Hacker News Reader

Comment by Knove | Hacker News Reader

First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a Great National Renaissance Movement .)(More seriously, it involves the level of the Chinese nation.) To say that, I just want to express that this is the common view of the Chinese people at present. That's why there are Chinese people who support 911 on Twitter. They want to express that Americans support Hong Kong's behavior. In their hearts, it's the same behavior as supporting 911. While being indoctrinated with China's harmfulness theory by the media, I hope that you can rationally understand these recent events, rather than trust the media.

View on HN

The difference here is that although the US government doesn't want us to talk about September 11th, I'm totally free to do so at any time, on any channel, using any medium. I can freely call George W. Bush an idiot and a dupe for playing right into Osama Bin Laden's plans. I can say that the TSA and the further restrictions on freedom of movement have been one of the worst aspects of the post-911 world in the US. And the persistent culture of fear that has grown up as I've become an adult has been a scary thing for me to face. And I'm free to say that the news media in the US is creating this culture and sustaining it.

I can say all of this without fear of recrimination from my government. I'm enrolled in TSA Precheck, never harassed by the police, can move freely within the country, and am free to buy or view whatever I like in spite of my lack of support for that part of our national government. One of our founding fathers is famously quoted as saying "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." We take that statement as gospel. For us to censor our citizens is an affront to our national dignity.

Can you say that the student protests in Tianenmen Square were met with a police response that was massive overkill? Or that attempts to censor Hong Kong's free speech are unacceptable? Or that free speech against your government is an inalienable right? Because if not then there's not really much similarity between the US and China despite how it may seem to you.

Voltaire's biographer was a founding father?

> United States does not want to be talked about 911

As a US citizen, please talk about 9/11. The response Americans had in the wake of that tragedy is reprehensible - the entire country gave unanimous support to the government to commit war crimes in nations around the world - including our own. Torture, illegal detainment, wars founded on lies to make private contractors rich, expansive laws like the Patriot Act, NDAA expansions, and establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, all of which grossly violate civil liberties and privacy.

The rest of the world should criticize America for 9/11, for being responsible for the destabilization of countries that led to such a degree of organized terror in the decades leading up to it, as much as we should be criticized for the heinous acts domestically and abroad committed in response to it (or at least, that were excused by it).

Maybe what I mean is not clear enough. I imagine that a star, just a few days after 9/11, openly declared that 9/11 was a great recovery movement.

I don't think people understand what you mean by "recovery moment". At least in American English, it's not a standard phrase. Personally, I've never heard it before. Maybe you could try an alternate phrasing?

https://twitter.com/search?q=CHINAZI%20911&src=typed_query

He's referring to this.

The western/democratic world does not see HK protests as a bad thing. It sees the oppression of free speech and democracy as a bad thing, especially knowing how the Tienanmen Square uprising ended.

China (CCP) is trying to destroy freedom in HK. The HK people do not want to lose their freedom. To many in democratic societies what is happening in HK is our worst nightmare.

After 9/11, there were Americans that made implied or overt statements that the US caused or deserved 9/11. Many of them were suppressed (none were jailed) or protested against by government and citizens alike. Some were not.

Now, years later, many more rightly or wrongly suggest without consequence that the actions of the US led to 9/11 or the US deserved it.

edit: removed word

just as the United States does not want to be talked about 911

There are thousands of videos about 9/11, hundreds of TV programmes, millions and millions of posts online. People only got tired of it after a decade of very vigurous debates where outright crank views were seriously considered. Memes about jet fuel that cannot melt steel beams still go around today.

And 9/11 was a savage terrorist attack. Where is this silly comparison to a totalitarian state censoring a gamer (and Winnie the Pooh) while trying to absorb Hong Kong coming from?

just as the United States does not want to be talked about 911

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In the United States there is a completely unregulated cottage industry disseminating all sorts of misinformation and conspiracy theories about 9/11. There are people who make a living doing this.

