That's just one example that popped into my head. I can pick another example if you don't like this one. How about how black people are treated in the US? Not all of them are in concentration camps, but many of them are in jail for non violent "crimes" (for example for doing things that have since become legal in many states). Or how muslims are treated everywhere in the west?
I'm not defending China, I'm just saying many countries do terrible things - also democratic ones (sometimes it's the goverment, sometimes it's the people).
I love China and I have a lot of empathy for the Chinese people. You have an amazing and ancient culture and I hope that you can release yourselves from oppression, gain control of your own government as a people, prosper and be happy. We are all human beings, fuck the dictators.
>Nobody ever wanted to escape the democratic side and jump in the other direction. Why?
You've never heard of James Dresnok. Why?
I am not claiming that democracy will save Hong Kong from China. What I am saying is that democracy is better than no democracy, and no amount of doublespeak or whatabbautism is going to change that reality. "Eat this poison, it's good for you", it's what the Chinese autocrats are saying. Well, people might indeed have to eat it, but they don't have to believe that it is good for them.
> You've never heard of James Dresnok. Why?
Yes I did, and I'm sure you can probably find a similar case that is actually related to my example. The simple point is that, when you have a wall between a democracy (not a "democracy", like contemporary Russia) and an autocratic regime, the ratio of people making the jump in the direction of the dictatorship against people making the jump in the direction of the democracy is < .00001. It is probably not zero because of people with psychiatric issues, people who are in love with someone on the other side, who left family there... But it is pretty damn close to zero, and this is something you have to explain if you want to insist that democracy or no democracy is the same for people.
It's not reality, it's just your opinion (and those of most people living in democratic countries). Meanwhile the vast majority of Chinese people disagree with you.
What you've done here, whether on purpose or accident, is partake in a variant of whataboutism. The only people it helps are those against progress in both situations.
I'm just highlighting endless bikeshedding, imo human right violations just don't always have very much to do with the political system of a country. As such changing the political system in a country doesn't make all the human right violations magically disappear.
Great, then you can write a blog post about that and post it to HN and we’ll discuss those atrocities on that post.
Meanwhile let’s stay on topic here, and discuss an article written by a HK citizen to Chinese citizens about China.
This is whataboutism, a classic conversational anti pattern that rears its head every single time China comes up on HN. It’s time to stop.
He wants a different political system (democratic) and his arguments are that the current one did many bad things. My point is that changing the political system doesn't change the bad things he's talking about. As we can clearly see in many democratic systems in the world.
I don't think I'll write a blogpost. Given the initial responses of my current comments I am sure it would get downvoted anyway.
I think freedom of speech and press helps to bring abuses to daylight and rule of law is essential in reining them in.
I believe both are more robust (but, not nearly perfect) in western democracies, and are included in this desire for reform.
I agree that they can be important, but they don't always solve many problems. Sometimes they even create problems: for example all the "fake news" and entities abusing social media platforms to manipulate elections.