| 發表文章 | 發起投票 |
| 下一頁 |
黃之鋒 : 港獨在姿態上相當激進，但實際上卻是膚淺的，未來會漸漸消失
http://www.post852.com/黃之鋒批熱血公民言行不一 稱港獨思潮膚淺將消/
英國左翼政治學期刊《新左派評論》（New Left Review），今期刊登學民思潮召集人黃之鋒的專訪，並談到他對熱血公民及港獨的看法。
黃之鋒表示，社民連在佔領運動中，不論在行動及想法上都與學聯及學民思潮一致。相反，熱血公民雖然在言語上非常激進，例如表示要「全民制憲」重寫《基本法》，但黃之鋒認為，這些建議都是不切實際的，他們高呼要香港獨立，卻沒有提出如何做到。
他又說，熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。黃之鋒認為，這樣的組織，他不懂得把它放於政治光譜的何處。
黃之鋒又談到香港的港獨思潮，他認為港獨思想確實正在升溫，但卻沒有什麼前景。他指，港獨沒有國際社會支持，他們的訴求在姿態上相當激進，但實際上卻是膚淺的，未來會漸漸消失（The demand poses as being very radical, but it’s superficial and will fade）。
英國左翼政治學期刊《新左派評論》（New Left Review），今期刊登學民思潮召集人黃之鋒的專訪，並談到他對熱血公民及港獨的看法。
黃之鋒表示，社民連在佔領運動中，不論在行動及想法上都與學聯及學民思潮一致。相反，熱血公民雖然在言語上非常激進，例如表示要「全民制憲」重寫《基本法》，但黃之鋒認為，這些建議都是不切實際的，他們高呼要香港獨立，卻沒有提出如何做到。
他又說，熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。黃之鋒認為，這樣的組織，他不懂得把它放於政治光譜的何處。
黃之鋒又談到香港的港獨思潮，他認為港獨思想確實正在升溫，但卻沒有什麼前景。他指，港獨沒有國際社會支持，他們的訴求在姿態上相當激進，但實際上卻是膚淺的，未來會漸漸消失（The demand poses as being very radical, but it’s superficial and will fade）。
本貼文共有 39 個回覆
此貼文已鎖，將不接受回覆
社民連都就快亡黨LA
https://www.facebook.com/fokguyhk/posts/982230648468730
批熱狗我冇意見，有意見的係指港獨 superficial and will fade 呢句...
國際今日對港獨冇支持，同樣對香港民主亦冇支持，咁爭取民主又係咪 superficial and will fade 呢？當然不；國際形勢係不斷轉變的；中共不倒台，你講咩民主中國的幻想同樣係不切實際；中共倒台，香港的機會就來了
最過癮的，係英國的左派好多支持蘇格蘭獨立－－包括影響埋香港咩社會主義行動，但香港自稱左派的，卻全部都係民族主義大中華膠
批熱狗我冇意見，有意見的係指港獨 superficial and will fade 呢句...
國際今日對港獨冇支持，同樣對香港民主亦冇支持，咁爭取民主又係咪 superficial and will fade 呢？當然不；國際形勢係不斷轉變的；中共不倒台，你講咩民主中國的幻想同樣係不切實際；中共倒台，香港的機會就來了
最過癮的，係英國的左派好多支持蘇格蘭獨立－－包括影響埋香港咩社會主義行動，但香港自稱左派的，卻全部都係民族主義大中華膠
他不懂得把它放於政治光譜的何處。
講啲嘢已經成個政棍咁
講啲嘢已經成個政棍咁
大中華膠。
![[369]](/face/hkg/369.gif)
他不懂得把它放於政治光譜的何處。
講啲嘢已經成個政棍咁
"熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。"
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
"熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。"
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
黃之鋒邏輯
"熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。"
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
游擊唔算反擊，好似係
"熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。"
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
你自己怕死，冇被捕、受傷、甚至死嘅覺悟，又點可能成功打敗警賊？
人哋烏克蘭死咗咁多人，結果都失敗。香港人想完全冇代價就成功？黃之鋒講得啱，的確好on9。
"熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。"
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
你自己怕死，冇被捕、受傷、甚至死嘅覺悟，又點可能成功打敗警賊？
人哋烏克蘭死咗咁多人，結果都失敗。香港人想完全冇代價就成功？黃之鋒講得啱，的確好on9。
烏克蘭無失敗
睇佢好快變美點雙輝
"熱血公民的行為與他們的口號並不一致，他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。"
姐係要被拘捕, 要受傷先會反擊到警察的暴力
你自己怕死，冇被捕、受傷、甚至死嘅覺悟，又點可能成功打敗警賊？
人哋烏克蘭死咗咁多人，結果都失敗。香港人想完全冇代價就成功？黃之鋒講得啱，的確好on9。
但偷襲打鑊，理論上一樣可以以無被捕無受傷但有反擊出現
利申：只討論語言邏輯
Sent from Android app by Gannet
白痴仔
ur失敗都唔反省仲堅持大中國主義,
陶19講得岩,香港冇可能學到新加坡
陶19講得岩,香港冇可能學到新加坡
他們表示要反擊（fight back）警察的暴力，但又將行動目標定為不被拘捕、無人受傷。
反擊一定要以受傷同比人拘捕為目標的嗎
正常打仗都知有人會傷亡，但上陣的目標絕對係滅少傷亡及達到目的，請問有咩問題呢
他指，港獨沒有國際社會支持，他們的訴求在姿態上相當激進，但實際上卻是膚淺的，未來會漸漸消失（The demand poses as being very radical, but it’s superficial and will fade）。
「真普選」都沒有國際社會支持架，就最近言論，就連最大機會支持香港真普選的美國都呼籲香港人袋住先，其他國家都係講門面野，話「尊重係基本法之下進行普選」，咁你地班友仲係咁貼符同舉傘「我要真普選」做咩姐
?冇人支持你又做 係咪即係真普選同港獨一樣咁膚淺 ?
