Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Wednesday November 06 2019, @10:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-roughed-up dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Chinese state media has urged authorities to take a "tougher line" against protesters in Hong Kong who vandalised state-run Xinhua news agency and other buildings at the weekend, saying the violence damaged the city's rule of law.

[...] In an editorial, state-backed China Daily newspaper criticised the "wanton" attacks by "naive" demonstrators, adding, "They are doomed to fail simply because their violence will encounter the full weight of the law."

Police fired tear gas at black-clad protesters on Saturday and Sunday in some of the worst violence in the Asian financial hub in weeks, with metro stations set ablaze and buildings vandalised.

Violence also erupted on Sunday after a man with a knife attacked several people and bit off part of the ear of a pro-democracy politician. Two of the victims are reportedly in critical condition, according to reports.

The past five months of anti-government protests in the former British colony represent the biggest popular challenge to President Xi Jinping's government since he took over China's leadership in late 2012.

Protesters are angry at China's perceived meddling with Hong Kong's freedoms, including its legal system, since the Asian financial hub returned to Chinese rule in 1997. China denies the accusation.

The widely-read Global Times tabloid on Sunday condemned the protesters' actions targeting Xinhua and called for action by Hong Kong's enforcement agencies.

"Due to the symbolic image of Xinhua, the vandalizing of its branch is not only a provocation to the rule of law in Hong Kong, but also to the central government and the Chinese mainland, which is the rioters' main purpose," it said.

On Friday, after a meeting of China's top leadership, a senior Chinese official said it would not tolerate separatism or threats to national security in Hong Kong and would "perfect" the way it appointed the city's leader.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:18PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:18PM (#919382) Journal

    I've never tried to even look for advantages of Chinese culture.

    I think it would be a healthy exercise to try contrary to assertion.

    The point that the whole idea for looking for them is fallacious. It's pure idiocy.

    Unless, of course, it's not.

    In case of cat colonies each one can cover limited territory so many of them can exists at the same time, whatever fine points they have over each other change over time and what can be considered advantage or not is in the eye of beholder.

    And yet, none of the conditions I mentioned was subjective like that.

    I see human macrosocieties like this too: they have things in which they're different, they have things that they share.

    False. None of the societies present now share the facet of nonexistence with the ones that have gone away.

  • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:52PM (3 children)

    by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:52PM (#919397)

    All of the above is nonsense. Justify why would anyone look why one society is superior than other or concede that you have no point. Any advantages or disadvantages are so subjective that any way about proving advantages/disadvantages would involve insane amount of cherry-picking and will not be falsifiable [wikipedia.org].

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:08PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:08PM (#919401) Journal

      Justify why would anyone look why one society is superior than other or concede that you have no point.

      I already answered [soylentnews.org] the question.

      But when it comes to survival or the prosperity of a society, culture matters a great deal.

      You're just not paying attention.

      Any advantages or disadvantages are so subjective that any way about proving advantages/disadvantages would involve insane amount of cherry-picking and will not be falsifiable.

      Except of course, by its presence or absence in the future. The future will happen.

      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)

        by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:59PM (#919505)

        Your reasons are just cherry-picking. If you look at it objectively currently Chinese are better at surviving than rest of humanity if population numbers are taken in account. Even your theories about relative importance of "strong leader" are unconvincing and unsubstantiated. Like there are people emphasizing different aspects of strong leadership both in China and outside of it. Sweeping statements can be once again only made by cherry-picking. But you still evade my question. Not why is China superior/inferior but why you want to answer this question in the first place? Why even try to grade it on some scale? Why do it? After all your points are driven by a wish to find some advantage so if you find them then it's not admissible proof due to fine-tuning and cherry-picking(They are better in some thing? Then it's irrelevant. They're worse at some thing? Then it's all-important). Only justification is your wish for it to be so. Thus it is circular reasoning. Many of unfortunate things in China are directly caused by Western policies aimed at achieving purely mercantilist aims. Thus it's also self-fulfilling prophecy.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:16PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:16PM (#919516) Journal

          Your reasons are just cherry-picking.

          Just cherry picking a couple of really important ones. You don't need a thousand reasons to own a cat, you just need a good one.