Official Current Affairs & Politics Thread II

[gigantes]

I wasn't going to further this conversation with you, not because I was afraid of your cyberbullying, but because I don't want to waste time engaging someone with a closed mind and someone who have an agenda. I reply to mr$ because he debates with good faith. Debating you would be boring, since I can see where you are going and what's coming from a mile away.

Four years in the Navy had enabled me to understand the codes. New country, echo chamber, your home country, where you're from.

May I ask you what qualified you knowledgeable about Hong Kong but made me a bullshiter? It is people like you who knows what's best for other people, never mind that if that's what they want or need. Remember the Trump bots? The liberal elites? I have many relatives in Hong Kong that share those views and are afraid to say so in public. but hey, what do I know. I am not an expert like you and I don't want to force others to think like me. I don't go on to watch a video then hide the fact that I did.

So, the hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people, whose livelihoods being destroyed, hundreds of businesses being vandalized, every public infrastructure a legitimate target is worth the sacrifice whether they want to or not. Because, it's what is good for them, they just don't know it. But, have jo fear, people like you know what is best for them. This is my last engagement with you. Out.

Ah, yes... the old 'accuse the other guy of the things I'm doing myself' ploy. Good one, Andy.

IME "Mr$" certainly is a great guy to debate with, and indeed open-minded, but if you know one thing about him-- it's that once he has a handle on what the facts and reality are, he won't tolerate a shred of bullsh-t. Not from you, me or anyone else. So, enjoy it while it lasts, matey.

In terms of China, I explained somewhere back in this thread my background on the country. Once again it's nice that you want to put words in my mouth, but I wouldn't exactly call myself an "expert." There are China-watchers that are a zillion times more expert than me, and my understanding of the country, the CCP, and HK is constantly evolving, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. I understand that doesn't fit your narrative, though. Sorry.

Cutting to the chase, I asked you quite clearly for overview links supporting your argument, and all I've received so far is a short video with very little context. As I said above, I wouldn't mind at all doing a deep delve in to aspects of willful / collateral damage the HK protesters have caused. I'm sure there's some. As for why you still haven't responded-- are you in fact worried that I might reach a conclusion contrary to yours? And here I thought you prided yourself on defending the lives and liberties of those that don't agree with you.

[gigantes]

So, the hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people, whose livelihoods being destroyed, hundreds of businesses being vandalized, every public infrastructure a legitimate target is worth the sacrifice whether they want to or not. Because, it's what is good for them, they just don't know it.

Btw, I find this part especially hilarious, given how I'd just mentioned various China atrocities, such as Tiananmen Square, the ongoing Uyghur genocide, decades of abusive violence in Tibet, and the CCP's unholy obsession with invading Taiwan as early as possible. After ignoring all that, here you are peevishly concerned about the side-effects of the HK riots. Too flippin' funny, matey.

Regardless, what should also be remembered is that HK as an international money-trading center is extremely important to China's bottom line. Evidently China's already in precarious financial shape, with a looming housing bubble set to burst, and they absolutely do not need this ongoing mess and economic disruption. Which they themselves caused by not honoring the 30yr transition deal, quite ironically.

Point is-- there's very good reasons for the CCP to push a narrative that all this stuff is the fault of the protesters. And Mainlanders everywhere tend to obey the narrative, also for very good reasons.

[MrDollarBills]

Nope. **** the CCP

China said it will stop broadcasting NBA games after Commissioner Adam Silver defended Daryl Morey's freedom to support Hong Kong protests

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-suspend-nba-broadcasts-adam-silver-defend-daryl-morey-2019-10

"We believe that any speech challenging a country's national sovereignty and social stability is not within the scope of freedom of speech," CCTV added.

No. No. No. **** this ****. The Corrupt Chinese dictatorship that bullies their citizens into compliance, harvests organs and is currently running concentration camps for Muslims don't get to decide what American free speech is. **** OFF. **** the CCP, and **** Joe Tsai for cosigning this horse ****. The Nets need to come home. I wish Prokhorov didn't sell the team to this dude, which is a shame because being a person of color I was happy to see another person of color owning the team, but this has gone way too far.

But on Monday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver hit out at those critics, telling Japan's Kyodo News: "I think as a values-based organization that I want to make it clear ... that Daryl Morey is supported in terms of his ability to exercise his freedom of expression."

"There is no doubt, the economic impact is already clear," he added.

"There have already been fairly dramatic consequences from that tweet, and I have read some of the media suggesting that we are not supporting Daryl Morey, but in fact we have."

Silver realized that the Chinese government (let me make that distinction clear, because I'm not upset with Chinese citizens) was trying to make the NBA capitulate to them and it was a lose/lose situation. The league should have supported Morey's right to free speech from the door. **** the Rockets owner and **** James Harden too.

The debate about HK is irrelevant now. The CCP has no right to dictate what Americans can say or cannot say.

Cancel the Nets and Lakers games and bring both teams home. Their government is a pack of lunatics

[MrDollarBills]

The Chinese government canceled a Brooklyn Nets' visit to a Shaghai area school, leagues sources told Dan Woike of the Los Angeles Times.

