[Rugoz]

Hong Kong could be independent indeed and it's not really a matter of legitimacy whether it is or not, however, legitimacy is exactly the topic discussed here, on my part at least. As to legitimacy, HK is part of China and shouldn't even strive for independence or even autonomy because it's just a Chinese island that was grabbed by a foreign military force and that's how the whole story started in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, what matters is what the people of Hong Kong want.

The fact that the British grabbed it from a backward feudal state ~180 years ago is utterly irrelevant to me.

[Patrickov]

The fact that the British grabbed it from a backward feudal state ~180 years ago is utterly irrelevant to me.

Qing was backward but not "feudal". China abandoned feudalism in the 2nd century BC.

[Rugoz]

Qing was backward but not "feudal". China abandoned feudalism in the 2nd century BC.

The commies think China was feudal until 1949, so why not adopt their terminology if it helps my argument.

[Beren]

As far as I'm concerned, what matters is what the people of Hong Kong want.

The fact that the British grabbed it from a backward feudal state ~180 years ago is utterly irrelevant to me.

As far as I'm concerned with this debate, what the people of Hong Kong seem to want is illegitimate, because their whole false identity is illegitimate due to historic facts that are utterly irrelevant to you. Which is your own personal issue that also doesn't matter, by the way.

[Patrickov]

As far as I'm concerned with this debate, what the people of Hong Kong seem to want is illegitimate, because their whole false identity is illegitimate due to historic facts that are utterly irrelevant to you. Which is your own personal issue that also doesn't matter, by the way.

As I said, independence should not be seen as an objective.

If holding the government accountable according to the Basic Law is still a challenge to their so-called national security then I am afraid the Chinese government and its supporters have lost their legitimacy to rule, as I said in my previous post.

[Rugoz]

As far as I'm concerned with this debate, what the people of Hong Kong seem to want is illegitimate, because their whole false identity is illegitimate due to historic facts that are utterly irrelevant to you. Which is your own personal issue that also doesn't matter, by the way.

Thing is, my position is at least somewhat consistent and universally applicable, while yours would require you to unravel all of human history.

Also, claiming that Hongkongers have a "false identity" is peak arrogance and ignorant on top of that.

[Beren]

Thing is, my position is at least somewhat consistent and universally applicable, while yours would require you to unravel all of human history.

Also, claiming that Hongkongers have a "false identity" is peak arrogance and ignorant on top of that.

How applicability is even an issue here? This is a merely intellectual debate, on my part at least.

Hongkongers have a false identity because they're just simple Chinese people, nothing else.

[Rugoz]

How applicability is even an issue here? This is a merely intellectual debate, on my part at least.

Because the categorical imperative demands it.

Hongkongers have a false identity because they're just simple Chinese people, nothing else.

And humans are simply humans. I leave it to others to respond to that.

[Beren]

Because the categorical imperative demands it.

Does PoFo demand it too?

And humans are simply humans.

Exactly, so every national identity is actually false, but we still stick to that illusion.

[Unthinking Majority]

The problem with all anti-China sentiments and (false) analogies is that China's efforts to assert sovereignty over Hong Kong are historically legitimate.

Hitler invaded Poland to regain lost German territory. Before that he invaded and annexed the German part of Czechoslovakia.

[Patrickov]

Exactly, so every national identity is actually false, but we still stick to that illusion.

Human beings have their freedom to decide whether a group exists and whether they belong to the said group, as long as all members of that group (and no one else) agree with exactly that (no more and no less), and the said group does not exist to attack others.

In this sense, Hongkonger is a group agreed by most living in Hong Kong, and is not a group aim to undermine China (as the Chinese government wants the world to believe). If anything, it is the Chinese government and its supporters themselves who undermined Chinese as an identity, not us.

[Donna]

Hitler invaded Poland to regain lost German territory. Before that he invaded and annexed the German part of Czechoslovakia.

Not quite, he took back Danzig and the Sudetenland but he also conquered non-German lands in Poland and Czechoslovakia for the purposes of lebensraum.

[Unthinking Majority]

Not quite, he took back Danzig and the Sudetenland but he also conquered non-German lands in Poland and Czechoslovakia for the purposes of lebensraum.

And China has similar ambitions.

[Donna]

And China has similar ambitions.

You're claiming that China has ambitions to conquer historically non-Chinese territory and set up two-tiered racial systems in those lands?

[colliric]

Great video.

[Code Rood]

I see that people are comparing stuff to the Nazis again. It's so simplistic and boomeristic. Come on guys. Even if there are a few similarities, China is still a complete different animal.

Besides, many people are going to have a hard time taking your plight seriously if you constantly make it about Hitler and the Nazis. How many times have we heard about the ''new Hitler'' crap or someone being called ''literally Hitler'', trying to get guilt ridden Westerners all riled up and distracted?

[Beren]

Human beings have their freedom to decide whether a group exists and whether they belong to the said group, as long as all members of that group (and no one else) agree with exactly that (no more and no less), and the said group does not exist to attack others.

In this sense, Hongkonger is a group agreed by most living in Hong Kong, and is not a group aim to undermine China (as the Chinese government wants the world to believe). If anything, it is the Chinese government and its supporters themselves who undermined Chinese as an identity, not us.

Hongkonger is a fake identity created by Anglo imperialism. Your identity is like that of Mowgli's or Tarzan's, who considered themselves a wolf and a chimpanzee respectively due to an accident. Anglo imperialism was also such an accident in Chinese history and you're China's abducted and lost children she's legitimately reclaiming.

[skinster]

As far as I'm concerned, what matters is what the people of Palestine want.

The fact that the British grabbed it...180 years ago is utterly irrelevant to me.

Is that you, Rugoz? Is this what you believe? I suppose this proves that consistency you were referring to above, eh?

[Patrickov]

Hongkonger is a fake identity created by Anglo imperialism. Your identity is like that of Mowgli's or Tarzan's, who considered themselves a wolf and a chimpanzee respectively due to an accident. Anglo imperialism was also such an accident in Chinese history and you're China's abducted and lost children she's legitimately reclaiming.

Other than those biologically having that relation, or those having a process of adoption, no one is entitled to have a parent-offspring relationship.

And apart from a brief time in 1277-78 no Chinese ruler had ever been to Hong Kong prior to 1997.

Both handovers of 1842 and 1997 had been power politics. It is absurd to try to describe them otherwise.

EDIT: It is also absurd to try to use these events to justify what they are doing now. I acknowledge that we are effectively asking (or for some of us, fighting) to change what some people think as unchangeable, and I understand that not everybody is able to understand this.

EDIT 2: Nothing stays forever so.

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1264132298385088513?s=20

May I express my appreciation of this voice of sense.

Patten's stance is very clear, but as a professional government official, this is about the strongest he could ever say.

Although I am not sure whether "betray" is an accurate description. This would mean China and CCP had been on our side at least for a while. In reality, their intentions have been very clear (for at least 4 decades if not more).

[Beren]

Both handovers of 1842 and 1997 had been power politics. It is absurd to try to describe them otherwise.

And who does? Yes, HK could be independent in theory, yes, it's a matter of power politics mostly, however, none of that relates to the topic I'm discussing (legitimacy) at all.