(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
having been in the homes of a few rich hongkongese i can say that they deserve every crazy hell they have imagined is coming to them for the way they treat their filipina slaves if for nothing else. mr xi tear down this wall
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
Agreed, I hope the 99% die for the crimes of the 1%
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
tino posted:Thirdly, most importantly. HKers need to step back and realize how small of a legal change it is compare to the number of HKers who participated in the protest. These legal change only affect 1% HKers who do business in mainland. If you are a middle-class professional who doesn't do any business w mainland, why does this concern you? This is equivalent of 3 million New Yorkers going to the street multiple times to protest against the purposed legal changes with multinational companies in the TPP. No, the bill is just an excuse. For the bulk of the *older protesters*, the motivation is ANTI INTEGRATION. you either are a subject, or you're not. if HK is supposed to stand on the same level as beijing in terms of internal sovereignty (you know, the whole "two countries, one system" thingy), then HK legal system cannot be subservient to beijing. new york doesn't have any kind of independence from the US, new york is completely subservient to the central hierarchy. the bill is indeed an excuse and for both sides here. beijing desires a HK that is subject to beijing and that requires beijing to prove that it holds power over HK by forcing through a law in HK despite opposition. whether beijing is going to use that law for prosecuting rogue princelings or HK dissidents (or both) is inconsequential, the point of contention is whether beijing is sovereign over HK. you cant both admit that HK has (the right to) internal sovereignty and argue that beijing has the right to impose laws on HK. it's an either-or proposition mate iceaim posted:Absolutely nobody in HK or any where else outside of the PRC gives a gently caress about your fugitive corrupt tycoons and officials. Sort your poo poo out and build a credible legal system if you want other jurisdictions to extradite fugitives to the PRC because what you have is a joke and your completely feeble attempts to white wash this poo poo by saying "oh if a princeling hosed them over then they had it coming" is not a legitimate excuse to degrade our legal system. As others have mentioned your critical thinking is total crap and you really have no idea what rule of law means nor any concept of a fair trial. if you want beijing to compromise and admit that hong kong has internal sovereignty, you're going to need to admit that beijing has legitimate interests in how HK rules itself, and prove that your political decision process can take those interests into account when making decisions concerning beijing. and escalating protests isn't the way to do that, in fact escalating protests is going to convince beijing more and more that they simply cannot afford real HK sovereignty if beijing wants their interests ever taken into account when it'll come to something that actually matters
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
Alright alright, let me tweet at Joshua Wong to call off the protests so Beijing can enact their sovereignty over Hong Kong
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
thanks, i m high and dont have a twatter
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:you either are a subject, or you're not. if HK is supposed to stand on the same level as beijing in terms of internal sovereignty (you know, the whole "two countries, one system" thingy), then HK legal system cannot be subservient to beijing. new york doesn't have any kind of independence from the US, new york is completely subservient to the central hierarchy. the bill is indeed an excuse and for both sides here. beijing desires a HK that is subject to beijing and that requires beijing to prove that it holds power over HK by forcing through a law in HK despite opposition. whether beijing is going to use that law for prosecuting rogue princelings or HK dissidents (or both) is inconsequential, the point of contention is whether beijing is sovereign over HK. The United States is a federation not a unitary state. So no the state of New York is not subservient to the United States. Each US state has its own sovereignty which it shares with the federal government. Kurnugia posted:
This whole "internal sovereignty" poo poo which is actually called "autonomy" was settled in the 1980s with a legally binding international treaty called the Sino-British Joint Declaration. This was codified into Hong Kong's mini constitution called the Basic Law. I'm high too, but there's no excuse to completely misunderstand how a federation works with regards to the US. Anyway it is not relevant to China because it is a unitary state, but in the past it kind of acted like a de facto federation. tino posted:One thing HKers fail to remember is that "50 years unchanged" was a promised from Deng. Deng was never officially the head of state in any time of his life. However he was a big mean who shaped the direction of the country for at least 4 decades. Jiang and Hu were Deng followers and they were never powerful enough to walk out of Deng's shadow and plans. However Xi is capable of make the change if he choose. Bottom line "50 years unchanged" was a Deng promise and he was but one of the 3 big men in the PRC history. Deng was willing to do "an experiment" on HK. He actually did many experiments including the special economic zone in SZ, and a few more cities (those cities didn't work so well and nobody talks about them). You can not uphold the plans made by the previous dead leaders for forever, this is not what's best for the state. The later emperors who tried to honor Holy poo poo Tino you are dumb. "50 years unchanged" is written into the Basic Law of Hong Kong (article 5 of the Basic Law) and into international law via the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's not just a dead man's verbal agreement. iceaim has issued a correction as of 13:48 on Aug 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-19/hong-kong-billionaires-tire-of-protests-as-they-lose-money/11426568?pfmredir=sm Please somebody think of the billionaires
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
tino posted:That had to be intentional. Lambo owning Chinese (of either side) are not that dumb. lol theyre most likely rich kids and are exceptionally dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