The visit entailed Nets players dedicating a refurbished basketball court at a school ceremony.

The action is a result of the ongoing dispute between the NBA and China following Daryl Morey's tweet supporting protesters in Hong Kong.

The Nets and the Lakers are scheduled to play two games in China on Thursday and Saturday.

No. End this right now, I'd rather the Nets spend their time practicing and preparing for the regular season instead of being anywhere near this nonsense. End it until the CCP stops behaving like **** ing children.

Joe Tsai was quick to grovel to Xi Jinping and what does he do? He goes out and **** on the Nets ANYWAY. Now the owner looks like an ass hole and a stooge. I've lost all respect for this man.

[SpeedyG]

If a segment of HK peoples are advocating for separatism, who can blame them, anyway?

Nobody in their right mind would want to live in a police state, which is what China has become. Mainlanders being suspicious of HK is simply what the party wants, and no real sign of a conscious, informed peoples. Going against the party by even saying the wrong thing is a great way to get yourself disappeared, or put under heavy sanctions.

Most of them also don't seem to have any real understanding of other events and issues, like the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the ongoing Uyghur death, 'reeducation' and organ-harvesting camps, the Tibet occupation, or the notion that Taiwan peoples are happy with their own govt and want nothing to do with the CCP.

I am so far removed from all of this, but i think as outsiders we need to be careful how we judge things. We don't know. My very high-level and admittedly basic knowledge of the history:

- HK used to be part of mainland China.
- HK was taken by Japan from China
- WW2, Britain took HK from Japan. Essentially becoming westernized (similar to Philippines and USA)
- Sometime in the 90s, Brits left HK with an agreement that HK was eventually to return to China

So anyone feel free to correct me on my understanding of any of those...

But if those are correct, then yes, Tsai isn't wrong to say that the protests are separatists.

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?


Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

[gigantes]

Silver's new statement earlier today was much better, and you have to think the backlash from US citizens and politicians helped him find his spine.

Still a strange situation, because even though he left China some outs in both his statements, they are only concentrating on the parts that annoy them, to the exclusion of everything else. "If you're not 100% in compliance with us, you're attacking us." I.e., scenes from a totalitarian regime.

.

Re: Joe Tsai,
I'm gonna try to do a bit of light mental gymnastics for the time being, and presume that the CCP reached out and reminded him who his daddy is. Just his bad luck that he's the only Chinese owner, exec, coach or player in the league right now (isn't that right?), meaning this particular sycophant's role was all on him.

There's no way he's going anywhere at this point, so let's hope that he can lick his wounds a little bit from the backlash and learn something from all this.

Whatever his character is, in all the other ways that be, it will reveal itself in the coming months and years. I'll try to withhold judgement for now. (Don't screw it up, Joe)

[gigantes]

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?

The highlighted is what it really comes down to IMO.

Regardless of the HK tug-of-war process over a century plus, the occupants (always mainly Chinese AFAIK) came to particularly enjoy their city, and living in it. From what I've read, even Mainlanders and expats love visiting for a variety of reasons, starting perhaps with decent hospital care.

IME China's howling refrain that it 'wants back all things that used to belong to it' is a complex and also highly-flawed argument. For one thing, across the bulk of China's history, there was no "China" in the way the CCP is pushing. Instead it was a series of warring kingdoms, sometime coalasced in to larger blocks, sometimes breaking back up again. This went on for thousands of years IIRC. There's also dozens and dozens of ethnicities and different cultures in the region, going back a long way, as well. It's quite naturally a patchwork region, and quite naturally, it takes military force and an oppressive regime to hold it all together, like the USSR did.

HK is one piece of that puzzle, and AFAIK China really does have a legit claim to the city, unlike Taiwan, Tibet and other regions. I mean, I -guess- it does. At the same time, the current "China" only dates back to 1948, so the original deal involves a country that no longer exists.

In terms of territory acquisition, IMO the reason why China has this (arguably irrational) mania to reclaim all its 'former territories' goes back to the self-proclaimed "Century of Humiliation," which refers to Euro's (and other regional countries) taking advantage of China in various ways, in previous centuries. It's also a face-saving thing on a national scale, and when "face" is threatened, compromise and rationality tends to go out the window.

IMO Chinese people and the nation as a whole aren't wrong to have a chip on their shoulders about all that, but they keep overplaying that hand in to ridiculousness. That's the kind of thing we're seeing across the world, more and more. I think it doesn't help that Mao's "Cultural Revolution" also wiped out a major scholarly - artist - critical thinking segment of the population, and reinforced a sort of 'obnoxious, peasant' behavior in the remaining citizens. That still has a huge ongoing impact, even though it happened decades ago.

.

Re: Hong Kong,
As for the British transfer, starting in 1997, there was supposed to be a 30yr window of special treatment as a unique administration region. Thus the CCP edict: "one country, two systems." The problem is that the CCP has increasingly violated that, for example a few years ago when they disappeared a series of bookstore owners who dared to carry Western-style protest literature, and recently when Carrie Lam tried to enact extradition as law.

