SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the gunboats,-always-associated-with-diplomacy dept.
Hong Kong Airport Paralysed for a Second Day by Protesters:
The US is claiming its naval ships have been denied entry to Hong Kong, as Donald Trump suggests troops are “moving towards the border”.
A US Commander has confirmed China has blocked the Pacific Fleet’s naval ships from entering ports in Hong Kong.
Two US naval ships due to visit Hong Kong have been denied scheduled access to the city’s ports by China, the US Pacific Fleet confirmed today.
A US Navy spokesman today said two vessels had been blocked from entering the port, hours after President Donald Trump said China was moving its troops towards the border.
The president’s claims were made without specific evidence, according to The Australian
Commander Nate Christensen, the deputy spokesman for the United States Pacific Fleet, confirmed this morning the two US ships, USS Green Bay and USS Lake Erie, had been barred from entering the port. The first vessel, an amphibious dock landing ship, was due to stop in Hong Kong on Saturday, and the second was due in the city next month.
The last time the US Navy visited Hong Kong was in April.
Our Intelligence has informed us that the Chinese Government is moving troops to the Border with Hong Kong. Everyone should be calm and safe!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2019
[...]Hong Kong’s 10-week political crisis, in which millions of people have taken to the streets calling for a halt to sliding freedoms, was already the biggest challenge to Chinese rule of the semi-autonomous city since its 1997 handover from Britain.
But two days of protests at the airport have again raised the stakes for the financial hub.
Beijing is sending increasingly ominous signals that the unrest must end, with state-run media showing videos of security forces gathering across the border.
[...]All check-ins were cancelled on Tuesday afternoon after thousands of protesters wearing their signature black T-shirts made barricades using luggage trolleys to prevent passengers from passing through security gates.
[...]Demonstrators say they are fighting the erosion of the “one country, two systems” arrangement that enshrined some autonomy for Hong Kong since China took it back from Britain in 1997.
While Hong Kong is a sovereign part of China, the former colony has significant differences to the mainland, including separate legal and political systems, distinct currency, national sporting teams and a greater tolerance for freedom of expression.
Hong Kong also retains many of its pre-colonial features, including driving on the same side of the road as Britain and Australia but not China, the retention of many British place names and statues of British monarchs and dignitaries.
Those two different systems are supposed to remain in place for at least 50 years.
However, Beijing has sought to erode these freedoms in recent years through changes to the law, attempts to not allow pro-independence politicians to take their seats in the region’s parliament and even the disappearance of booksellers critical of the Communist Party leadership.
See also: Navy Times, Business Insider, CNN.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:42PM (23 children)
In accordance with the "One country, two systems" principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, the socialist system of the People's Republic of China would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:55PM (12 children)
Why doesn't Hong Kong just accept the great loving arms of a socialist government? Socialism is great, everyone gets all the free shit they need.
(Score: 3, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:14PM (11 children)
That's what people don't understand due to propaganda. Its not 1950 anymore and the USA is the far left screwed up country now, and Russia and China are conservative right wing countries.
What do you do with a treaty designed around China being more progressive socialist than western civilization, then the US veers hard left to be more left wing than China/Russia were in the last century?
For a concrete social issue example, "whos the real leftist" when gay marriage is legal in the USA but not in China?
Affirmative action in the USA means public hatred of historically successful groups; that's virtually unheard of in China.
In China everyone makes fun of the Baizuo. Thats not allowed in the USA, we barely tolerate comedians making jokes about our Baizuo.
Its the same thing with the Russians. They used to support subversion in the USA during the commie era, that money supply is cut off so our subversive orgs (media, mostly) hate Russia now. And in the usual projection of the opposite, now that the Russians are no longer interfering with our politics, they are accused of exactly that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:45PM
Wishing your government could have a crackdown just like China has. You must be masturbating furiously over this.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:06PM (6 children)
There's a lot to unpack here, and the best way is probably line by line. Here we go.
It's worth mentioning that no matter where you stand on social justice issues like gay marriage, they are almost completely orthogonal to economic issues. Communism vs Capitalism does not imply any particular code of sexual morality. Democrats in the US right now care more about social justice issues, and unfortunately they are being used to distract from economic issues while inequality rises. But hey, men can wear pink now and keep their hair long, not to mention all the other more serious expressions of personal identity, and that freedom of expression is worth more than affording rent to a surprising number of people.
Of course they make fun of the Baizuo. It means white foreigner as much as anything else. The concept doesn't make sense here. Probably the closest analogue is making fun of the French nanny state, which we absolutely do. Well, used to do before the French turned right.