We're not going to ban you from a sport, take your prize money and fire those associated with you, if you wore a "Bush did 9-11" t-shirt and shouted 7 words about how the US was wrong to invade Iraq. My children were very amused over dinner when I had to explain why a certain cartoon bear is banned in a country, and how some countries can mock their leaders with almost anything short of inciting violence. While it was within Blizzard's terms and conditions to ban the player, it was still the wrong decision and it illuminated who is in control.

I wasn't aware that people in the US don't want to talk about 9/11. There have been multiple books and movies about the failure to prevent the terrorist attack, the attack itself, and years of aftermath. Public discourse about the event isn't suppressed, and even George W Bush has commented about the event while he was president and after he left office. Though I've seen it referenced multiple times, I don't see the connection between Hong Kong's protests and 9/11.

Maybe what I mean is not clear enough. I imagine that a star, just a few days after 9/11, openly declared that 9/11 was a great recovery movement.

You're being downvoted (and rightfully, I believe), but you do sound genuine (so far at least), so let me speak a little bit more and hope your mind might change even just a little bit.

First, as pvg said, a massive protest is not analogous to 9/11.

But, let's put even that aside for a moment, and pretend that they are analogous. The more proper analogy is this: Pretend that after 9/11, a Malaysian singer working for a Chinese recording company made the comment you suggested, and Americans got upset with it, put pressure on the Chinese company that the star belonged to (because the Chinese company was going to lose support and profits from American audience), and the Chinese company fired the Malaysian star.

You're ok with this? You think the Chinese company bending over backwards to please the American people to keep their revenue stream, is entirely fine? Considering the Malaysian star's political opinion is even aligned with your own country's?

Believe me, if this Malaysian's remarks really hurt the American people, we will not express any dissatisfaction. We can even criticize this person with the American people. Should we not distinguish right from wrong? What does it have to do with revenue stream?

Edited, thanks

Things like that happened, we don't have to imagine it. Also 9/11 - a terrorist attack - is not analogous to a mass protest movement. Mass protests have taken place in the US, including violent ones and prominent contemporary voices have been both openly supportive and critical of them.

prominent contemporary voices have been both openly supportive and critical of them

I mean, what if these prominent contemporary voices support 911?

Again, 9/11 was not a mass protest movement.

One of the leaders of an actual US separatist movement has schools and streets named after him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X#Memorials_and_tribut...

Multiple prominent evangelical leaders have repeatedly claimed that 9/11 was God's judgement for social liberalism, and none of them lost any stature. One of them, Robert Jeffress, is currently a prominent figure in the Trumpist movement.

They don't. Name one who does.

I guess we're talking past each other, but 9/11 is a singularly bad example. It was an attack, on the US soil, by a foreign force. It was the one thing that made Americans united against "the enemy", whether real or perceived, and of course it was co-opted by American politicians to fuel nationalism.

If some foreign terrorist blows up a building in Beijing, do you think China would want other nations to stop talking about it?

If people exercising their freedom of speech is an insult to your "national dignity", your nation sucks. What about sowing distrust of the media, further, is "rational" as you so carefully allude to twice? If the truth is the enemy, you are on the wrong side.

Your whataboutism about the US and 9/11 isn't even on target. No one here is particularly upset if you talk about it, except maybe the more jingoistic sort when you start pointing out that the damage we did to ourselves in response with respect to civil liberties was perhaps greater than the damage OBL & co ever dreamed of doing with a few airplanes.

Maybe my meaning is not clear enough. Let me give you an example.

Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a great recovery operation.

That person would get blasted and suffer the PR and economic consequences (like pulled sponsorships), but none of these "punishments" are state sanctioned. For the most part people are free to express what they believe.

Contrast this to China what do you think would happen? The irony of you bringing all this up as some kind of counterpoint is strange.

They would likely be roundly disagreed with people and that would be a perfectly normal interaction. It sounds like you're attempting to imply that the US would have responded in the same way as China but that's simply not true.

Huh?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com