That kind of thing was just too much for the body of HK'ers, apparently, and a few months ago they started demonstrating in massive droves the like that you rarely see anywhere. Turnout % was immense, and hardly a 'fringe, violent thug' thing as the CCP narrative goes.

Whether it's separatism or standing up for their rights, I can't blame these people. They don't want to live in a police state, like Mainlanders do. There was any number of solutions to this, and as usual, CCP went the totalitarian, zero compromise route. Like their response to Adam Silver.

[MrDollarBills]

If a segment of HK peoples are advocating for separatism, who can blame them, anyway?

Nobody in their right mind would want to live in a police state, which is what China has become. Mainlanders being suspicious of HK is simply what the party wants, and no real sign of a conscious, informed peoples. Going against the party by even saying the wrong thing is a great way to get yourself disappeared, or put under heavy sanctions.

Most of them also don't seem to have any real understanding of other events and issues, like the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the ongoing Uyghur death, 'reeducation' and organ-harvesting camps, the Tibet occupation, or the notion that Taiwan peoples are happy with their own govt and want nothing to do with the CCP.

I am so far removed from all of this, but i think as outsiders we need to be careful how we judge things. We don't know. My very high-level and admittedly basic knowledge of the history:

- HK used to be part of mainland China.
- HK was taken by Japan from China
- WW2, Britain took HK from Japan. Essentially becoming westernized (similar to Philippines and USA)
- Sometime in the 90s, Brits left HK with an agreement that HK was eventually to return to China

So anyone feel free to correct me on my understanding of any of those...

But if those are correct, then yes, Tsai isn't wrong to say that the protests are separatists.

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?


Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

This is why I fell back in my discussion with Andy, I needed to do more reading on the subject because I was under the impression that the protesters were -not- separatists and were protesting against proposed extradition laws (which led me to believe that Joe Tsai was gaslighting Americans), but it clearly goes deeper than that.

[SpeedyG]

If a segment of HK peoples are advocating for separatism, who can blame them, anyway?

Nobody in their right mind would want to live in a police state, which is what China has become. Mainlanders being suspicious of HK is simply what the party wants, and no real sign of a conscious, informed peoples. Going against the party by even saying the wrong thing is a great way to get yourself disappeared, or put under heavy sanctions.

Most of them also don't seem to have any real understanding of other events and issues, like the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the ongoing Uyghur death, 'reeducation' and organ-harvesting camps, the Tibet occupation, or the notion that Taiwan peoples are happy with their own govt and want nothing to do with the CCP.

I am so far removed from all of this, but i think as outsiders we need to be careful how we judge things. We don't know. My very high-level and admittedly basic knowledge of the history:

- HK used to be part of mainland China.
- HK was taken by Japan from China
- WW2, Britain took HK from Japan. Essentially becoming westernized (similar to Philippines and USA)
- Sometime in the 90s, Brits left HK with an agreement that HK was eventually to return to China

So anyone feel free to correct me on my understanding of any of those...

But if those are correct, then yes, Tsai isn't wrong to say that the protests are separatists.

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?


Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

This is why I fell back in my discussion with Andy, I needed to do more reading on the subject because I was under the impression that the protesters were -not- separatists and were protesting against proposed extradition laws (which led me to believe that Joe Tsai was gaslighting Americans), but it clearly goes deeper than that.

I think Morey's "Stand with Hong Kong" was towards the violence against protesters.

But, because of the underlying issues at hand, China isn't viewing it as such, but as an approval of those who wants to separate HK from China.

Two very separate, but at the same time, intertwined issues.

Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

[MrDollarBills]

Silver's new statement earlier today was much better, and you have to think the backlash from US citizens and politicians helped him find his spine.

Still a strange situation, because even though he left China some outs in both his statements, they are only concentrating on the parts that annoy them, to the exclusion of everything else. "If you're not 100% in compliance with us, you're attacking us." I.e., scenes from a totalitarian regime.

.

Re: Joe Tsai,
I'm gonna try to do a bit of light mental gymnastics for the time being, and presume that the CCP reached out and reminded him who his daddy is. Just his bad luck that he's the only Chinese owner, exec, coach or player in the league right now (isn't that right?), meaning this particular sycophant's role was all on him.

There's no way he's going anywhere at this point, so let's hope that he can lick his wounds a little bit from the backlash and learn something from all this.

Whatever his character is, in all the other ways that be, it will reveal itself in the coming months and years. I'll try to withhold judgement for now. (Don't screw it up, Joe)

Silver had to stand up to them, there is no way a foreign country should be dictating the terms of American free speech. They went well beyond their bounds and frankly the CCP's behavior even after Morey and the league apologized made it clear that they were trying to bully the league like they do their citizens.

The NBA makes a ton of money and it doesn't need the Chinese market. Focus resources on the outreach to India and the African continent while Jinping sulks.

