Hong-Kong Protests


Junior Member
Registered Member
If you're having a conversation with someone, it's best to be serious if you're alleging they have said or done X or Y.
Humorless robot, got it.

You're not very good at reading what people write, are you? I never said the US police force was overall "good" or that the video showed there's no racism in US police enforcement.

The point was that it would have been nice to see a similar act in Hong Kong, a senior officer showing solidarity with protesters or otherwise that he/she really understood them. But there hasn't been that sort of situation, and the only public statements have been pretty nasty or negative. It doesn't mean the Hong Kong police are all bad, there are no doubt junior staff who have resigned or shown compassion at times. But the senior leadership haven't handled things well and given protesters a reason to think they're being fair, other than they haven't shot all of them.
And my point is that one Sheriff in whatever town doesn’t count for anything outside that town. Especially true when the president of the entire country is actually promising a military crackdown. You want HKPF chief to be calm and understanding, but most of the damage (at PolyU, for example) was after the bill was withdrawn. All the pleas were being for calm (by the government) were being ignored and leaders said they will not repudiate the violence. In the US, many of the leading voices do not condone the violence.

I don't agree. The protesters have probably been encouraged by people around the world on social media, but no democratic government has directly intervened to make the protests larger or last longer. Pretty much any government I can think of would like the protests to end, because they're bad for business.

Also whenever I hear "external forces" I can't take it seriously. There are no names, no organisations, nothing. It's like saying "someone is doing something in the shadows, but I won't name them so you can't prove I'm wrong".
You have seen this trade war in the news I'm assuming. Trump has no issue with pursuing a Pyrrhic victory, rather than actual win-win negotiations. Also, and I'm assuming you are talking about US to HK specifically, but certainly there has been a lot of history of open and covert intervention (Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc., etc.). Of course there is the famous other side, US accusations of Russian electoral interference.

I understand the trepidation from accepting the external forces hypothesis. However, it's logical deduction, I will give names too (as much as I could find). Here is a simple summary of some of them.

"FreedomHKG", a website no longer in service. Put up the money for the full page NYT ads around the world (total cost, >$100,000 USD, according to their crowdfunding page $250,000 USD). Allegedly earned through crowdfunding. However, the timeline and speed at which it was executed (ads published within 1 day of crowdfunding page being put up), would exceed money laundering protections and editorial review periods.

FLG was able to pay facebook millions for ads to promote Trump's hardline stance against China. FLG also has a worldwide media apparatus (New Tang Dynasty, Epoch Times), entertainment division (Shen Yun orchestra and acrobatic troupe). There is no way a cult would have the organizational chops to support so much on its own so quickly, and also raise funding for so much.

Martin Lee and Joshua Wong are also on the record as accepting money from NED. If you don't think NED is a tool of American foreign policy, then there's nothing I can do to prove that.

No, I think the international media would be saying that Beijing was starting to listen and that this might signal a peaceful resolution to the protests.
Agree to disagree.

The oath taking was a big deal because it led to legislators being kicked out just on that point. Up until Beijing intervened it had been possible for at least some of the legislators to retake it. It was a completely unnecessary intervention and just made the CCP look petty by demanding absolute loyalty with no critical thinking or tolerance.
When you say things like "People's F*cking Republic of Shin-na", and put up banners, there's no going back. Let's be real here. Not to mention, most people were in HK were disgusted by their ignorance of the occupation and atrocities committed by Japan (and general histrionics).

As for the Chief Executive, if she's been unable to resolve a situation where there have been protests for a whole year, yes I think Beijing should have demanded her resignation. Alternatively, in a parallel universe where Beijing fully respects Hong Kong's autonomy and has never said a word about the city's politics, it could have said the central government no longer had any faith in her and that she should consider her position.
To you (and probably even many of the pro-CCP people here), sure it makes sense. As I said before, for the central government they were in a lose-lose situation. Perhaps they can blame themselves as you suggested (i.e. should have pushed their faction to enact better social policies), but that's the position they were in last year.

You forgot rule of law. That was key. There was stability in mainland China after Mao died but no rule of law. Plus people did seek asylum in Hong Kong on the basis of CCP repression.
After Mao died! That was almost in the 80's! Even after Mao died, Deng Xiaoping was not able to consolidate his power until probably a decade later. HK was already picking economically by then. Of course people were trying to escape CCP repression, landowners, academics, for example, but these people are a tiny minority.

