritarian than they are today. The exception between US, but then again, US has too much geographical benefits to fuck up. Not mention it's far easier to move up the value chain two hundred years ago.
Yep.
The West also used authoritarianism to industrialize, they just had the advantage of using it on colonial holdings and less on their imperial centres.
Yeah, I would guess they fear a cascading effect. China made a great effort to wash Tiananmen Square from their history but I don't think that will work again if they go in with force and start killing people. However, given the size and scope of these protests, and the fact that they don't seem to be relenting, I am not sure how long China will tolerate it. At this point, I don't see the protesters just giving up peacefully.
Imagine what they would do to those poor protesters if China didn't care about how the world would react.
Yes, like all the imperialism that West Germany and Austria engaged in during the Wirtschaftswunder. You got me.
Yeah you can imagine how much more difficult things would be for China wrt Taiwan and Western Uyghurs if they let Hong Kong and Macau off the chain.
The one country two systems is the closest to a compromise you'll get.
Let's not mix democracy with imperialism, shall we? The British don't get a saying in this
Yeah it's really bad situation all around. No one can really afford to back down much
I would argue that despite the destruction of WWII, Germany was an already developed country with many of the education centers, institutions, industry, talents etc retained for the recovery. Same for Japan.
Last edited:
Germany was already a heavily industrialised nation (and a fair amount of that was achieved in the 19th and 20th century through authoritarianism and colonial exploitation), and although it was devastated during the Second World War, it was absolutely brought back on its feet by massive resources poured in externally.
I am not sure Xi Jinping sees it that way. I can imagine he sees the two system compromise as a long term threat to the system of government he built. I bet the last thing he wants is for democratic ideals to spread onto the mainland (remember, his party killed a bunch of people over it in 1989).
Yes, with the small detail that the entire industrial capacity and capital reserves of the country were basically blown up in a little thing called World War 2. You can slice it a million ways, but the underlying point is that you made a lazy, dangerous, unfounded assertion that only authoritarianism can bring about economic progress in complex societies, and it's simply not true. And it's manifestly not an argument you would be making if we were in 1985 (with 30+ years of CCP rule on the board). The economic expansion of China has everything to do with their involvement in global trade following reforms and trade deals in the 90s
I think that's correct. I don't think they're rolling that deal out anew for anybody else, and if Xi could go back to 1997 he wouldn't have made even as generous a deal as they did.
I would agree that authoritarianism isn't the only way to spur industrialisation, but honestly for a lot of the countries we're talking about it was probably the only viable path to rapidly develop like they did. That's not a moral approval of it.
Especially how many rural villages are adopting democratic systems to promote self management, doubt being soft on Democracy at the scale of Hong Kong would bode well for the future strength of CCP rule. Also, foreign exchange programs for students will definitely complicate this down the road.
Deng designed One Country Two System. Deng also gave the order in 1989. I don't see the party ready to roll back any decision Deng has made, as they are basically the foundation of the political landscape in China now.