5 ms·

Normally numbers are countered with numbers that back up your position, not personal anecdotes and attacks on source credibility.

aurareturn 5d ago
I mean, the numbers speak for themselves right? Only 37% participated in any demonstration - likely only the non-violent ones in the beginning. His source doesn't actually disprove what I said - that most locals hated the protests.
- F3nd0 5d ago
  37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?
  - aurareturn 5d ago
    There is a difference between demonstrations and violent protests. The protests lasted nearly a year. Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.
    - latent-person 5d ago
      > Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK. Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to). Let me link [3] again for you: [3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/total-mobilization-from-below-hong-kongs-freedom-summer/92BA12D2EEA5782B4330B0D07B389842 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... edit: Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.
      - aurareturn 5d ago
        "Peer reviewed". My goodness. No, I'm not mistaken. Regardless, how was your experience living in HK in 2019? Hopefully you've talked to many locals in cantonese?
deleted 5d ago
[deleted]

aurareturn 5d ago

I mean, the numbers speak for themselves right? Only 37% participated in any demonstration - likely only the non-violent ones in the beginning. His source doesn't actually disprove what I said - that most locals hated the protests.

F3nd0 5d ago
37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?
- aurareturn 5d ago
  There is a difference between demonstrations and violent protests. The protests lasted nearly a year. Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.
  - latent-person 5d ago
    > Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK. Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to). Let me link [3] again for you: [3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/total-mobilization-from-below-hong-kongs-freedom-summer/92BA12D2EEA5782B4330B0D07B389842 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... edit: Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.
    - aurareturn 5d ago
      "Peer reviewed". My goodness. No, I'm not mistaken. Regardless, how was your experience living in HK in 2019? Hopefully you've talked to many locals in cantonese?

deleted 5d ago

[deleted]