thewholeview

I usually go on the offense here with this account to try to preach the other side of story in a justified manner as possible. But I do want to just note on this to say I love the way you portrayed the actual situation versus many, it's very on spot and I wish others would recognize the situation the way you do.

It's interesting that Chinese used to believe that the West is more fair and just and are respected, evident in the fact that foreigners receive higher regards and even the police would prioritize such cases.

In recent time, there has been more voices in China where notion regarding the West being "brainwashed" by the western media starts the emerge, which had never happened before.

I think it's interesting to note this as it's easy to be one-sided when you are hearing only the narrative and values from a certain belief system. As such without discussing the actual merit of each individual belief, care should be taken perhaps to at least recognize the implicit meaning behind any claims of "brainwash" to ones other than your own.

Thanks for asking. I've answered this in another thread, I'll copy paste the reply over with minor edits:

Yes, I can admit that I've created an alternate account. Because the current American political atmosphere is instilling fear for my ability to freely express the alternative that's other than the popular opinion. I'm selfish and wish to not cause damage to my credential on my main account, and leave that for non-political discussions.

I only come to hope to bring certain other perspective in peace and hoping for scholarly discussions on perspectives that I've not personally considered.

As for my life trajectory, I was born in China, studied in Canada, and now presently resides in America. I like to think that I lean towards the center, but other people may not believe so.

Thanks for trying to educate the mass in a factual manner, and I'd like to apologize for others for voting you down. Unfortunately many of HN are fueled currently by a righteous sense of nationalism and words outside the context of the media cannot be easily consumed at the moment. It's absolutely similar in Chinese forums though as we are through an era that has the easiest path towards a propaganda for a collective herd mentality. However it is important to continue to present the facts as it's a gain overall for the entire community to not have the facts/opposing views to be censored.

Apple has actually been quite smart here. Everyone knows the limiting condition that we are seeing in the world right now. What Apple has achieved is to allow the app to be downloaded for several days and then to make an appeasement. We see a similar strategy used by NBA in recent times. It is undoubted that such a play will receive flame from both sides, but as such they haven't really taken sides and yet also have answered to calls.

I'm glad to see this article rising on HN amidst the entire narrative on HK that's sprouting around the internet these days. It has finally allowing time for our minds to take a break and rationalize and see how much the propaganda has been swaying us all.

As a Chinese, I've personally been following Chinese forums and continue to see individuals that rationalize the behavior of the West and to try to put down flames that's only in the name of nationalistic pride, albeit few still. But it's an important theme, only if both side can put behind their bias can there be a better and more peaceful ending in the China-US conflict to bring benefit to us all. There are many intelligent and rational Americans, it's a sad story for Iraq and we wish them best, but at least the news is helpful in helping us collectively realize what the media has been doing to our brains.

The problem that us Chinese see is the level of hypocrisy at play here. The narrative on the entire HK suppose is in the name of freedom and evil of China and thus democracy must be the solution. Iraq has been "liberated" with democracy and yet the outcry is not an issue. I make no judgment on the merits of democracy, but if the West continues to play the propaganda narrative behind a fear of threat it is hard to justify the reasoning thrown around.

Yes, I can admit that I've created an alternative account. Because the American political atmosphere is endangering my ability to freely express the alternative that's other than the popular opinion.

I only come to hope to bring certain other perspective in peace and hoping for scholarly discussions on perspectives that I've not personally considered.

But of course it's all in the willingness of yourself to believe that there can actually be legitimate and unsponsored grassroot opinions not in favor of the West's perspective.

You have it backwards. China has the military might but chooses not to, because what the CCP wants is a peaceful resolution within its own region. On the contrary, the West's supposedly moral support of the "peaceful" demonstration is seeing 48/58 subway stations closing due to vandalism, many banks and phone stores getting robbed. These aren't pictures that Western media would portray, but that's the closer to truth reality that's occurring in HK. My friend in HK are evading to Shenzhen for protection, and other friend is attempting to understand the immigration process better to leave the unstable HK. Is this the real meaning of liberating HK? Just because other states, AKA Middle East hasn't gotten enough soft influence to show the world what "liberating" them means (destroyed states that cannot recover in decades), China will not take the soft course and actually stands to protect its own territory.

China never tries to spread its influence, China is in a purely defensive position and the West continues to tap into China's business and then leverage whatever reaction received as China's evil deeds.

China doesn't invade the Middle East, China doesn't preach Communism globally. It's a really good question to ask who always really tries to spread their own influence.

While I've always respected the West's stance on their own judgment of values, and the continual holding of it, I'm saddened by any narrative that it's in the face of morality.

Morality is an entirely subjective concept, and should not be used as a weaponry. The West has developed for many years and have ascended through times from ancient religious principles to the notion of modern basic human rights. However, I'd like to address that by saying the notion of "basic human rights" isn't universal, it's a standard of the West. The East doesn't do it perfect, but neither does the West. This whole affair is an eventual reality that happened to spark in the era of our existence, due to an inherent ideological difference. This is no right or wrong here, only a side to take, but to attack the opposite side of being immoral based on one's own judgmental system is simply not constructive.

As humans, the least we can do is to be aware of the situations and stay open minded and be respectful of each other, and our differences. That's how we can together evolve to a possibly harmonious future, at least to the extent of the upper-bound of humanity. There isn't a single standard of morality, and a heavy indulgence on one single side will eventually run yourself into a corner of being seen as practicing double standard.