[MrDollarBills]

I am so far removed from all of this, but i think as outsiders we need to be careful how we judge things. We don't know. My very high-level and admittedly basic knowledge of the history:

- HK used to be part of mainland China.
- HK was taken by Japan from China
- WW2, Britain took HK from Japan. Essentially becoming westernized (similar to Philippines and USA)
- Sometime in the 90s, Brits left HK with an agreement that HK was eventually to return to China

So anyone feel free to correct me on my understanding of any of those...

But if those are correct, then yes, Tsai isn't wrong to say that the protests are separatists.

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?


Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

This is why I fell back in my discussion with Andy, I needed to do more reading on the subject because I was under the impression that the protesters were -not- separatists and were protesting against proposed extradition laws (which led me to believe that Joe Tsai was gaslighting Americans), but it clearly goes deeper than that.

I think Morey's "Stand with Hong Kong" was towards the violence against protesters.

But, because of the underlying issues at hand, China isn't viewing it as such, but as an approval of those who wants to separate HK from China.

Two very separate, but at the same time, intertwined issues.

Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

Yeah, that is how I interpreted it as well, it's about government violence against protesters and not in support of a separatist movement. Violence should be condemned but the issue of separatism is something we really have no business in. That's not our call.

[SpeedyG]

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?

The highlighted is what it really comes down to IMO.

Regardless of the HK tug-of-war process over a century plus, the occupants (always mainly Chinese AFAIK) came to particularly enjoy their city, and living in it. From what I've read, even Mainlanders and expats love visiting for a variety of reasons, starting perhaps with decent hospital care.

IME China's howling refrain that it 'wants back all things that used to belong to it' is a complex and also highly-flawed argument. For one thing, across the bulk of China's history, there was no "China" in the way the CCP is pushing. Instead it was a series of warring kingdoms, sometime coalasced in to larger blocks, sometimes breaking back up again. This went on for thousands of years IIRC. There's also dozens and dozens of ethnicities and different cultures in the region, going back a long way, as well. It's quite naturally a patchwork region, and quite naturally, it takes military force and an oppressive regime to hold it all together, like the USSR did.

HK is one piece of that puzzle, and AFAIK China really does have a legit claim to the city, unlike Taiwan, Tibet and other regions. I mean, I -guess- it does. At the same time, the current "China" only dates back to 1948, so the original deal involves a country that no longer exists.

In terms of territory acquisition, IMO the reason why China has this (arguably irrational) mania to reclaim all its 'former territories' goes back to the self-proclaimed "Century of Humiliation," which refers to Euro's (and other regional countries) taking advantage of China in various ways, in previous centuries. It's also a face-saving thing on a national scale, and when "face" is threatened, compromise and rationality tends to go out the window.

IMO Chinese people and the nation as a whole aren't wrong to have a chip on their shoulders about all that, but they keep overplaying that hand in to ridiculousness. That's the kind of thing we're seeing across the world, more and more. I think it doesn't help that Mao's "Cultural Revolution" also wiped out a major scholarly - artist - critical thinking segment of the population, and reinforced a sort of 'obnoxious, peasant' behavior in the remaining citizens. That still has a huge ongoing impact, even though it happened decades ago.

.

Re: Hong Kong,
As for the British transfer, starting in 1997, there was supposed to be a 30yr window of special treatment as a unique administration region. Thus the CCP edict: "one country, two systems." The problem is that the CCP has increasingly violated that, for example a few years ago when they disappeared a series of bookstore owners who dared to carry Western-style protest literature, and recently when Carrie Lam tried to enact extradition as law.

That kind of thing was just too much for the body of HK'ers, apparently, and a few months ago they started demonstrating in massive droves the like that you rarely see anywhere. Turnout % was immense, and hardly a 'fringe, violent thug' thing as the CCP narrative goes.

Whether it's separatism or standing up for their rights, I can't blame these people. They don't want to live in a police state, like Mainlanders do. There was any number of solutions to this, and as usual, CCP went the totalitarian, zero compromise route. Like their response to Adam Silver.

The thing is, we have to understand that not every country abides by the US rule of law. We may disagree or agree with it, and the crux of it boils down to ethics, which is a never ending rabbit hole of philosophy.

Would I blame those people? Absolutely not. I cannot imagine living in an authoritarian place with limited freedom as China.

But, going off what you mentioned. 1997 plus 30 years = 2027.

That's 8 short years from now. If things are already this bad now, imagine how much worse it will get the closer that 30 year deal is to ending.

China, from their perspective is absolutely quelling any attempts that might threaten that "deal".

And those local are obviously even more concerned of what will happen (given the liberties, as you mentioned, that China has already given themselves regardless of the deal).

This is a far more complex and more volatile situation than most Americans freely commenting on social media knows.

And certainly far more complex and volatile than what Morey thought when he sent his initial tweet.

As an American, he absolutely has the right to feel and voice his opinion on the matter.

And the Chinese people absolutely have the right to be offended by it as well.

This is a lose lose situation for the NBA.

Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

[AndySF]

On the other hand, if you've lived your entire life under Westernish civilization-ish, even if it's more of the UK Parliament rather than American democracy, would you want to be part of China?

