[Rancid]

Well actually, Rancid is the only real user on this forum. Every other account is controlled by the same person. Spooky, no?

Hear hear! All of you are bots!

Not sure I'm seeing these protesters being oppressed, since they've a) had the demand re: the extradition treaty met b) aren't being shot in the eyes and such like what we're seeing in France and Kashmir despite invading government buildings and c) are running around doing things like closing down an airport, beating up journalists etc. How are they being oppressed?

The bigger thing here is that this is an existential threat to the Cantonese culture and language.

They enjoy freedoms that the mainlanders do not enjoy. The mainland has been eroding on this since the handover from the UK. Further, there is a cultural element here in that the mainland is actively working to eliminate the Cantonese culture and language (for example banning Cantonese grammar books, and forcing more Mandarin based teaching in schools). This is an existential threat to the Cantonese people. As someone who supports Palestine, the independence of say Puerto Rico, the fact you don't understand this is baffling. You are either confused, ignorant, or not actually understanding the core of what's going on here. If you were actually consistent in your beliefs, you would be supporting Hong Kong here. You contradiction here makes you look like a total hypocrite (everyone on this thread sees it except you)

It's well understood that British colonialism is the original sin here. That original sin also gave rise to a tremendous standard of living and developing of the people there. On of those developments is far greater freedoms than the mainland. At this stage in history, it's of little importance/relevance to the issue at hand. This is just noise.

Ultimately, if you want to support the mainland, that's fine. However, it just means we can't take you seriously in other areas like say Palestine, Kashimere, etc. etc. etc.

[skinster]

Citation needed for any of your opinion so I know what you're talking about, Rancid.

Also, lol at being called confused/ignorant by you.

[Rancid]

Citation needed for any of your opinion so I know what you're talking about, Rancid.

Ok, so you are willfully ignorant. I don't have the time to do your homework for you. There's plenty of information out there.

[skinster]

If you're making claims, it's up to you to prove them.

I'll note you have moved your "argument" to Chinese languages, rather than what I was talking about re: the protests (you know, the on-topic stuff).

[Zionist Nationalist]

Ultimately, if you want to support the mainland, that's fine. However, it just means we can't take you seriously in other areas like say Palestine, Kashimere, etc. etc. etc.

Only now you realized that? Skinster is also supporting Venezuelan dictatorship its one thing to be against foreign intervention and another thing to blatantly support an oppressive government that has executed thousands of its own people without a trial

[Rancid]

:lol:
I'll note you have moved your "argument" to Chinese languages, rather than what I was talking about re: the protests (you know, the on-topic stuff).

Taking a parochial approach to this is why you don't understand what's actually happening here.

It's a multi-facited problem, which you clearly do not understand. You are not seeing the larger context here. This is about far more than the extradition bill. The extradition bill was just straw that broke the camel's back. At it's core, the mainland's actions over the last 20-ish years have been an existential threat to the Cantonese culture/language (Hond Kong being the de-facto capital of the culture and language). Allowing the mainland to exert more authoritarian control over hong kong (through this bill for example, and this is just ONE thing of many) will accelerate the eradication of the culture and language. The fact you don't understand this, or are in denial about is just shows how ignorant you are. You can't see how hypocritical you are by siding with China on this one. It makes all your other stances on issues inconsistent with this.

[Rancid]

Only now you realized that? Skinster is also supporting Venezuelan dictatorship its one thing to be against foreign intervention and another thing to blatantly support an oppressive government that has executed thousands of its own people without a trial

No, this is something I've understood about skinster for a long time. This is just the first time I point it out.

[JohnRawls]

:lol:

If you're making claims, it's up to you to prove them.

I'll note you have moved your "argument" to Chinese languages, rather than what I was talking about re: the protests (you know, the on-topic stuff).

You have no perspective and view the world from only one angle. You are not interested in any other views. What is the point of listening to you or even discussing anything with you?

The story that you are trying to tell all the time is black and white for you. Just for the most us it is not that simple because most of the people here have perspective. We might not agree between each other on our perspectives and opinions that is a whole different matter. You are basically no different from TinTin or any other Russian bot.

