Thanks everyone for your comments. A few notes to answer some of the questions/critiques I've received:
-
Show this thread
-
To summarize: my core argument is that Hong Kong is in decline and this is due to China's mismanagement.
4 replies 4 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Yes, I was exaggerating when I said that Hong Kong had declined to the level of a provincial Chinese city.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
As I wrote (but which some people didn't read), I think it's still a thrilling city. But I also think its decline is evident. This is subjective but it's clear to many people from statistics, some of which I cited in the piece, and by walking around the place.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
I've visited HK dozens of times since 1987 and spent months there interviewing people, so I do have a basis of comparison, even if such judgments are necessarily subjective and personal.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Some people want to have it both ways: to say China is ruining Hong Kong and then say it's not being ruined, that it's stronger than ever. I understand the emotional attachment to HK but I think it's necessary to have a bit of distance, even if the conclusion is harsh.
1 reply 3 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Some people argued that the violence is justified. My point is that it's *understandable*, hence my reference to Galtung's concept of "structural violence" being inflicted on Hong Kong.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
But I still hold that violence is wrong. Tactically, it gives China the arguments it needs to crack down. Morally it's highly problematic when other options are available
13 replies 3 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
The government bans large protests? What about strikes? What about defying the ban and protesting peacefully? These paths would be far more effective than throwing or turning a blind eye to Molotov cocktails.
21 replies 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @iandenisjohnson
This comes up a lot and is an interesting topic! The short answer is that there is no good mechanism for enforcing boundaries, and that the protests have put unity above tactics, so you will not find mutual criticism over tactics. Both have their roots in the failure of 2014.
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes
Consider the constraints. Everything has to be organized anonymously and in full public view (on online forums), and any named leadership would be jailed. People *have* tried to do peaceful protests in defiance of the police, and it ends in tear gas and arrests.
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard @iandenisjohnson
I've never liked the use of petrol bombs, but if you look at how they're being used, it has been clear that they initially served the same role as barricades—to buy time for people to run away by slowing down police pursuit. That is the result of the extreme legal hazard.
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard @iandenisjohnson
It's easy to tell people facing 10 years in jail to "keep it peaceful" from far away. In practice, if throwing the petrol bombs means the difference between arrest and evasion, people are going to throw them. I don't condone it, but I understand it. I'm not the one facing prison
1 reply 4 retweets 30 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.