Occupy Hong Kong

It doesn't make a difference what the state media reports. Most Chinese know it's total propaganda and most use software to bypass the great wall of China, to access the free internet. Chinas biggest worry is probably the issues of HK could spread to Taiwan.

There are two groups publicly protesting: Occupy Central with Love and Peace, and a student-led group which is angry about the CCP trying to politicize the curriculum on the island. The students have a fair amount of public support, especially after they were tear gassed by police. And the push by the CCP to control the candidates list is extremely unpopular.

I think a bigger question for Hong Kong's future is the extent to which mainland control over the territory threatens not just political interests but financial interests. International firms are already pulling out of the mainland because of industrial espionage, and the more the mainland controls the regulatory infrastructure of Hong Kong, the more attractive alternatives like Singapore become. Money drives Hong Kong, and when interference from Beijing hurts the ability of people in HK to make money, that's when the shíte will really hit the fan. The irony is, many mainland millionaires park their money in HK (and in particular, HK real estate) precisely because HK has a different regulatory infrastructure than the rest of China. The paranoia of the CCP officials in Beijing may end of strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.

My name is URL wrote: »

'Occupy Central' is the name of the movement. They'll probably get by without your support anyway



Only in the eyes of idiots that decide not to support something based on name alone

Using the name "Occupy" before a protest turns many people off, especially in Ireland, given the pointlessness, futility and failure of previous "Occupy" protests.

It also adds to the impression of career protestors who are constantly looking for something to protest against regardless of its merits.

At the same time, certain people do fall for the label in the short-term like the media and gullible others.

The issues in Hong Kong are unique to Hong Kong, reflecting the history of that city state and the precarious links to China.

My name is URL wrote: »

'Occupation' protests have been a thing for many years. It's a specific form of protest / demonstration lasting for a prolonged period in a specific area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_(protest)

Why should they, or people discussing it here avoid using the term just because a few people are narrow minded enough to erroneously conflate it with 'career protesters'?



What label are you referring to with the above?

Protests with the label "Occupy"! I thought it was obvious.

As I said, that label is discredited to many people, especially in Ireland. "Occupy" Dame Street did nothing except turn people off, annoy locals and tourists and achieved not one of its original aims.

I am sympathetic to protestors in Hong Kong, I am not sympathetic to another protest with the "Occupy" label.

My name is URL wrote: »

It's a protest incorporating the occupation of a public area. It's not so much a label as a descriptive term for what is happening. Only those with a very narrow view of things would see it as anything other than that.



Well the thread is about the protests in Hong Kong, not the one on Dame Street. Yourself and Joe Swanson are the only two to have brought that up in an attempt to derail the discussion about what is happening in Hong Kong.

So you support the protesters in this case? Why even mention the Dame Street protests and link to the other thread? Just to get a sly dig in at that group.. who have nothing to do with the discussion here?

Quite simply, when I see the prefix "Occupy", my knee-jerk reaction is that this is a bandwagon protest jumping on the bandwagon of similarly failed and futile "Occupy" protests. A lot of the time it doesn't bother me as whatever is being protested against is meaningless or futile.

Hong Kong is somewhere I have been and I understand the issues clearly. I am reluctant to get involved though because of the label. Calling it "Occupy" is a help to the Chinese government as when they ignore and suppress the protest they can say they are the same as the Western governments. Playing into their hands.

As to why this is important, have a read:

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-labels-whatx2019s-name

"By exploiting the public's ignorance, politicians can create a bad image for a bill or a policy with a single, well-chosen negative term".

This must be even worse when self-inflicted.

http://hschneider.hubpages.com/hub/How-Do-Political-Labels-Define-And-Divide-Us

"The public learns about these views and they are constantly stressed to them until they are ingrained into the public's consciousness. Labels are a major tool in accomplishing this task. Soon the public is only aware of this view or policy and the rest of the candidate's body of work and policies are forgotten. This is true no matter how positive the candidate's record is."

Like it or not, "Occupy" has a certain appeal to serial protestors, and the opposite effect on the general public.

http://sociology.about.com/od/L_Index/g/Labeling-Theory.htm

"Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary."

There is so much out there on the concept of labelling and political action. While on the one hand I can rationally try and discount the failed "Occupy" label, it is difficult to put aside the emotional reaction to it. Doesn't that alone make the labelling a failure?