[Rancid]

We might not agree between each other on our perspectives and opinions that is a whole different matter.

Indeed. It's ok to occasionally agree with people you might ideologically fundamentally disagree with. I'm wondering if that's part of Skinsters 'issue'. She feels the need to always disagree with people like me for example. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

As you say, seeing things in black and white is certainly easier to do. The issue is, it leads to weird positions and ideas. That are ultimately inconsistent with each other. I think skinster has demonstrated this numerous times on these forums.

[Rancid]

@skinster

All I'm asking from you is a little more consistency. We do not have to agree.

[JohnRawls]

Indeed. It's ok to occasionally agree with people you might ideologically fundamentally disagree with. I'm wondering if that's part of Skinsters 'issue'. She feels the need to always disagree with people like me for example. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

As you say, seeing things in black and white is certainly easier to do. The issue is, it leads to weird positions and ideas. That are ultimately inconsistent with each other. I think skinster has demonstrated this numerous times on these forums.

I don't really think that skinsters position being inconsistent with each other is wrong or a problem. It is ultimately from our perspective compared to her. From her side she will say it is consistent just because she simply has no perspective in a sense or at the least doesn't believe any other perspective that doesn't fit her world view. It is also very hard to keep the larger picture in mind all the time.

So for example when i was against Libya or Syria simple because i do not see how getting rid of Qadaffi or Assad will help the people of those countries because i am aware of the alternatives that will probably happen, she was okay with it. But as soon as I said something along the lines that "I understand why the French did Libya with German support" or "Russia is not really in Syria for the benefit of the Syrians" she again thought i am the devil himself and accused me of revisionism that "America did Libya" or "Russia is there legally/invited".

She can't take opinions that go outside of her perspective. May be she is not good with Criticism.

[Rancid]

I don't really think that skinsters position being inconsistent with each other is wrong or a problem. It is ultimately from our perspective compared to her. From her side she will say it is consistent just because she simply has no perspective in a sense or at the least doesn't believe any other perspective that doesn't fit her world view. It is also very hard to keep the larger picture in mind all the time.

Fair enough, to a point. I don't think that means it's ok to be inconsistent. What it tells me is that there are two layers here. The first layer is to have all the information such that you can develop a perspective that is not limited. A perspective that understands the complete context of a situation, including history. Then after that, you can start to formulate ideas/thoughts that can be consistent across issues.

I hope that makes sense. I don't think I explained it well.

Thus, my point is, it is still very important to be consistent. However, you first need a broad perspective of any given situation to even have a chance at being consistent.

ok ok, I think you helped me understand something better here. Thanks!

[skinster]

You guys get triggered that someone points out the Western interference in the protests.

The exact same thing happened with Venezuela and Syria at the beginning.

Nothing to see here...

It's sad not to have friends but it's sadder not to have enemies.

[Rugoz]

Why would anyone be disappointed by skinster? That's like being disappointed with your retarded kid. Duh!

[skinster]

[JohnRawls]

Fair enough, to a point. I don't think that means it's ok to be inconsistent. What it tells me is that there are two layers here. The first layer is to have all the information such that you can develop a perspective that is not limited. A perspective that understands the complete context of a situation, including history. Then after that, you can start to formulate ideas/thoughts that can be consistent across issues.

I hope that makes sense. I don't think I explained it well.

Thus, my point is, it is still very important to be consistent. However, you first need a broad perspective of any given situation to even have a chance at being consistent.

ok ok, I think you helped me understand something better here. Thanks!

You are correct here. There is a much simpler analogy that i heard regarding this. It has more things to it but I'll give it a shot at explaining it a bit in short.

First of all, all of our debates and opinions here is either retrospective of the past, analysis of the present or forecasting of the future. We do it with our own "View" of the world. So when a company does this in America, lets say Statfor then it does it in a America-centric view or America beneficial view and so on. People also act in the same manner, we do it in our own "View" whatever it might be: well-being of the people, personal prosperity/gain, etc It just depends on the topic.

