That's the lesson Dolores Umbridge inadvertently taught us in Harry Potter # 5.

It's free to watch here: https://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s23e02-band-in-china

I'd be surprised if it wasn't one of the biggest episodes in South Park history. And certainly the most viewed episode in China, haha.

This cosplayer was a finalist and the competition in question removed her over it.

When I first encountered it this morning my thought was that she ultimately wins because she's getting exposure that she never would have gotten before, and most people aren't ridiculous.

The riots in Hong Kong saved the CPC. The people in Mainland China were already starting to get upset at the government because of how the trade war was affecting the economy. The implicit contract being the people won’t rebel if the economy is good.

Luckily for the CPC, the Hong Kong riots came along and now the government is able to use that as an excuse to bolster patriotism.

So naturally they need to be “tough” on the NBA, Blizzard and any other company so as to not lose the people’s support.

I'm afraid we may have entered an era where outrage machines in China effectively dictate market access. Senators, Prime Ministers, Premier's, and Presidents will be powerless to stop it. (Well, short of shutting the outrage machines down.)

Of course there's nary a peep about Blizzard.

I'm about to do a thought experiment here. Only a thought, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. But just consider, what sort of messages would sock puppets controlled by, say, CBA teams be throwing into the Weibo Outrage Machine on the subject of the NBA? You say, "Well the NBA is likely doing the same", and I'd probably agree. Point is though that this is a new era really in public manipulation.

Think along those lines and you can kind of get an idea how these outrage machines around the world can be far more powerful tools than any government.

Talk to a few Chinese immigrants and you will know.

The younger Chinese generation grew up in an era of Chinese economic boom and are the benefactors of the efficiency in decision making that came with a more top-down (dictatorial if you will) government. The younger generation is much more focused on economic well-being and safety over liberty or freedom.

So as long as China can maintain the economic growth it's been having the past two decades, the Chinese public will by and large support the government.

This is perfectly reasonable when you consider it a personal decision. Sure, trade away some of your freedom for better economic well-being.

But how do they justify this when their personal economic well-being requires trampling the freedom of other people?

By that logic, would pro-China people would support China going to war with and taking over other countries if it brought them "economic well-being"?

(edited to make the last statement more clearly a question since it's something I'm genuinely curious about.)

There are 3 great evils in China: terrorism, separatism and extremism. HK/Tibet/XinJiang/Taiwan are not economic issues but security ones. People balance prosperity for security everywhere. The west sees HK as a large pro democracy movement, the Chinese see's this as fringe separatist violence by 0.001% of the population. They see HK as Chinese alt-right getting bold undermining domestic serenity: disenfranchised, social media savvy, economically anxious youth who see their culture being displaced and their privileged being eroded by mainland immigrants. They're acting accordingly.

"Hello, I am the CEO of a company located in a fully autonomous province that does not pay taxes to the PRC?"

What security interest is served by censoring discussion of the existence of Taiwan?

This is a political issue, not a security issue.

Taiwan is clearly sovereign, anyone saying otherwise is ignoring reality or avoiding offending China.

The US had military bases in Taiwan for 20 years, the military bases were removed to assist with normalizing relations with China.

I can absolutely see why insisting that the US not place military bases on Taiwan is a security concern, but this has nothing to do with the sovereignty of Taiwan. (Similar to US concerns about Russian military installationa in Cuba which were unrelated to Cuba's sovereignty.)

The institutional double-speak around the sovereignty of Taiwan is purely political and has no impact on actual security issues.

The same way every one in every other country on earth deals with the awful things their country does I guess. By ignoring it.

> By that logic, would pro-China people would support China going to war with and taking over other countries if it brought them "economic well-being"?

Looking at world history probably?

To paraphrase your last statement, as long as the US can manage to not destroy their economy completely, the US public will by and large support the government.

Most Americans are angry about the president or some senator. Medicare? FBI? The US Navy / Air Force / Army? The police? Most Americans love those. (When did you last see a group of people asking for the disbanding of the FBI? Heck, for the disbanding of the IRS even.)

In this case, the volume of messages I was reading made clear mainlander disdain for the NBA's perceived position on Hong Kong. (The great irony being that the NBA actually has no position on HK, but just like in the US, that fact does little to stop the outrage machines.) In cases like this, the government tends to sit back, do nothing, and let American entities be embarrassed.

Wait, when did the US kill a political or business leader because of social media pressure?