But on the other hand, if your government decided and agreed on this deal...well, doesn't China have the right to refer to those who don't agree and protest it separatist movement?

The highlighted is what it really comes down to IMO.

Regardless of the HK tug-of-war process over a century plus, the occupants (always mainly Chinese AFAIK) came to particularly enjoy their city, and living in it. From what I've read, even Mainlanders and expats love visiting for a variety of reasons, starting perhaps with decent hospital care.

IME China's howling refrain that it 'wants back all things that used to belong to it' is a complex and also highly-flawed argument. For one thing, across the bulk of China's history, there was no "China" in the way the CCP is pushing. Instead it was a series of warring kingdoms, sometime coalasced in to larger blocks, sometimes breaking back up again. This went on for thousands of years IIRC. There's also dozens and dozens of ethnicities and different cultures in the region, going back a long way, as well. It's quite naturally a patchwork region, and quite naturally, it takes military force and an oppressive regime to hold it all together, like the USSR did.

HK is one piece of that puzzle, and AFAIK China really does have a legit claim to the city, unlike Taiwan, Tibet and other regions. I mean, I -guess- it does. At the same time, the current "China" only dates back to 1948, so the original deal involves a country that no longer exists.

In terms of territory acquisition, IMO the reason why China has this (arguably irrational) mania to reclaim all its 'former territories' goes back to the self-proclaimed "Century of Humiliation," which refers to Euro's (and other regional countries) taking advantage of China in various ways, in previous centuries. It's also a face-saving thing on a national scale, and when "face" is threatened, compromise and rationality tends to go out the window.

IMO Chinese people and the nation as a whole aren't wrong to have a chip on their shoulders about all that, but they keep overplaying that hand in to ridiculousness. That's the kind of thing we're seeing across the world, more and more. I think it doesn't help that Mao's "Cultural Revolution" also wiped out a major scholarly - artist - critical thinking segment of the population, and reinforced a sort of 'obnoxious, peasant' behavior in the remaining citizens. That still has a huge ongoing impact, even though it happened decades ago.

.

Re: Hong Kong,
As for the British transfer, starting in 1997, there was supposed to be a 30yr window of special treatment as a unique administration region. Thus the CCP edict: "one country, two systems." The problem is that the CCP has increasingly violated that, for example a few years ago when they disappeared a series of bookstore owners who dared to carry Western-style protest literature, and recently when Carrie Lam tried to enact extradition as law.

That kind of thing was just too much for the body of HK'ers, apparently, and a few months ago they started demonstrating in massive droves the like that you rarely see anywhere. Turnout % was immense, and hardly a 'fringe, violent thug' thing as the CCP narrative goes.

Whether it's separatism or standing up for their rights, I can't blame these people. They don't want to live in a police state, like Mainlanders do. There was any number of solutions to this, and as usual, CCP went the totalitarian, zero compromise route. Like their response to Adam Silver.

The thing is, we have to understand that not every country abides by the US rule of law. We may disagree or agree with it, and the crux of it boils down to ethics, which is a never ending rabbit hole of philosophy.

Would I blame those people? Absolutely not. I cannot imagine living in an authoritarian place with limited freedom as China.

But, going off what you mentioned. 1997 plus 30 years = 2027.

That's 8 short years from now. If things are already this bad now, imagine how much worse it will get the closer that 30 year deal is to ending.

China, from their perspective is absolutely quelling any attempts that might threaten that "deal".

And those local are obviously even more concerned of what will happen (given the liberties, as you mentioned, that China has already given themselves regardless of the deal).

This is a far more complex and more volatile situation than most Americans freely commenting on social media knows.

And certainly far more complex and volatile than what Morey thought when he sent his initial tweet.

As an American, he absolutely has the right to feel and voice his opinion on the matter.

And the Chinese people absolutely have the right to be offended by it as well.

This is a lose lose situation for the NBA.

Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

Just to clarify, it's 50 yrs. That ends 2047.

[gigantes]

Whoops, fifty years it is.

China promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the mainland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong#British_lease_of_Kowloon_and_the_New_Territories

The thing is, we have to understand that not every country abides by the US rule of law. We may disagree or agree with it, and the crux of it boils down to ethics, which is a never ending rabbit hole of philosophy.

Would I blame those people? Absolutely not. I cannot imagine living in an authoritarian place with limited freedom as China.

But, going off what you mentioned. 1997 plus 30 years = 2027.

That's 8 short years from now. If things are already this bad now, imagine how much worse it will get the closer that 30 year deal is to ending.

China, from their perspective is absolutely quelling any attempts that might threaten that "deal".

And those local are obviously even more concerned of what will happen (given the liberties, as you mentioned, that China has already given themselves regardless of the deal).

This is a far more complex and more volatile situation than most Americans freely commenting on social media knows.

And certainly far more complex and volatile than what Morey thought when he sent his initial tweet.

As an American, he absolutely has the right to feel and voice his opinion on the matter.

And the Chinese people absolutely have the right to be offended by it as well.

This is a lose lose situation for the NBA.