Oh please. If there really was "foreign influence" the protesters would be told to not fly any international flags. It's just a demonstration of how the students feel themselves to be more international than PRC Chinese.
To a certain a extent, but why do they feel this way? See above.

That doesn't really address my point that your attitude has disrespected the good faith negotiations of previous Chinese leaders.
That's your opinion. I don't think I did.

You're using a lot of exclamation marks and unnecessary capital letters for someone who is calm.

First, none of that has any relation to how a person reacts to the protests in Hong Kong.
Are you Chinese? Are you from HK? You don't think it has any relation? You think that rioters fighting at the bottom of a flat where your family lives, beating up people from the region of China that your family is from is okay? Maybe you would reconsider your position if so.

I could crack some serious heads if I was not calm.

Second, people of all nationalities are criticised on the internet every day, it's not new. Do you not think there are forums and social media pages where an American could spend all day seeing posts about how they're evil and support Trump, even if they suffer because of his policies?

If you personally are criticised on another forum or social media, do you think that it's because you're offering a nuanced view of the situation or because you're using a lot of exclamation marks, caps and talking about foreign interference, therefore looking like an irrational, ultra-nationalist even if that's not who you are?
Call me what you like. I was giving you an idea of why I do not support these so-called protestors, and also why the media commentary is so infuriating (to myself and many others). You're right, the internet is filled with this crap on any side, but we are talking about HK here and this criticism does influence the debate.

Also, would you not accept that there probably are a lot of people out there who either a) only ever support the CCP in an angry fashion so make a bad name for Chinese citizens or ethnic Han people, b) are incapable of showing nuance so it makes it seem like they blindly follow the CCP?

Personally I'm always interested in nuance and people's views. Which of the CCP's policies (not necessarily on Hong Kong) are you opposed to?
As I mentioned, why wouldn't they be angry? I have never heard of anyone waving an Irish flag (in North America, at least) being accused of "divided loyalty". Maybe in the UK it would.

Sure, I can agree that angry yelling CCP supporters make Chinese people look bad, just as gun-toting, flag-waving, red MAGA hat wearers make Americans look bad. However, that is their prerogative. I can't control what they do.

You want a position, so I will tell you. CCP is the government of the day. They do good things, they do bad. Not any different from any other government since the beginning of time. Since I look at things more pragmatically, I say they have done a good job overall. Being able to read and eat are probably some of the most basic human rights. You can't learn what this means from a book. I don't think most non-Chinese have a good grasp of this. I also don't think the HK rioters understand this either.

Third, if you just want to vent, consider doing it in private on a closed forum or Whatsapp group where people won't see what you've written and challenged it. Doing it on an international/English-language forum it inviting comment.
I invite debate, why not? I can defend my position all day, all night.

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
That's not correct. It was extended beforehand. The new cluster had not arisen at that time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(19 May 2020)

"Hongkongers can finally take part in bigger religious gatherings but might not be able to join the annual June 4 vigil for the first time in 30 years, after the government renewed social-distancing measures to combat Covid-19.

But the city’s health minister rejected accusations that extending the restriction on gatherings of more than eight people, which expires on June 4, was a political decision that in effect banned the Victoria Park candlelight vigil commemorating the Tiananmen Square crackdown, saying public health was the only concern."

Also, you claimed it was a discreet banning of the vigil.

"HK government disallowed just the Tiananmen protest and not others, a very specific action, even more narrow than a curfew."

So which is it, is the vigil deliberately being banned or is it an "unfrotunate" consequence of public health control? It can't be both.

I'm sorry to say, but I'm much more up to date on HK facts than you are, given you thought public gatherings were only banned yesterday.

Until the HK police arrive and say it's an "unlawful assembly", sure. However, I'd like to think that at least this time they won't be heavy-handed and just let people hold candles without getting their truncheons out or pepper-spraying them.

Given I've not said whether the curfews in the US are acceptable or not, you can't accuse me of having a double-standard. This is a thread about the Hong Kong protests, not global police enforcement.
Here is the timeline and fact. The woman that started the new cluster was confirmed on Sunday, June 31. She show symptoms before that and contact tracing identified many of those who had come into contact with her. But it set off alarm as the authority was not able to find out how she got infected and the large number of contacts she made since her symptom appeared. Of those tested, 6 more was confirmed by Tuesday. But the authority already know the potential seriousness of the problem by Sunday.