Affirmative action only means public hatred insomuch as economics is a zero-sum game. The goal isn't to hurt white people, even though you can make the argument that it does. Anyway, I guess you like how the Chinese treat the Tibetans and other conquered ethnic groups? You must not have listened to the stories from your grandparents of the times when German, Irish, Italian, Scottish, Welsh, and even poor English people were considered racially inferior to the true God-given owners of the Virginia colonies and their legacy?
Your assertion that "the Russians are no longer interfering with our politics" flies in the face of the evidence. Just because Trump hasn't been indicted for conspiracy doesn't mean the Russians weren't interfering anyway.
In fact, the one thing Russians are most proven to do is go around spouting stupid contradictory nonsense to get a rise out of people. Their goal is to distract us from coming together to make things better by focusing all our attention on the things we can never agree on. Things like gay marriage, affirmative action, and how to respond to threats to our democracy.
Which raises the question: are you, VLM, a Russian troll? Or are you just a troll? Does it matter?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:07PM (5 children)
You forgot "racist" but at this point it might be redundant pointing it out.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:59PM (4 children)
If we simply dismiss VLM as a racist, we will all lose the opportunity to deconstruct his motivations. This goes for anybody you disagree with. Racism is a valid opinion. Rather than recoil from it in horror, we must be prepared to attack it on its own merits.
Which I won't do here, because I didn't pick up anything particularly racist about his post here.
Now I'm left to wonder if AC is another Russian troll. AC might even be VLM trying to start the VLM-bashing party, because that would get us to form sides and stop talking to each other.
At least on Soylent, the Anonymous Cowards tend to actually post according to their namesake instead of making meat puppets.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:47PM (3 children)
No, it isn't. It's pointless, irrational hatred given entirely unjustified additional life by according it the underserved stance of "valid opinion."
It has no merits. But yes, it should be attacked. Specifically because it is invalid opinion, and further, invalid opinion that has done great harm and can reasonably be expected to continue doing so.
--
Want about to a race conditions? hear joke
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:13PM (2 children)
Racism, as an ideology of preferring people of your own race over others, can be valid when everybody is a racist. You see this in prisons, where sometimes the only way to be safe is to fall in with the gang that matches your skin color because everyone else is going to attack you anyway.
It intersects easily with xenophobia, which can be valid when you have some relationship with everyone in your community.
Neither of these ideologies are valid in modern society...most of the time. But it's important to recognize when they are effective, because if, say, African Americans formed an explicitly anti-white organization - let's call it the Black Panthers - that would make anti-black organizations suddenly valid to most whites. Society easily devolves into conditions that make racism rational for a majority of people.
The legacy of American racism involves wealthy plantation owners creating a distinction between poor blacks, who could be enslaved, and poor whites, who could not. This was a rational ideology for the plantation owners, because it kept the masses from revolting. It was rational for the poor whites, because they got special treatment. It was rational for slaves, then, to hate white people, because they were all complicit in the racist system.
The system was evil! Regardless, it persisted for centuries. We still hear its echoes today. The moral argument of the abolitionists did not end slavery. Industrialization did.
What I'm saying is: Don't be like the abolitionists. Don't try to convince people to join you because of your moral superiority. Be like the industrialists. Create a better system. Break the old system by targeting what made it useful. Make racism obsolete, and help the racists migrate to a better ideology.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:46PM (1 child)
That's not what racism is at all.
Racism consists entirely of the (bullshit) concept that people — so far, that means humans — of (whatever) race(s) are inherently inferior to your own race, or to some other race.
We're not talking about "I prefer nordic blondes", we're talking about "I assert that black / white / asian / ainu / etc. people are inherently lesser human beings", gutter philosophies based upon no facts whatsoever other than the nature of oppressive cliquing mechanisms, the only function of which is to isolate and disadvantage others.
There's a thing as trying way too hard to be even-handed, and that's exactly what you're on about here.
There may be good reason to object to a particular set of social (or non-social) behaviors. There's no reason whatsoever to assign them as an inherent characteristic of any particular race. That stuff is tribal / clique-based. For instance, I'm not nasty because I'm white, I'm nasty because I grew up fighting the cliques in Spanish Harlem. Not because they were hispanic — but because they, meaning everyone in the clique regardless of racial heritage — were assholes to me.
--
I despise spelling errors. You mix up two
letters, and your whole sentence is urined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 15 2019, @05:09PM
The problem I see here is that commenters don't know what words like socialism, right, left, racism, and a whole host of other politically and socially charged words mean. They should all have to take remedial 8th-12th grade English.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:06PM
I don't think left vs right is a useful framework at all. Why do you think the media tries to get you to think in those terms.