Second thing is to decide is forecasting even possible? Basically we know we can analyse the present and we can do retrospectives of the past for sure but is it possible to forecast in to the future? This is a heavily debatable topic. People who do it tend to say "yes" and people who do analysis of the present and the past might say "no". I tend to agree that we can forecast things to a degree. It is not always correct but we at least can summarise the most likely scenarios. It is very hard though because there are many methedologies that can be used ( Applying retrospective from the past to the present and future, peoples agency on events, geographical constraints, economical constraints, possibilities etc)

When we talk about Hong Kong or Brexit or Trump is basically forecasting through our "View". The established theory behind this that i tend to agree with is that(Here is the actual analogy that i wanted to tell):
1) We stand on a top of a mountain which is based on our knowledge, perspective, information, etc. Every mountain is different in size and scope.
2) If you look in to the future there is the so called "Event Horizon" after which you can't see. May be somebody else can but that is your personal limit. Event Horizon basically consists of great many mountains. Some of them small, some of them large but inevitably it will obstruct your line of sight depending on the size of your own mountain.
3) The area in between your mountain and the mountain that obstructs your line of sight is the place where the forecasting happens of sorts. You might use different techniques here or methods but ultimately you can't see further a certain point.

So basically the divergent opinion are of 2 sorts:
1) Your mountain is just not large enough or too large compared to somebody else. This is where the inconsistencies come in that you mentioned.
2) Different techniques are applied to forecast the in between area.

There is also a third kind of divergence. Basically the "View" that i mentioned in the start might be different. You might be doing Europe-centred analysis instead of an American-centred one. This one i will leave out for now. Simple example here is that you might be doing analysis on "How to harm HK" or "How to make HK prosper" the conclusions of which will be different but the logic inside might be similar.

[Rancid]

You are correct here. There is a much simpler analogy that i heard regarding this. It has more things to it but I'll give it a shot at explaining it a bit in short.

First of all, all of our debates and opinions here is either retrospective of the past, analysis of the present or forecasting of the future. We do it with our own "View" of the world. So when a company does this in America, lets say Statfor then it does it in a America-centric view or America beneficial view and so on. People also act in the same manner, we do it in our own "View" whatever it might be: well-being of the people, personal prosperity/gain, etc It just depends on the topic.

Second thing is to decide is forecasting even possible? Basically we know we can analyse the present and we can do retrospectives of the past for sure but is it possible to forecast in to the future? This is a heavily debatable topic. People who do it tend to say "yes" and people who do analysis of the present and the past might say "no". I tend to agree that we can forecast things to a degree. It is not always correct but we at least can summarise the most likely scenarios. It is very hard though because there are many methedologies that can be used ( Applying retrospective from the past to the present and future, peoples agency on events, geographical constraints, economical constraints, possibilities etc)

When we talk about Hong Kong or Brexit or Trump is basically forecasting through our "View". The established theory behind this that i tend to agree with is that(Here is the actual analogy that i wanted to tell):
1) We stand on a top of a mountain which is based on our knowledge, perspective, information, etc. Every mountain is different in size and scope.
2) If you look in to the future there is the so called "Event Horizon" after which you can't see. May be somebody else can but that is your personal limit. Event Horizon basically consists of great many mountains. Some of them small, some of them large but inevitably it will obstruct your line of sight depending on the size of your own mountain.
3) The area in between your mountain and the mountain that obstructs your line of sight is the place where the forecasting happens of sorts. You might use different techniques here or methods but ultimately you can't see further a certain point.

So basically the divergent opinion are of 2 sorts:
1) Your mountain is just not large enough or too large compared to somebody else. This is where the inconsistencies come in that you mentioned.
2) Different techniques are applied to forecast the in between area.

There is also a third kind of divergence. Basically the "View" that i mentioned in the start might be different. You might be doing Europe-centred analysis instead of an American-centred one. This one i will leave out for now. Simple example here is that you might be doing analysis on "How to harm HK" or "How to make HK prosper" the conclusions of which will be different but the logic inside might be similar.

Yes. I have nothing to add/subtract.

[colliric]

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/8/16/2 ... g-protests

Disney's Mulan film is set to be boycotted by the young Cantonese community worldwide.

[colliric]

Good summary of the week.

[Rancid]

FYI, not only is Jackie Chan a traitor to the Cantonese people, he is also a dead beat dad.