沒有港獨姿態是因為勇士都被篤魁了
乜仲有人關注呢條友
大家可以睇下原文比較下:http://newleftreview.org/II/92/joshua-wong-scholarism-on-the-march
Would it be correct to see the different forces taking part in the Umbrella Movement as composing a spectrum from moderate to radical positions, with the main Pan-Democratic parties at the most moderate pole, Occupy Central a bit less so, the Federation of Hong Kong Students more radical, and Scholarism as the most militant and uncompromising? Where would Civic Passion, on one side, and the League of Social Democrats, on the other, fit into such a classification?
I think the Pan-Democrats and the Occupy Central leadership are equally moderate in terms of ideas and action. Similarly, Scholarism and the Federation of Students are quite similar in terms of radical action and ideas. The difference I would say is in their respective analyses of the situation. Scholarism proposed and successfully convinced the Federation of Students to take control of Civic Square; otherwise there would have been no subsequent movement. Going to Beijing was their idea and only half the members of Scholarism agreed to pursue this line of action. Also, the core leaders of Scholarism tend to be more willing to be in the front line, facing the police, and more receptive and prepared for radical action than our counterparts in the Federation of Students. The League of Social Democrats has always stood with these two student organizations in ideas and actions. Civic Passion talks about radical action, such as rewriting the Basic Law, but it is not practical; they clamour for Hong Kong independence without saying how. They are not always consistent in their slogans: they promoted the idea of fighting back against police violence yet they set the action goal of no injuries and no arrests. So I don’t really know how to place Civic Passion in the political spectrum.
How strong is sentiment in favour of independence for Hong Kong now?
It’s increasing. But it’s not a serious prospect. There is no international support for it. The demand poses as being very radical, but it’s superficial and will fade.
---
講野邏輯做咩低左咁多，係咪英文訪問嘅關係
今日國際社會係唔會有人公開支持港獨囉，係都自己插左旗先啦，有冇政治常識架。![[sosad]](/face/hkg/sosad.gif)
你要咁講，國際社會支持香港人袋住先喎，係咪要真普選都好"superficial and will fade"先??
Would it be correct to see the different forces taking part in the Umbrella Movement as composing a spectrum from moderate to radical positions, with the main Pan-Democratic parties at the most moderate pole, Occupy Central a bit less so, the Federation of Hong Kong Students more radical, and Scholarism as the most militant and uncompromising? Where would Civic Passion, on one side, and the League of Social Democrats, on the other, fit into such a classification?
I think the Pan-Democrats and the Occupy Central leadership are equally moderate in terms of ideas and action. Similarly, Scholarism and the Federation of Students are quite similar in terms of radical action and ideas. The difference I would say is in their respective analyses of the situation. Scholarism proposed and successfully convinced the Federation of Students to take control of Civic Square; otherwise there would have been no subsequent movement. Going to Beijing was their idea and only half the members of Scholarism agreed to pursue this line of action. Also, the core leaders of Scholarism tend to be more willing to be in the front line, facing the police, and more receptive and prepared for radical action than our counterparts in the Federation of Students. The League of Social Democrats has always stood with these two student organizations in ideas and actions. Civic Passion talks about radical action, such as rewriting the Basic Law, but it is not practical; they clamour for Hong Kong independence without saying how. They are not always consistent in their slogans: they promoted the idea of fighting back against police violence yet they set the action goal of no injuries and no arrests. So I don’t really know how to place Civic Passion in the political spectrum.
How strong is sentiment in favour of independence for Hong Kong now?
It’s increasing. But it’s not a serious prospect. There is no international support for it. The demand poses as being very radical, but it’s superficial and will fade.
---
講野邏輯做咩低左咁多，係咪英文訪問嘅關係
今日國際社會係唔會有人公開支持港獨囉，係都自己插左旗先啦，有冇政治常識架。
你要咁講，國際社會支持香港人袋住先喎，係咪要真普選都好"superficial and will fade"先??
學毓民話齋：鳩毛都未出齊就學人做政棍
屌人哋歐美諗住果時港豬會真係革命點撚知係 運動，你唔係革命，人哋點有藉口制裁＆幫拖。
學毓民話齋：鳩毛都未出齊就學人做政棍
秒後自動載入第 2 頁
| 下一頁 |
| 發表 |