Dispatches from the State Ministry of Truth

[frunk]

I don't really understand the question

Why should you care who is in charge, you'll have a job either way.

[Monoriu]

I don't really understand the question

Why should you care who is in charge, you'll have a job either way.

Huh? 

I still don't understand.  This isn't about "who is in charge".  This is about the one of the most basic social orders, that roads should be open to the public. 

[Jacob]

I don't really understand the question

Why should you care who is in charge, you'll have a job either way.

Mono can only interface with world at large through strict hierarchical systems in support of the status quo and his ideas of "efficiency". It's how he approaches everything from politics, to the World Cup, to how he organizes he sock drawer; and everything in between.

A change in government systems would be a serious knock to Mono's world view, and disastrous for is ability to make sense of the world around him.

It's not that any particular qualities of the current government system are inherently valuable (other than stability), it's that Mono has a handle on how to deal with it, but not with anything that may follow; and that is profoundly frightening to someone who has such difficulties relating to other human beings and basic social behaviour.

[frunk]

Huh? 

I still don't understand.  This isn't about "who is in charge".  This is about the one of the most basic social orders, that roads should be open to the public.

So the protesters took to the streets because they really didn't like those particular roads?

[Admiral Yi]

Y'all are being purposely obtuse.  When Mono says "it's all about X" he's explaining his position.  He is not enamored of the folks currently in charge and is not rooting for them to stay in office.  His objection is to the protesters closing the road.  He wants it reopened.

[MadImmortalMan]

Makes sense. Any time anyone uses disruptive tactics, they will inevitably make enemies among those they disrupt. Mono is one of those.

[Monoriu]

Huh? 

I still don't understand.  This isn't about "who is in charge".  This is about the one of the most basic social orders, that roads should be open to the public.

So the protesters took to the streets because they really didn't like those particular roads?

I am the one who knows about their greivances here and I have posted extensively about what those are.  So I at least know what their main problems are.  As I have said many times before, I will have a lot fewer problems with them if they do it in a park.  I think that should be clear by now 

[Monoriu]

I think unless the rioters are willing to make concessions (e.g. leave some roads), it is unlikely that talks will reopen.  That in itself is unlikely, as they are very defiant (and in any case don't have much control over the crowd in the first place). 

Then it is a question of when and how to clear the camps.  Today is a Friday here, and morale among the rioters is high given the government's announcement to cancel the talks yesterday.  Weekend is also unlikely as the number of rioters will likely rebound.  I think the government is waiting for an opportunity some time next week, most likely in the early hours when there are the least no. of people, and the nearby districts are empty (thus few people will come to support the riots when the operation begins).  If the numbers remain high next week, then they will wait a week more for the numbers to further dwindle.

The how.  I think there are two mains strategies here.  One is to surround them, pick them up one-by-one, and arrest everybody.  They used this tactic once in July when there were 500 occupiers.  The problem is there are a lot more people now, and it takes a long time - long enough for others to come and join.  The second is to disperse them with tear gas.  They tried this 2 weeks ago, and it was a failure.  The crowd only dispersed for a while, and they came back soon, with more people joining them.  I think the police mistake was in only firing tear gas at the crowd, and not following up with a charge with batons in hand. 

I think first and foremost, they need to prevent reinforcements from arriving.  They need to close all the nearby train stations first, perhaps the entire HK Island line.  Do it in the early hours instead of an afternoon.  First make an announcement for people to leave, with an ultimatum of say 5 minutes.  Then fire an intensive round of tear gas, and follow that up with hundreds of policemen charging in waving batons.  Arrest the most defiant rioters, the leaders and those who come back.

Food and Environmental Hygiene contractors should be on site and they should enter immediately to clear all the roadblocks, posters and supplies.  Then the road should be reopened to traffic ASAP to prevent people from coming back.  Heavy police presence to detain anybody who tries to retake the roads.  Rioters will probably block the roads again with cars.  It is important to tow them away immediately.     

[Monoriu]

9 October 2014 Last updated at 14:35

Hong Kong government calls off student talks
Mass demonstrations have largely subsided in recent days in Hong Kong


Hong Kong's government has called off a meeting on Friday with student leaders of the pro-democracy movement.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam said it would be "impossible to have a constructive dialogue" after protest leaders called for an increase in efforts to occupy main protest areas.

The protesters want a fully free vote in elections due to be held in 2017 for the post of chief executive.

Last week thousands of demonstrators paralysed parts of the city.

But mass demonstrations have largely subsided in recent days, although the barricades remain in place.

What happens next will largely depend on whether people do indeed rally once again to the cause, prolonging the political crisis, or whether the movement continues to dwindle of its own accord, the BBC's John Sudworth in Hong Kong reports.

