> It's tough, but I think the best approach, if you do want to express support for HK, is instead to focus on the Censorship of the issues by the Chinese government.
So basically we can't talk about things to Westerners like we would, because Chinese citizens might overhear on the web and freak out? And not complying is us interfering?
What if suggesting so would get you ostracized in democracies? If you had to pick one or the other?
> unless it's handled very carefully it can make the situation worse, not better.
The violence against the protesters has been constantly ramping up, for months. It's not like the other side fails to understand the demands, they simply will ignore and brutalize the people until they stop protesting. Do you think there will be new information that will change things?
> After all, an end in terror is preferable to terror without end.
-- Leaflet #2 of the White Rose
There might be no clean and neat way out of this, but none of the people you are asking to provide one wanted or started any of this. That burden is not on them. They came across an aggressor and a victim, and it's not just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without stepping on anyone's toes. You either step on the toes of victim or aggressor -- since you are already aware of the deed, being neutral isn't an option.
Yeah, it's not fun, but it doesn't become more fun by avoiding what cannot be avoided. And downvoting within 1 minute without reply just proves how important this is, and how long we have allowed ourselves to slip and prefer distortion and silencing over intellectually honest argument, even about uncomfortable things.
I'm just showing how this is perceived from a mainlander perspective, and why people that could be allies have been manipulated into a confrontational stance. I think the best way to fight this is to point out the way they have been manipulated. It's a matter of tactics. I'm making a suggestion, that's all.
> And not complying is us interfering?
That is how it is perceived by mainlanders, due to the way they have been manipulated.
This is a trap set by the CCP. When your enemy lays a trap, saying "I'm completely entitled to go where that trap is, nobody's going to impinge on my rights of free passage" and then walking straight into the trap doesn't help anybody.
I am not advocating stepping on the toes of the protesters, or mainland Chinese. I'm saying attack the real target - the Chinese Communist Party. They are the real opponent here. Call them out. Point out their role. Show how they are manipulating the narrative. That's my advice.
> This is a trap set by the CCP. When your enemy lays a trap, saying "I'm completely entitled to go where that trap is, nobody's going to impinge on my rights of free passage" and then walking straight into the trap doesn't help anybody.
I was talking about using Western media to talk to a our friends and within our societies though. The trap might also be being chilled into giving up our freedom to think, and therefore to act, and to be in solidarity with those who need and deserve it.
I agree that "Free Hong Kong" is not a good slogan, and that mixing up the Chinese and the CCP is doing the CCP's work for them, and I also think that explaining that secession is not meant here isn't "appeasement" either. If you mean those things with "trap", I agree. But not insofar as just "speaking freely" is concerned.
I mean, it's not like the CCP wouldn't come up with things to keep people in line in absence of Westerners saying offensive things, or that even the most moderate and well reasoned argument that isn't revisionist and obedient to the whims of the CCP, cannot somehow be twisted into being offensive. So the way I see it, we'd lose something crucial and valuable if we censored ourselves, and would gain little to nothing, since that wouldn't change the mind of the CCP or loosen its grip.
> I'm saying attack the real target - the Chinese Communist Party.
I agree with that 100%, and I harbor no ill feelings towards the Chinese people as such. But the context isn't someone denigrating all Chinese people, it's someone showing solidarity with the Chinese people in Hong Kong. Though I agree that "trolling China" is a terrible suggestion, and don't troll the CCP either, resist and call it out in no unclear terms.
So basically we can't talk about things to Westerners like we would, because Chinese citizens might overhear on the web and freak out? And not complying is us interfering?
What if suggesting so would get you ostracized in democracies? If you had to pick one or the other?
> unless it's handled very carefully it can make the situation worse, not better.
The violence against the protesters has been constantly ramping up, for months. It's not like the other side fails to understand the demands, they simply will ignore and brutalize the people until they stop protesting. Do you think there will be new information that will change things?
> After all, an end in terror is preferable to terror without end.
-- Leaflet #2 of the White Rose
There might be no clean and neat way out of this, but none of the people you are asking to provide one wanted or started any of this. That burden is not on them. They came across an aggressor and a victim, and it's not just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up without stepping on anyone's toes. You either step on the toes of victim or aggressor -- since you are already aware of the deed, being neutral isn't an option.
Yeah, it's not fun, but it doesn't become more fun by avoiding what cannot be avoided. And downvoting within 1 minute without reply just proves how important this is, and how long we have allowed ourselves to slip and prefer distortion and silencing over intellectually honest argument, even about uncomfortable things.