Stocking posted:having been in the homes of a few rich hongkongese i can say that they deserve every crazy hell they have imagined is coming to them for the way they treat their filipina slaves if for nothing else. mr xi tear down this wall lol if you think the CCP will go after them instead of the kids actually protesting and stiring up trouble
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-19/hong-kong-billionaires-tire-of-protests-as-they-lose-money/11426568?pfmredir=sm Based on that photo, Li Ka-shing is personally disappointed in you for not being more harmonious. You, dear reader. YOU. Also, Buggle Lau is a hell of a name even by Hong Kong English name standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:you either are a subject, or you're not. if HK is supposed to stand on the same level as beijing in terms of internal sovereignty (you know, the whole "two countries, one system" thingy), then HK legal system cannot be subservient to beijing. new york doesn't have any kind of independence from the US, new york is completely subservient to the central hierarchy. the bill is indeed an excuse and for both sides here. beijing desires a HK that is subject to beijing and that requires beijing to prove that it holds power over HK by forcing through a law in HK despite opposition. whether beijing is going to use that law for prosecuting rogue princelings or HK dissidents (or both) is inconsequential, the point of contention is whether beijing is sovereign over HK. I think this is a good angle to take, these protests are the manifestation of struggle regarding the boundaries of HK vs. mainland Chinese sovereignty over HK and any expectation that either side should just be reasonable and go home is itself not reasonable. But we must remember that there is no actual social contract, so rights are pointless to debate in the abstract. They rise out of struggles, and not between legal entities but between the masses of people uniting around them. In effect, might does make right, and in times of change when right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right, it indirectly reflects a similar transformation between force relations between the material forces behind the ideas (the old elite gives in because for whatever reason they believe it'll end worse for them if they don't). The only reason why what is intuitively right ever becomes actually right is because people are the fundamental source of force and shared human motivations drive and unite them. The masses of HK don't desire to expand the extent of sovereignty for HK as such but for themselves, so their participation is deeply tied to the demand for universal suffrage, which they clearly hope would function to raise up a counter-elite that would work in their favor at least comparatively speaking. Basically whoever is least afraid of introducing some honest mass politics gets the support of the masses. Overwhelming consent for this extradition thing itself would have been easy to get if China had demonstrated enough long term good will toward them. Unfortunately universal suffrage under the liberal-democratic HK counter-elite is the best offer they've got, so as is, threats against the counter-elite are threats against them. At least this is my best guess on why so many people rallied to defend this threatened dissident counter-elite at their personal risk even though the change that sparked the protests indeed is a bourgeois demand that on paper shouldn't be a concern to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
iceaim posted:The United States is a federation not a unitary state. So no the state of New York is not subservient to the United States. Each US state has its own sovereignty which it shares with the federal government. well if you say so, my understanding is just that US states simply cannot decide to contradict the central government on anything and are therefore subservient. you can call it whatever you want, granting the gov authority, agreeing to "transfer" sovereignty to the gov, etc. but the fact is that whatever sovereignty US states had and gave up, it's not in their power to reclaim also i used "internal sovereignty" to distinguish it from the kind of autonomy that india recently decided to revoke in kashmir. im sure that beijing will grant hon koing some level of autonomy regardless of what happens now, but it is going to be whatever level of autonomy beijing decides to grant, withold or later revoke. which'll mean that HK will be subservient to beijing, regardless of what autonomous powers you'll later be granted
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
I've read this whole thread and still don't understand why HK feels they deserve some alternate system of government from the rest of China. If New York City wanted its autonomy I wouldn't be in favor of it so why should I be in favor of HK getting it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
The HK protest is about states' rights
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
the USA literally had a civil war about slavery and whether state rights can contradict and supercede federal authority, and the answer was a resounding no
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
im not actually sure what the hong kong protests are about at all and clicked on this thread hoping for less legalistic answers i really very seriously doubt its about the extradition bill because as far i can tell that got killed several weeks ago and it sounded more like an excuse to start protesting than something that was all that terrible on its own kind of like how the yellow vest protests in france have really broad grievances but good luck getting anyone in english media to acknowledge any of them besides the original gas tax
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Optimus Subprime posted:the USA literally had a civil war about i thought it was p widely accepted that abolishing slavery was an (extremely correct) excuse to resolve that question, and that very few (but powerful) people actually gave a poo poo about slavery. which obviously doesn't make fighting a war over slavery a bad thing to do and so on Some Guy TT posted:im not actually sure what the hong kong protests are about at all and clicked on this thread hoping for less legalistic answers
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:I've read this whole thread and still don't understand why HK feels they deserve some alternate system of government from the rest of China. If New York City wanted its autonomy I wouldn't be in favor of it so why should I be in favor of HK getting it? because China signed an international agreement saying HK would be autonomous? your analogy would hold if there was some sort of treaty between the Netherlands and the US regarding the status of New York but the US wouldn’t exist for what a century after that so