'Cleaning up mess'

Hours before Ms Lam's announcement student leaders had asked for an escalation of those activities if concessions were not made by the government.

"The dialogue cannot be deployed as an excuse to incite more people to join the protest," she said. "The illegal occupation activists must stop."

Pro-democracy leaders later urged the authorities to return to the negotiating table.

"The chaos was caused by the government. They are responsible for cleaning up the mess," Alex Chow, the president of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

Meanwhile, pro-democracy MPs in the former British colony threw their weight behind the protests by pledging to block key legislation.

Protesters occupied key parts of the Asian financial hub last week, after riot police used tear gas in a failed attempt to disperse the crowds.

Under Hong Kong's current system, the chief executive is elected by a 1,200-person committee that consists primarily of pro-Beijing groups.

In August, Beijing said it would allow a public vote in the 2017 elections. However, China wants all candidates to be approved by a similar committee - effectively giving it the ability to screen out candidates.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29554755

I like the no talks with blackmailers stance. 

[Monoriu]

There is also the matter of what to do about the election proposal already on the table.  As it requires a 2/3 supermajority to pass in LegCo, the chance of it passing is zero.  I cannot imagine any pro-democrat legislator changing sides and voting for it (happened once), even though only 4 are needed.

But I think the government will still go through the motion and ask for a vote, knowing it will fail.  The main reason is historical responsibility.  If the democrats vote it down, Beijing/HK government can say "oh we offered you universal suffrage.  You voted it down.  That means you don't want it.  So there is no point for us to talk about it any more, right?  Don't complain in the future anymore. kthxbye  "  If the government withdraws the proposal, then Beijing still "owes them" universal suffrage.  Just like a parent who wants to take a child to a vacation in a city park.  If the child goes along, the parent no longer owes him anything.  If the child refuses to go, the parent no longer owes the child a vacation. 

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm always shocked by how fragile authoritarian regimes are.  Do a few protesters in a single city really threaten the whole communist government?

Why are you surprised? It's always the most centralized thing that's the most fragile. That's risk management 101 these days. Efficiency is the enemy of stability and all that.

[Valmy]

Just like a parent who wants to take a child to a vacation in a city park.  If the child goes along, the parent no longer owes him anything.  If the child refuses to go, the parent no longer owes the child a vacation. 

Why does a parent who wants to take a child to a park in a circumstance of owing something?

[Monoriu]

Just like a parent who wants to take a child to a vacation in a city park.  If the child goes along, the parent no longer owes him anything.  If the child refuses to go, the parent no longer owes the child a vacation. 

Why does a parent who wants to take a child to a park in a circumstance of owing something?

It is a metaphor that I used several pages back. 

A father has promised a child that he will get his vacation if he behaves.  Of course, the father doesn't really want to pay for the vacation.  To get around the problem, he fulfills the letter of his promise - instead of taking the child to another country or somewhere nice, he defines "vacation" liberally, and takes the child to the city park instead.  It is crappy, and isn't something that the child really wants.  The child accuses the father of breaking the promise, but since "vacation" isn't clearly defined in the first place, it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the father really broke his promise. 

Anyway, the child is now faced with two choices.  Accept the "vacation" offer and go to the city park.  In this case the child at least gets something.  But the fear is that, once the father has fulfilled the "vacation" promise, a real vacation will never come.  So the child wants to refuse.  But in that case, he'll stay home and he won't even get the chance to go to the city park.  In this case however, since the father has not fulfilled the vacation promise, the father still owes the child one.  The child hates both choices, so he now wants to create a third option for himself - barricade the front door of the house, and prevents anybody from getting in or out until he gets a real vacation. 

That's essentially the situation we have right now.

[Monoriu]

From the rioters:

- they will expand the occupation zones unless government agrees to talks;
- they encourage rioters to live in tents as a long-term plan; and
- they will consider blockading the government HQs again if the talks don't materialise.

I think this is essentially saying, either talk to us or come clear us and make us martyrs.  It is a sign that they are getting desperate, as their numbers are not sustainable and public opinion is turning. 

[Monoriu]

Cartoon on why people fight.  Translation:

1. The server of my online game is Hong Kong and I have no choice [Screen says Fate Online]
2. The main quest is insanely difficult and you can't go to mission 2 if you haven't completed mission 1 [Mission 1: Find a home. Mission 2: Get married. Mission 3: Raise kids]
3. Previous generation players are all rich as hell.  They buy up the best equipment; new players can't gain any levels.  The wealth gap here is the worst among all servers
4. Lots of new players from outside [Mainland], creating lag for our server, and they buy up everything.  The admins don't care.
5. Worst of all, the NPC boss is invincible [Screen says real estate tycoon hegemony]
6. There is a DLC that can fix all these bugs [box cover says universal suffrage].  Not sure if this is real?