You were more than happy to allow discussions of human rights abuses in America and elsewhere. I'm having trouble understanding why the CCP is restricted.
Here's another CCP human rights related discussion you shut down. I can name more examples. Please explain.
So self-righteous and snotty. They think they're standing up for some noble cause, and all their violence and destruction was justified. But what freedom do they stand up for? They had freedom and look what they did with it. Pissed it away. Squandered the lead economically. And now indulgently chant slogans and play like it's not their fault the mess they're in economically.
The freedom of protest, what did they turn that to? Human rights? No, they burned people, literally, with lasers and set them on fire when they voiced different opinions. So much for tolerance for different points of view. So much for respect for "Western" values and freedoms.
They're fucking crazy, spoiled, entitled little HKers. Big heads. Small potatoes. 2nd place brother now. Can't hack it. Lost to China. Can't hack it. So blame the government, and hurt anyone who doesn't talk their goodspeak. But they're all about freedom, and 'human rights'.
BS. Total, unmoderated BS.
Thank God China brought in the fire and restored order. China saved HK from the HKers. Sometimes that's needed. Put an end to the tantrum of an immature adolescent mindset generation, that's totally fucking lost their soul and their way. I hope out of the ashes of their chaos, they build art and a new fucking entrepreneurial spirit. Better tomorrow only they can build it.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3038421/wife...
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...
This is why passionate users on all sides of every topic are convinced that the moderators are secretly in cahoots with their opponents: it's the same psychological mechanism producing a galaxy of contradictory conclusions. The site and mods are the same for everybody; what varies are the passions of the perceiver. Those are what determine the conclusions people come to because they determine which datapoints you notice and how you weight them (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
People on the opposite side from you feel like the mods are biased the opposite way. It's the same mechanism that makes sports fans feel like the refs are against them and drivers feel like they're the one who always gets pulled over for speeding.
To assess things more accurately, here are some points to consider: (1) We moderate discussions that break the site guidelines and/or go against the intended spirit of HN when we see them happening, regardless of what the topic is or which sides different commenters are taking. (2) We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). People can help with that by flagging it or emailing us at [email protected]. (3) We really don't care what side you're on, and a lot of the time don't even notice. That may sound weird, but it's just what happens to the brain after doing anything hundreds of thousands of times over enough years.
1. Free Hong Kong, revolution of our times
2. Hong Kong people, add oil (basically a statement of encouragement)
3. Five demands, not one less
4. There are no rioters, only tyranny
5. The Hong Kong Police know the law, yet break the law (I haven't seen this one around in many English-speaking circles so I can't really give an accurate translation from the eyes of HKers)
These were basically the slogans used by the protestors back in 2019. Unfortunately, saying any of these is now considered an "act of sedition" by the Hong Kong government, after the passing of the National Security Law last year.
I'd like to share this strong stance openly. I fully support both sides to openly discuss their standings and rationale, not the "cancelling" tactics that suffocates constructive debates.