Instead it is a cabal of corrupt insiders along with their millions of cronies and dependents (the army of government bureaucrat's and corporate middle managers) vs the rest of us.
Eg, it will supposedly come out soon that the FBI was not only trying to blackmail Trump, but also Clinton (and all the other candidates):
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=35594¬e=&title=Overstock.com+CEO+Comments+on+Deep+State%2C+Withholds+Further+Comment [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCKuwCRKP6c [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:26PM (1 child)
the USA is the far left screwed up country now
Truly hilarious! Screwed up? sure... Far left?? Who puts those crazy ideas in your head?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:30PM
VLM's post does a good job of demonstrating how warped and useless the notions of left and right are. Because it's true that western commentators criticize Russia on PC grounds and keep trying to connect them to Repubs, Trump, or the alt-right. Meanwhile, Russia has national health insurance and a still active Communist party...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:14PM (8 children)
China has seen their chance to expedite the timescale to the inevitable considerably and (from their PoV, quite understandably) taken it, and you can bet the UK's response is going to be "Please, Sir, can I have some more?" because asking NATO for help under Article 5 isn't an option here, and there's no way Boris is going to go and beg the EU for some additional support in the form of sanctions.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:24PM
Note that ALL ships leak. New, old, properly maintained, or negligently abused, they all leak. The only questions are, how fast do they leak? And, how fast can the water be bailed? When leakage exceeds the ability to pump water back out, THEN you have a problem.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:29PM (1 child)
Don't blame it on brexit. The HK agreement was always basically an admission by the UK government that they can't defend the province.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:30PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:05PM (4 children)
Is your only solution to problems the use of military might? No wonder the world views those with the biggest armed forces as bullies rather than benefactors.
If the World stopped buying Chinese goods it would have more effect than sailing a few warships around Hong Kong. If diplomats started asking China which of their own bilateral agreements China was going to tear up next it would make more of an impression upon the Chinese government.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:58PM
The world is governed by the existence and use of military force, and little else. When all parties are in agreement as to who has the most ability to project military force into an area there is peace. When there is a difference of opinion there will be war to settle the question. The weak will submit to the strong. There is no other way. Transparency is peace. All this other nonsense is just an attempt by the strong to improve their PR. But as they grow weak reality is reasserting itself.
As for HK, don't care. They should be waving around British flags, they are a former British territory and the Treaty was with them. This is NOT our fight. And the media frenzy over it is more revealing for the things they don't say. Notice how similar protests against an oppressive government have been occurring every weekend in France all year, but have been under a media embargo outside of the country? France is a European country, a friend and ally of America going back to the American Revolution itself. Crickets. Hong Kong is getting heavy rotation in media coverage. Ponder this. Who benefits?
The smart people in HK got out while they still had British travel papers, the less smart got out over the next twenty years while the getting was still almost as good. Stupid is supposed to hurt, those remaining can enjoy being Chinese Communists now. I'll worry about the encroaching Communism here in America.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:03PM
> If the World stopped buying Chinese goods ...
These sorts of economic games were used quite extensively in 17th and 18th century Europe, with little effect. In the end, military power has always been the final arbiter of real politik.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:05PM (1 child)
At the end of the day, when it comes to international relations force is the only thing that matters. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way. You can levy sanctions against a country, but if the country you're levying sanctions on can beat the crap out of you then they will and then your sanctions don't count for squat.
Let's say that you're the only country that supplies oil to the other five countries around you. You decide you don't like country #3 and stop giving them oil. Then they walk over and beat the crap out of you, and hey presto your economic sanctions against country #3 didn't accomplish a whole lot except to get you killed. The economic sanctions can only work if you have a bigger, better army than country #3 and can keep them from beating the crap out of you instead.
So then you're not literally beating the crap out of others, but using sanctions and other means remains bullying and you're still a bully. The essence of bullying is doing something to others that they don't like and can't stop. The means is really irrelevant.
To put that in international relations terms, soft power only matters if you have the hard power to back it up. In other words, it's all about force.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:49PM
sh1111111t, i just majored in politics in like 20 seconds ^_^
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:14PM
Yes. And, do you have any idea how many women have believed that they wouldn't get pregnant, because "I'll only put the tip in", and/or "I'll pull out in time".
Listen closely, and you'll hear "pray that I don't alter it any further". Not that the prayers will do any good - the top dogs in Beijing just like to hear the fervent prayers.