Let's call it for what it is, a challenger to the current supremacy and that's that. Conflicts arising due to ideological differences is hard to resolve, but to only address the other party as immoral is an extremely short-sighted strategy to addressing any differences between the two. It's a greatly sad affair to see the propaganda machine on both ends flexing their muscle. Either the challenger will be defeated and we accept a new reality, or the existing supremacy loses and accept itself as a second. Bringing in a self-righteous morality to the mix is only going to incur permanent damage to humanity as a whole by prolonging the battle between ideals.

I agree in principle, although in practice this is impossible to be preached. In China it's that political opinions aren't tolerated, especially anything that notes on the edge of separatism. In America it's the same, certain racial, gender chats are simply taboo, whether it's personal or national level. While there is no explicit governmental prosecution, you can be sure that you'll be punished in a way.

The idea is that in America such topics are prohibits because there is the idea of historical injustice and bringing everyone to a fair level for a "better society" (very well-intended). It is no different in China when political topics bring an uprising flux of emotion from within the Chinese people (also very well-intended in the context of Chinese legacy). There is no fundamental difference, only a difference in how the freedom of expression is backed by historical context and reigning ideology.

The objectivity in your eyes is subjectivity to another. Similarly objectivity in others is subjective in yours. There is never true objectivity in our collective presence. If UN ceases to be your objectivity, that's respected.

It's not nonsense, and "everybody knows Taiwan is a distinct country" is a flawed statement. The UN does not recognize Taiwan. Taiwan is recognized as a sovereignty by 19 UN member states. It has formal diplomatic relationships with ~50 UN member states. UN has 193 member states in total. Please refrain from using subjective unprovable ideology to represent the mass.

Thanks for the opinion, care to expand on it to help educate?

Thanks for the perspective, I will openly admit that my understanding of freedom of speech is lacking/different than others' understanding.

I think what's interesting is the idea behind. Either your example or my example of freedom of speech is purely political, which we must recognize.

Let's take a step back and consider a company. The management sets up an orderly system (or so they think). If the company is progressing well, everyone is working towards a common goal, would there be a need to have people standing up to voice their opinions to influence others which they can't even claim righteousness to? Sure it's freedom, but I'm sure less would need it. When the company goes downhill however, and people want to uprise and cause a change, this is where having this freedom appears to be a necessity.

I think inherently there is a discussion hidden here somewhere between order and chaos. And with everything being a spectrum, we must recognize that the level of "freedom" people will need, and people should have will also need to vary depending on the current state of existence.

To many of those in China who do not wish to practice in politics, especially since the Communist has produced an unprecedented growth in the last decade, little are finding a need for such a level of "freedom". Sure this system will not be perpetual functional. When the economic growth slows or when China becomes a super power level entity, global clashes causes ideology shifts and needs, China may need to continually seek a structural shift in its own pace.

What's being preached often in the western world however, is a utilization of a "lack of freedom of speech" as a weaponry towards an uprising China that will threaten US's dominance. There is nothing wrong with that, it's only a bit hypocritical that's all, but thus is politics.

I think what's important is that, if HK must feel like they will need the fight, then I respect the fight and wishes them best on achieving what they can. Though I do at the same time wish for a peaceful resolution versus a degraded society after an endless fight to achieve a perceived ideal ideology. I have friends in HK and I definitely wish for them to prosper.

I think the concept of "freedom of speech" is highly subjective. If you go to China you would find very little consideration for a lack of freedom of speech aside from a few radicals whose mission is to cause turbulence to the existing regime.

In Beijing, you can walk in many taxis and hear the driver blabber on to no end regarding the state of existence in China and state defamatory words regarding the Communist, the past, or the current presidency.

In contrast, in America I often find myself in fear of coming forth and stating any merit that I thought of the potential Trump presidency, and the now presidency. In professional careers I'd fear a sense of being seen as a "demoral" person and I would fear for silent retaliation.

Propaganda and ideology come hand in hand, I certainly do not disregard Chinese propaganda, but likewise I am no different to the narrative on China's own political structure that's becoming ever stronger in the West since the uprising of China.

On the other hand, what is true "freedom of speech"? The narrative has been sounding more and more to me like a "freedom to uprise and overthrow the government". Due to my limited existence in the world, I can't claim merit or demerit to such ideal. But I am simply no fan of chaos caused due to the act of "trying to overthrow a government to seek ideal in the face of perceived oppression", especially when an entire region is almost shut down and hurt for many months.

While I have full respect for you to preach what you believe in, I'd like to urge the consideration for a detachment of promotion for democracy with regards to morality.

Whichever mode of governance is simple a practice of value proposition that a particular regime sees as fit for their particular regional control/political reign.

While democracy has its ostensible upsides, is such a protest at length really what's on the high moral ground?

Many protestors are students who have a large amount of time, but have only seen less of this world, albeit believing in an idealistic view. The ones who suffer are the ones who reside in HK and are running out of methods to meet ends for their family that they have to feed. Consider the bus drivers for the tourism industry that are basically out of job and are powerless as figuring out what's the best course of action at this moment?

Sure, maybe you can say a change is in dire need, via a certain perspective, it's absolutely respectable, though in the wake of being respectful for the whole population and the region, is such a protest which has lasted over 100 days truly the right course of action?

Think for the HKers, is it truly better to pursue an unstable democracy in the merit of preaching a perceived sense of idealism, or is it perhaps better to focus on economic growth and enabling an entire population to a higher living standard? Nobody has the correct answer and it's definitely up to every single one of us individually to consider.

Disclaimer: I am a Chinese so I may indeed have perceived bias, or just bias. Feel free to have a rational discussion with me and educate me on other perspectives, or even downvote me, all opinions are welcomed and respected.