Certainly not every country is expected to abide by US law (and that's a dang good thing, when it comes to many other 1st world countries!), but smart politics is smart politics.

There was no particularly good reason to come down so hard on this situation.

Up until a few months ago, HK was still "Hong Kong" in most ways, a city beloved by most, and an economic asset to China. The CCP could at any point have said 'due to such & such considerations, we're extending the 50 year agreement for this many years.' Unless I'm overlooking something major, they could have done it any way they really wanted to, since they were in charge. Win - win, or so I would think.

So yeah, the situation's complex, but not so complex that you can't identify obvious bonehead moves. Carrie Lam's move was also a terrible move, without due consideration given to the situation. The HK police coming down like thunder on the protesters was another terrible move without due consideration. The HK govt refusing to back down on almost every point has only given the protesters teeth, and stoked separatism. It was all so predictable.

These are all typical arrogant CCP moves, based on the idea that what the people or other party wants is irrelevant. That's pretty much dictatorship, by definition. We're increasingly seeing it all around the world, via the BRI initiative, the South China Sea military build up, and even this NBA business.

In truth, it was "lose-lose" the day the NBA got in to bed with the world's most powerful dictatorship in history. You don't do that for any good reason, outside of purely capitalistic urges.

[AndySF]

I feel that the whole situation is a lot more complex than most people believed. There are real discontent amongst young people in Hong Kong for various reasons, and a real concern of the approaching 50 yrs. But it was also lack of trust by the central government due to various reasons.
According to the basic law, Hong Kong will eventually have universal suffrage. It also mandates the pass of sedition and separatist law (23rd amendment, I believe it was call). The Hong Kong government try to enact such law multiple times and failed because of resistance from public. Hong Kong government also try to add patriotic curriculum into education in 2012, but fail due to public resistance. The Chinese government therefore have concerns of separatist influence from aboard (western, Taiwan and so on), and had not allowed for further progress on democracy(it is in the Basic law that any political change will require the enactment of central government legislative body). The 2014 protest for universal suffrage was the result of that(which was for most part peaceful). The 2014 protest also started a number of groups that are independent leaning. The distrust is deep on both sides.

When it comes to separatist movement, it's a national issue that have wide support from Chinese regardless of how they feel towards ccp. Centuries of bullying by other countries had made Chinese people react negatively to any outside influence that deemed bad intentions.

One aspect that most outsiders overlook is the ever changing dynamic between China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong prospered from the 1980s to early 2000s due to their unique status as the sole gateway between China and the rest of the world and the economic growth of China. It was by and large a non political city. Democracy was never a subject or have much significance in those days because those generation never experienced democracy during British rule. The legislative body as well as executive was appointed by the British government and there was no election prior to China demands for the return of the territory. Only during the last appointed executive to Hong Kong had the held election of the legislative branch. Hong Kong was a pure free market with minimal fuzz in politics.

But as mainland city like Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou open to the world, the significance of Hong Kong gradually eroded. After the 2007 financial crisis, it's economy was in trouble. They no longer have manufacturing jobs, and they lose a lot of import export to other cities in China. It was the Chinese government that encouraged private citizens visiting Hong Kong and holds back some of the other cities in the Zhujiang delta that propped up their economy. That also created a lot of resentment towards mainlander (I don't blame them for feeling that way as as some of the mainlander are poorly educated and lacks common courtesy) as they are seen everywhere in Hong Kong on any given day. That's the beginning of the current movement that is now demanding full democracy.

Hong Kongers had also felt superior to mainlanders. It was so 30, 40 years ago when China was extremely poor. It is today. The diminishing superiority (Shenzhen gdp for the first time equals or surpassed Hong Kong this year) due to the emerging of other Chinese cities and gradually became less relevant had incited resentment even more.

Hong Kong's recent violent protests (by the minority extremists groups) had actually helped the ccp a great deal. It helped them to secured an united front. The sentiment toward pro democracy Hong Kongers had now shifted to the ccp's liking and lessening their concerns Domestically on their citizen's advocating freedoms. It is a loose loose situation for all. Bad for Hong Kong economy, bad for Hong Kong working class, bad for Hong Kong future freedom (ccp will not yield an inch from this point forward in my opinion, to much at stake and bad example for Taiwan and Tibet and Xinjiang), bad for influencing mainland towards freer society as Hong Kong is no longer held in high regard by most Chinese citizens. The line is crossed when you attack civilians and vent your anger on public infrastructure and the police force (which had shown tremendous restraint when compared to other police forces, US and French to name a few. Search up French yellow jackets protest casualties if you like) targeting police officers family because they are simply doing their job.

This small group of extremists had in fact killed the original peaceful movement. As my relatives in Hong Kong told me, many Hong Kong people are changing their opinion on this protest. Many of the working class are losing their income and find it hard to support their family and that is the intention of this small group. They openly stated they would be destroy Hong Kong's economy to get what they wanted. I cannot support such selfish people. It's only freedom when everyone have a right to it and you don't encroach on the right of the others. Whatever the ccp do or did, however awful they may be, do not justify your cowardice actions.