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:i thought it was p widely accepted that abolishing slavery was an (extremely correct) excuse to resolve that question, and that very few (but powerful) people actually gave a poo poo about slavery. which obviously doesn't make fighting a war over slavery a bad thing to do and so on no, there has been a propaganda campaign more or less from reconstruction onwards to white wash the causes of the civil war (in the form of lost cause revisionism and antebellum nostalgia). the American civil war was about slavery and the rights of states to allow for slavery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
I am glad other posters have come around to see the fact that fighting the bill was an excuse. It was never really about the extradition bill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
the chad carl zha https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1163445894999490560?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:The HK protest is about states' rights who will be the Chinese Lincoln?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
iceaim posted:Absolutely nobody in HK or any where else outside of the PRC gives a gently caress about your fugitive corrupt tycoons and officials. Sort your poo poo out and build a credible legal system if you want other jurisdictions to extradite fugitives to the PRC because what you have is a joke and your completely feeble attempts to white wash this poo poo by saying "oh if a princeling hosed them over then they had it coming" is not a legitimate excuse to degrade our legal system. As others have mentioned your critical thinking is total crap and you really have no idea what rule of law means nor any concept of a fair trial. other jurisdictions DO extradite fugitives to the prc. france, spain, switzerland and italy, among others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:well if you say so, my understanding is just that US states simply cannot decide to contradict the central government on anything and are therefore subservient. you can call it whatever you want, granting the gov authority, agreeing to "transfer" sovereignty to the gov, etc. but the fact is that whatever sovereignty US states had and gave up, it's not in their power to reclaim Optimus Subprime posted:the USA literally had a civil war about slavery and whether state rights can contradict and supercede federal authority, and the answer was a resounding no Zane has issued a correction as of 15:13 on Aug 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
the actual structure of the relationship between federal authority versus state authority in the us isn't actually that complicated, when a federal law is passed, authority and enforcement of said law can be delegated out to the states, however if a state is not enforcing a law to the required standard, there isn't much precluding the federal government from stepping in to enforce said law, the complications lie in interpretation of law, delegated authority, and raw political power/economic power (an example of this is when California or Texas swing their weight)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:other jurisdictions DO extradite fugitives to the prc. france, spain, switzerland and italy, among others. in general only if the crime is also a crime in that jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Optimus Subprime posted:no, there has been a propaganda campaign more or less from reconstruction onwards to white wash the causes of the civil war (in the form of lost cause revisionism and antebellum nostalgia). the American civil war was about slavery and the rights of states to allow for slavery. you got a book i could find and read on that? as a finn the whole thing seems a bit weird to me, you know since we had a civil war and it was bloody (37k-50?k 1,2-2% of pops) and i still got parts of the family that refuse to talk to each other over it, but nobody disagrees on what it was about. it's just that you guys keep emphasising the slavery part and i dont really understand why. except for the obvious, north vs south, nazi code for white supremacy, the only thing i can think of is that somehow the whole idea of deciding your political system through violence is something you guys find inconceivable as a thought Zane posted:the us state governments and the us federal government have different jurisdictions (jurisdiction = sovereignty). sometimes these jurisdictions overlap -- and in these circumstances there can often be complex hierarchies of authority. the states don't simply obey the federal government when the latter intrudes on their jurisdiction. they can appeal to the courts. the civil war can be understood as a fundamental disagreement about jurisdiction in these terms. yeah, but states can't have laws that contradict laws set by your parliament? nor can they choose not to follow a law set by your parliament
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:you got a book i could find and read on that? as a finn the whole thing seems a bit weird to me, you know since we had a civil war and it was bloody (37k-50?k 1,2-2% of pops) and i still got parts of the family that refuse to talk to each other over it, but nobody disagrees on what it was about. So, is what nobody disagrees on it being the Freedom War, Class War, Red Rebellion, 1918 Revolution, Civil War or Events of 1918?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
yeah, that's the one
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
all of USAmerican history is a struggle between states and the federal government over various issues. I agree that the protests are “really” about sovereignty and a refusal to integrate, and to the extent they are, they’re about *checks watch* 37 years too late. go yell at Maggie in hell
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