The Tiananman vigil permit was denied on Monday, June 1, after authority became aware of a possible major (by Asian standard) cluster is emerging.

The use of 8-people limitation is just a legal convenience, just like Trump wanting to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to "dominate" the protest.

As for your comment " Until the HK police arrive and say it's an "unlawful assembly", sure. " , all I can say is that if alternate or partial facts don't work, just create "future facts".

My point on curfew is that what Hong Kong police are doing is much less intrusive and restrictive than what the US is doing. I personally has no problem with curfew and even believe it is a necessary tool for the authority to prevent violence. It is you who chose to defend curfew but say Hong Kong police is wrong in using a less restrictive mean to prevent violence. That is a double standard.


Registered Member
I live in Hong Kong. I have seen the HK protesters make all kinds of ridiculous claims about police brutality. I have seen the US support these violent protesters' lies.

But as our friend here pointed out in another thread, "In just the span of a week, American security forces have wracked up a higher body count than the HK police have in over a year". Please make memes, jokes, and videos about this and store them. Mock these hypocrites whenever they dare stand on another soapbox and try to give anyone in the world a lecture about the superiority of their system. Please mock the HK protesters using these whenever they look towards the West.

Thank you,

A Hong Kong Resident.
Saw this over at reddit.



Guys, just ignore Mr Troll. It’s beyond clear by now that he has no interest other than to bash whatever China does while celebrating whatever the US/US puppet west does. Zero point in trying to reason with such a steadfastly closed mind, you are just wasting your time.


Junior Member
Registered Member
No China is not going to actively fuel and escalate the violence, we are not American CIA/NED.
Maybe that needs to change. We should be better at it than CIA/NED and without any ideological illusions, destabilization purely for the sake of destabilization.


Maybe that needs to change. We should be better at it than CIA/NED and without any ideological illusions, destabilization purely for the sake of destabilization.
Like that’s worked out so wonderful for the US over the decades?

Not only have their meddling created countless deaths and untold misery around the world, it blew back on US interests and even struck US soil with massive loss of life and completely derailed US policy for nearly 3 decades and counting.

Who would have thought that manipulating people into trashing their own homeland and then washing your hands of them once they have accomplished your short term and limited scope goals of burning everything to the ground tend to create battle hardened violent extremists with nothing left to loose, and who now see through your earlier lies and manipulation and thus hates you more than anyone else on earth?

This is a clear example of play stupid games win stupid prizes, and China is wise to avoid it.

Besides, why does China need to get involved when the US is doing such an effective job of destabilising itself already?

From a purely practical standpoint, any Chinese intervention to try to actively fan the flames would be exponentially more likely to backfire and discredit the protest movement and causing Americans to unite together against a common external foe - why else do you think American officials and media are trying to link the protests to China already?


Maybe that needs to change. We should be better at it than CIA/NED and without any ideological illusions, destabilization purely for the sake of destabilization.
No we really shouldn't. History has shown us that doing so inevitably results in disaster down the line.

Just a few examples:
- American support of Taliban resulting in 9/11
- Soviet support of the North Korean invasion of South Korea, resulting first in a Soviet/China split, then leading to a US/China rapprochement, and finally resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union
- Qing dynasty support of the Boxer Rebellion, resulting in the Eight Nations Alliance and the sacking of Beijing
- Song dynasty support of the Mongols against their archenemy Jin, resulting in an adversary far more dangerous than the Jin ever was


Junior Member
Registered Member
This is a clear example of play stupid games win stupid prizes, and China is wise to avoid it.
No we really shouldn't. History has shown us that doing so inevitably results in disaster down the line.
Interesting. I thought that the Chinese policy of non-interference in foreign affairs was just an expediency China employed during a critical period of its rise, clearly it has much deeper ideological and cultural roots than that. I give both your opinions their due consideration, so when you both agree on something I don't then I should at least re-examine my position. Since as a practical matter China doesn't have much ingress into America - it can't even appeal to segments of American society like Russia can appeal to fellow white Christians - this issue of the role of outreach and mobilization of foreign populations in Chinese foreign policy isn't really a hill I want to die on at the present time, but I will definitely give this matter more thought.