Last point, Joe Tsai Express his views and should be allowed just as Morey's view should be allowed without bullying. Debate the opinion, not character assassination. Fully supported the last statement from Silvers as well, we are a free country even if there people in this country trying to take that away from us.

Feel free to attack for those who wants to, this is a free country I fought for after all.

[MrDollarBills]

When it comes to separatist movement, it's a national issue that have wide support from Chinese regardless of how they feel towards ccp. Centuries of bullying by other countries had made Chinese people react negatively to any outside influence that deemed bad intentions.

And that's something I can understand totally, knowing about what happened with the British and the Japanese historically.

Regarding Joe Tsai, he is very much able to exercise his right to speak...that doesn't make him immune to the criticism that followed.

[gigantes]

Great post Andy, thank you for that.

It was clear and contained lots of detail to absorb and ponder.

[SpeedyG]

When it comes to separatist movement, it's a national issue that have wide support from Chinese regardless of how they feel towards ccp. Centuries of bullying by other countries had made Chinese people react negatively to any outside influence that deemed bad intentions.

And that's something I can understand totally, knowing about what happened with the British and the Japanese historically.

Regarding Joe Tsai, he is very much able to exercise his right to speak...that doesn't make him immune to the criticism that followed.

The problem is that the US and China are fundamentally different when it comes to perspective. I think Silver did about the best he can do in apologizing while still supporting Morey's free speech. I don't think there is an answer that can satisfy both opposing belief system. This is the typical "agree to disagree" and both partied move on and hope time eventually heals all wounds.

China's reputation obviously plays a huge role in this, regardless of the complexity of this politics wise.

For them, as Tsai (and others, including Yao who obviously have major ties to Rockets and the Houston area), this is non-negotiable.

We may not see it that way, but if a major athlete/GM/coach supported openly a Nazi movement or a slavery movement, US would be up in arms about it.

Free of speech yes, but everyone would call for that person to be fired and lose sponsorship.

Why? Because for the majority in the U.S. and western world, those topics are non-negotiable.

China would have barely blink an eye on any comments on either of those topics. But for them, this is their big thing.

So IMO most on social media need to stop the judging of those who refuse to comment on this or try to play the field so to speak. Especially if they know very little of the subject.

For what it's worth, I have a friend from HK who I thought would be on the side of HK. He too is confirming what Andy is saying, that the perspective is changing in a negative manner as protests have become violent.



Sent from my SM-G925T using RealGM mobile app

[gigantes]

Note: I've been thinking about Andy's excellent post today, and have some responses on that, which I'll share later.

For what it's worth, I have a friend from HK who I thought would be on the side of HK. He too is confirming what Andy is saying, that the perspective is changing in a negative manner as protests have become violent.

When I read something like the above, I think a critically important reminder needs to be included: the CCP has done a laundry list of things to turn the originally peaceful protests from remarkably pacifist affairs in to violent & turbulent ones, thereby justifying escalating responses from the state.

The list of things the HK police and the CCP have done is absolutely nauseating, and can be read about (and viewed) at any number of venues that include first-hand HK reports. I can try to prepare a summation, if anyone's interested, altho I would encourage everyone to go look for themselves.

If you're familiar with how the CCP (and multiple regimes across history) works, you know that this is nothing new, nothing fancy and pretty-much a standard play out of their manual. The Chinese army incidentally seems to have multiple units standing by on the borders, without question prepared to move in when the political timing is to their advantage.

Fellow HK'ers complaining (rightfully so) about the drain and inconvenience of the ongoing protesters and the aftermath of such protests is exactly the kind of thing the CCP is looking for here. Whether it happened by chance or by design, it's ideal for the CCP's motives.

Meanwhile, if the protesters had actually been met by reasonable responses by the govt at multiple points the last few months, you have to think that much of the wind would have been let out of their sails.
Evidently that is not what the CCP, and the HK govt by proxy, was ever interested in, with multiple goals in mind.

In conclusion, I encourage anyone to take a look at the twisted, unnecessary sh-t the HK police and the CCP have been perpetrating upon protesters merely trying to attend public gatherings, i.e. those with no actual designs of violence or harmful actions upon the state. Much of all that had nothing to do with 'violent HK separatists.'

And btw-- how would one even know most of the 'violent, HK separatists' are legit, anyway? There's already been multiple, clear cases of HK police disguising its officers as protesters, looking to incite as much violence and incident-making as possible. There's also the police's multiple instances of cooperation with Triads, typically involving them beating on protesters while looking on. Well, why couldn't Triad members pose as violent separatists as well? After all, the CCP has shown zero scruples in this or any number of historical events (as I mentioned above a couple times), which is why it should at least be on the table as a reasonable hypothesis.

While their may indeed be some major blame to be laid on a segment of the protesters, nobody in their right mind, with even a passing knowledge of history, should be trusting the CCP on all this.