The protests are about freedom and democracy, liberty and independence, the freedom to chose and the choice of freedom, the liberty of being able to choose to democracy and freedom, and the democratizing of the ability to choose when freedom and liberty is about independence of the freedom and liberty to democracy the freedom to choose and liberty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:you got a book i could find and read on that? as a finn the whole thing seems a bit weird to me, you know since we had a civil war and it was bloody (37k-50?k 1,2-2% of pops) and i still got parts of the family that refuse to talk to each other over it, but nobody disagrees on what it was about. it's just that you guys keep emphasising the slavery part and i dont really understand why. except for the obvious, north vs south, nazi code for white supremacy, the only thing i can think of is that somehow the whole idea of deciding your political system through violence is something you guys find inconceivable as a thought https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Lost-Cause-Civil-History/dp/0253222664 I believe the Gallagher book is a well regarded read on explaining lost cause'ism. if you analyze the civil war from a materialist perspective, the abolition of slavery was an existential threat to the economic base of the southern elite, and once the south lost and slavery was abolished, the former slave owners needed to obfuscate why slavery was so beneficial to them in order to transform and perpetuate white supremacy and continue the exploitation of a black working class while also suppressing any class consciousness of the poor white working class in the south as well. these ideological battles continue to this day as white supremacy in the southern United states continues to churn out cheap exploitable labor, and if it ever becomes universally accepted that the civil war was about slavery, it directly brings to light the current contradictions of why African Americans have significantly worse standards of living despite the north winning and that restitution is due to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:im not actually sure what the hong kong protests are about at all and clicked on this thread hoping for less legalistic answers It didn't get killed per se. It got tabled which means it can be brought back up within the legislative year if they so desired. If it goes without action by the end of the legislative year, then it will actually be dead. But a lot of this is definitely beyond the extradition bill with the bill being the straw that broke the camel's back on HK government kowtowing to the PRC gov't earlier than legally required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:i thought it was p widely accepted that abolishing slavery was an (extremely correct) excuse to resolve that question, and that very few (but powerful) people actually gave a poo poo about slavery. which obviously doesn't make fighting a war over slavery a bad thing to do and so on the question of slavery had been dominating American politics for decades leading up to the actual outbreak of war, to the extent that the introduction/creation of new states into the Union, and whether or not slavery would be allowed in the new state, was being determined by how it would change the balance of numbers in the Senate. the idea that the ACW was about "states rights" and NOT about slavery is Southron revisionism - they're trying to make it sound like the Union/Federal government wanted to crush the ability of states run themselves, and ending slavery was a convenient excuse the reality is that the Confederate Constitution itself had a bunch of statutes relating to how THEIR "Federal" government had as much authority as they needed to, gently caress the states, for the purposes of propping up and enforcing slavery, which really outs this "states rights" thing as a complete fraud I suppose the most charitable phrasing one might suggest is that it was about "the states' rights to uphold slavery"
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:because China signed an international agreement saying HK would be autonomous? your analogy would hold if there was some sort of treaty between the Netherlands and the US regarding the status of New York but the US wouldn’t exist for what a century after that so They did but at the same time what's holding them to that agreement? What's the mechanism for dissuading China from just taking over? it would seem to me to be firmly within their rights regardless of what treaties they've signed. After all, it is their territory as opposed to some disputed territory. Also as far as I can tell that agreement does have a firm expiration date. Is the current wisdom that when that date rolls around Hong Kong is just going to accept that it's one country, one system and it's not their system? I won't argue that China hasn't been constantly working to weaken HK's autonomy but isn't that a done deal no matter what? No matter how I look at things I just see HK trying to cling to something that went away a long time ago and they can protest all they want, they're still in a Chinese city that will, at some point, be completely subject to Chinese law. ClassActionFursuit has issued a correction as of 17:13 on Aug 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:They did but at the same time what's holding them to that agreement? If you go down this path most agreements between nations actually have no enforcement mechanism. regardless, it seems that a lot of people in HK are kind of angry about China going back on that deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
there is a lot of international investment capital in china -- a lot of it entering china through hong kong. that investment will dry up the chinese state is too arbitrarily with the law or with relevant international agreements. that is one of the effective factors of dissuasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:I've read this whole thread and still don't understand why HK feels they deserve some alternate system of government from the rest of China. If New York City wanted its autonomy I wouldn't be in favor of it so why should I be in favor of HK getting it? because Britain hosed everything up, as is usual in history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you go down this path most agreements between nations actually have no enforcement mechanism. Whats hold up the deal comes down to HKers need to know their places and keep suckering international investment for mainland and the central government pretend its a benevolent authoritarian overload and pretend to respect the piece of paper they signed with Britain. Kind of like how the Queen pretend she is respecting the election result and the Brits pretend they still need the Queen to initiate a new government. But the HKers kept stepping on central government and kept running the chief executives out of town every 5 years whenever the executive branch tried to expand on their pitiful weak government and touch the pies of the ruling real estate families. edit: also forgot, put up a good propaganda show of 1C2S to Taiwan. But if they are whining about 1C2S all the times, half of the purpose of 1C2S has lost. tino has issued a correction as of 18:02 on Aug 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
me reading this thread: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 17:46
|
|