Better bingo sourcebook
https://na.cx/i/WEc8wPd.jpg
Better bingo sourcebook
https://na.cx/i/WEc8wPd.jpg
Lost in translation
https://twitter.com/sumlokkei/status/1166180122375753729?s=21
Not accepting demands? This is the core of the political problem. In any normal democratic regime, when faced with such large and sustained protests, they will need to respond in some way to their aspirations. To somehow treat responding to protest demand as weakness or failure is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. Lam is making a problem her own making worse by refusing to accept responsibility for her own failures.
Last edited by Coolboy; 27-08-2019 at 12:12 PM.
So, am I missing something, but that is the point of discussing with her if she already prior to any dialogue happening states he accepts _none_ of the demands !?
Surveillance = "smart city" = benefit for young people. Yeah right... good luck convincing young people of that...She mentioned the vandalism of the smart lamp posts by the protesters, and described it as a saddening incident that ruined the future of Hong Kong's innovation future. Building Hong Kong into a smart city has been the government's goal for the past 2 years, as the government hopes to benefit the young people with this policy.
Yep...Lam stressed that smart city development is for the young people, and will create more jobs, but netizens and protesters are destroying this vision with their own hands, so Lam is very saddened. Lam repeated that violence cannot solve problems, and people should not beautify or justify violence
https://www.facebook.com/hkcolumn/po...717?__tn__=K-R
Refusal to accept demands is a refusal to accept responsibility of one's action. In a way, this logic should not have been hard for Lam to grasp. If she take her mind way back to her schooldays, and she wrote 2 instead of a 3 on the blackboard as instructed, she will be wrong. The correct action would be for her to say she was wrong, scrub 2 away replace it with 3.
But if we take this analogy and apply to the protests, all Lam had done was to scrub 2 away without acknowledging her mistake or writing 3 instead. She can always write 2 again. Simple logic, yet something that seem to escape Lam.
Are they looking for that lost trust and legitimacy?
https://na.cx/i/4S2NiuE.jpg
Or maybe leadership, understandably they aren’t looking up.
Exactly. Hong Kongers wouldn’t have to take to the streets to demonstrate our will if we had one person one vote. Demonstrators wouldn’t need to escalate if actual dialogue and sincere exploration of the actual concerns were addressed. She could have explained the nuanced problems and merits of each of the demands; we could have dealt with that through reasons and communications. Instead she puts absolute obedience down as precondition for any meaningful dialogue.
That’s precisely not response-able. Then again, maybe she’s not able, maybe she lacks the authority to respond to those demands, which then goes back to feed the needs for Hong Kongers to stress test our “one country, two systems high degree of autonomy.â€