[LordCovington33]

I feel that the whole situation is a lot more complex than most people believed. There are real discontent amongst young people in Hong Kong for various reasons, and a real concern of the approaching 50 yrs. But it was also lack of trust by the central government due to various reasons.
According to the basic law, Hong Kong will eventually have universal suffrage. It also mandates the pass of sedition and separatist law (23rd amendment, I believe it was call). The Hong Kong government try to enact such law multiple times and failed because of resistance from public. Hong Kong government also try to add patriotic curriculum into education in 2012, but fail due to public resistance. The Chinese government therefore have concerns of separatist influence from aboard (western, Taiwan and so on), and had not allowed for further progress on democracy(it is in the Basic law that any political change will require the enactment of central government legislative body). The 2014 protest for universal suffrage was the result of that(which was for most part peaceful). The 2014 protest also started a number of groups that are independent leaning. The distrust is deep on both sides.

When it comes to separatist movement, it's a national issue that have wide support from Chinese regardless of how they feel towards ccp. Centuries of bullying by other countries had made Chinese people react negatively to any outside influence that deemed bad intentions.

One aspect that most outsiders overlook is the ever changing dynamic between China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong prospered from the 1980s to early 2000s due to their unique status as the sole gateway between China and the rest of the world and the economic growth of China. It was by and large a non political city. Democracy was never a subject or have much significance in those days because those generation never experienced democracy during British rule. The legislative body as well as executive was appointed by the British government and there was no election prior to China demands for the return of the territory. Only during the last appointed executive to Hong Kong had the held election of the legislative branch. Hong Kong was a pure free market with minimal fuzz in politics.

But as mainland city like Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou open to the world, the significance of Hong Kong gradually eroded. After the 2007 financial crisis, it's economy was in trouble. They no longer have manufacturing jobs, and they lose a lot of import export to other cities in China. It was the Chinese government that encouraged private citizens visiting Hong Kong and holds back some of the other cities in the Zhujiang delta that propped up their economy. That also created a lot of resentment towards mainlander (I don't blame them for feeling that way as as some of the mainlander are poorly educated and lacks common courtesy) as they are seen everywhere in Hong Kong on any given day. That's the beginning of the current movement that is now demanding full democracy.

Hong Kongers had also felt superior to mainlanders. It was so 30, 40 years ago when China was extremely poor. It is today. The diminishing superiority (Shenzhen gdp for the first time equals or surpassed Hong Kong this year) due to the emerging of other Chinese cities and gradually became less relevant had incited resentment even more.

Hong Kong's recent violent protests (by the minority extremists groups) had actually helped the ccp a great deal. It helped them to secured an united front. The sentiment toward pro democracy Hong Kongers had now shifted to the ccp's liking and lessening their concerns Domestically on their citizen's advocating freedoms. It is a loose loose situation for all. Bad for Hong Kong economy, bad for Hong Kong working class, bad for Hong Kong future freedom (ccp will not yield an inch from this point forward in my opinion, to much at stake and bad example for Taiwan and Tibet and Xinjiang), bad for influencing mainland towards freer society as Hong Kong is no longer held in high regard by most Chinese citizens. The line is crossed when you attack civilians and vent your anger on public infrastructure and the police force (which had shown tremendous restraint when compared to other police forces, US and French to name a few. Search up French yellow jackets protest casualties if you like) targeting police officers family because they are simply doing their job.

This small group of extremists had in fact killed the original peaceful movement. As my relatives in Hong Kong told me, many Hong Kong people are changing their opinion on this protest. Many of the working class are losing their income and find it hard to support their family and that is the intention of this small group. They openly stated they would be destroy Hong Kong's economy to get what they wanted. I cannot support such selfish people. It's only freedom when everyone have a right to it and you don't encroach on the right of the others. Whatever the ccp do or did, however awful they may be, do not justify your cowardice actions.

Last point, Joe Tsai Express his views and should be allowed just as Morey's view should be allowed without bullying. Debate the opinion, not character assassination. Fully supported the last statement from Silvers as well, we are a free country even if there people in this country trying to take that away from us.

Feel free to attack for those who wants to, this is a free country I fought for after all.

Disclaimer: I am not Chinese, but have lived in HK for a total of 12 years. My bestfriend is Chinese. My wife is Chinese.

Hong Kong people, including a sister-in-law, have been terribly affected by this. My sister-in-law is the main breadwinner because her husband (my wife’s brother) is very ill. She works in a restaurant and has seen her hours drop. She has had to borrow money from us to make ends meet. There are many stories like this.

My bestfriend lives in a village in the New Territories. He has been approached on multiple occasions to join the movement by no-good Triad types. He has been presented with a list of acts that he could participate in and how much he could make from. He said it resembled a wine list. The more daring, the more money he could stand to make. He has declined because he is a teacher for a government school.

My wife is also a teacher. Several of her students have participated in marches, some getting paid HKD200 or more. One of her students got HKD1500 to be at the front of the march and shout slogans at the police. He got arrested and is now in a world of poo. They believe in the cause but getting money certainly made the decision easier to join.

Anyway, I have seen videos about the police joining the marchers. Beyond that, I don’t know. Are they creating trouble as rioters, or they embedding themselves with these groups to find out who is running them?