The US is butt-hurting with hypocrisy especially in the media. Today I'm reading more articles outraged that China dared to dish back what the US serves. They're hypocrites because they never cared to care about such things except in the most superficial manner. Like with Coronavirus all the way months after the first case arrived in the US, they blindly believed in reports before that the US was number one in the world in handling outbreaks. It breeds a lazy complacency that, "I don't have to do anything. Someone else will handle it." mentality. Same when it comes to racism. And then when it happens, they're surprised. That's because they didn't do anything in the first place. They're upset at China "taking advantage" as they charge and China has no place to talk. Like how the people who had African slaves and occupied African soil think they can comment on Chinese racism that's only for diverting attention from their racism in the first place? And when it comes to veiled racism, when they were reporting on attacks on Asians because of coronavirus, funny how the only videos they showed were black people attacking Asians.

The US didn't like how China was aiding countries because of coronavirus while they were not that there was a campaign to change that narrative from ignoring it completely that it happened at all to then charge China was hoarding medical supplies from the world to even claiming racism against Africans in China to sour China's aid efforts to which they're using that China has no place to talk. But then Ahmed Aubrey came up to ruin their narrative. When that story started to die down, the US resumed the same accusations of racism against China. And then Central Park Karen showed up and if you didn't think that was enough, the police murder of George Floyd on top of it. It was like God was at work punishing evil hypocrites... Now like the snowflakes of fake moral superiority, they're upset at China because it's serving a huge dish of racist crow to the US plagued with denial sprinkled on top. The reason why they're stunned, shocked, and paralyzed when these things happen to them is because it's the violent snapping back called reality hitting them. They believed they were the champion of human rights and least racist in the world not because they can show it but simply because they say it. George Floyd exposes it was just words. In words and no proof they also think China had to have enslaved Africans and occupied African soil more so they can feel comfortable being a hypocrite at accusing China of racism. Like I've said before in this forum, their only understanding of someone else's culture is it's the same as theirs except you either do it more or you do it less, which ever is worse. More lazy thinking especially when they hate other cultures so much but they see the difference in a matter of only degrees.

They know they can't attack the African-American community directly because the world saw the blatant execution murder of a unarmed black man by US police so they're trying to spin how China was behind the riots to quell the anger that they're haplessly in league with their racist antagonist so stop and ignore what happened to George Floyd. Don't believe the liberals either. You hear the term "white silence is violence." It's come up because of George Floyd but it's been around longer because it's been ignored. Some people are confused on what that means. It's means only white people can stop white racism. It's true because when are racists going to listen to someone black? It's only peer-pressure that will turn them. Look at the playbook they use against Asians. They always bring up the loyalty card to Asian-Americans because they don't trust Asians at all and it's up to Asians to pressure other Asians to do everything Americans want because if they overtly did it, they would look racist and get resistance. White liberals are guilty too. When you see conflict within minorities in the US, you don't see liberals employing conflict resolution in the name of peaceful co-existence. They pick a side... always. They want minorities going at each other because it takes the onus off on them. "White silence is violence" is more about liberals. The ones they say they aren't racist are the ones that message is for because a racist certainly isn't going to listen to it. They think voicing their support and even joining in protests and even rioting shows their commitment. No, that's the easy part. And because things like Ahmed Aubrey and George Floyd happen, it shows they failed at their duty. Central Park Karen was a liberal Obama supporter... They want to make everything black and white, literally and figuratively, because it makes it easier to control the narrative. "I'm the good and if you don't follow me blindly, it must because you're the evil. "Central Park Karen shouldn't even exist but she does and people are shocked because they rather be lazy and not have to think or do anything too hard.

Some have criticized me for being too harsh on Hong Kongers. Hong Kongers are lazy. They think if they can separate themselves from their Chinese heritage by creating a new identity and setting fire to their old one not caring how negatively it affects anyone that's just Chinese, you think someone like me who isn't from Hong Kong or the Mainland is going to care that I'm too harsh? According to Hong Kongers, I'm guilty just for being Chinese? Who's the one that's harsh? Forgive me for not being a fool like you where you seek love from people that hate you because your physical features are different. You're the one in denial that it's that simple why they hate you. You can't change that no matter how much plastic surgery you have. That's unnatural. You're defective. You maybe dumb enough to think you're different but your masters will never see you any different. Hong Kongers know and I know it that you're appealing to the racism in the US where you even confirm the US is racist hence why you do what you do. Hong Kongers can't handle the hatred of their masters at anyone being Chinese so the easiest way out for them is to create their own Identity and hate all Chinese in hopes that their racist masters can now love them. Not surprising how lazy you are because your masters are lazy too hence why they're surprised at the riots going on in the US. They think their lazy actions were real.
Last edited: