A furore erupted here recently after a Hongkonger asked a Mainlander to stop eating noodles on the MTR. It led to a bit of back-and-forth, captured on video and uploaded to YouTube, and was followed by an ultra-nationalist Chinese professor responding in a video interview of his own (since removed from YouTube as per their policy prohibiting hate speech). I believe it can still be found elsewhere through cunning search work. I’m not going to put in the professor’s names or other keywords in an effort to avoid being detected by Chinese netizen monitors.
Someone, who shall also obviously remain anonymous, sent me this commentary of the professor’s comments. If you’re aware of who the author is, please don’t disclose their name in comments or on-links – but you have to agree, this was too good not to share.
Bear in mind that the utterer of the following statements is a PROFESSOR at [Unnamed] University in Beijing.
He opened in time-honoured academic style, succinctly summing up his central thesis:
“Now, they [Hong Kong people] are dogs. They aren’t human.”
On the face of it this seemed a little harsh, but he quickly took the rough edge off by making the following well reasoned qualification:
“‘I know many Hongkongers are good people. However many others are still dogs.”
Much more reasonable. [Unnamed] University knows how to hire a professor.
Having demonstrated his ability to take the broad view and see both sides, he then began to marshal his evidence and expound his reasoning. Just a quick warning, non-academics may struggle with some of the highly articulate use of a somewhat didactic style of discourse.
He begins with a rhetorical question:
“You see that guy in the video? Does he look human?”
The uneducated person may think that as a rhetorical question this doesn’t work, because clearly the guy does look human. He is bipedal, uses language, and is expressing common human feelings. That is the beauty of this question. The professor is subtly planting a deeper question in our shallow little minds, “What makes a person human?” Actually the more you listen to the learned professor, the more this question jumps into your head.
Having established doubt about the humanity of one Hongkonger with his artful questioning, the professor now seeks to move from the particular to the general with seamless logic and powerful evidence. Try to follow the subtlety of the following:
“I have been to Hong Kong a lot of times. I have seen that most Hongkongers lack morals. Most of them are thieves.”
Undoubtedly as a professor we know that this use of the word ‘most’ is quantified by empirical data because otherwise it would sound like any old half-educated bigot who says the first thing that pops into their head. We know that can’t be true because, not only is he a professor, but he is a direct 73rd generation descendent of Confucius. I did the maths and gave up after eight great-grandparents, a mere four generations. I know that after 21 generations doubling gets you to over a million, so by my reckoning, at the time of Confucius there were at least 171 million billion people on earth and they were all ancestors of the professor. Hang on, that means they must all be my ancestors too. That can’t be right. If we are all descendents of Confucius then the professor is not special on this account. Absurd.
Anyway, now that he is down to the clear link between Hongkongers and dogs, he drives the point home, with deft repetition:
“Hongkongers, most of them don’t have morals.”
Like dogs, but without the loyalty, courage, affection and tail wagging. If you are like me, by now you can see no way of arguing with this line of thinking. He is inside a logic matrix that we can only glimpse and shake our heads at.
Now he sees that he requires hard evidence, an irrefutable example of the morality-free Hongkonger’s heart, if it can be called a heart, although dogs have hearts. Like a master conjurer, he delivers:
“Isn’t it wrong to just insult villagers?”
Here is a master at work. Your mind reels trying to get to the bottom of this. How does he know the Mainlanders on the MTR were villagers? He doesn’t tell us and we must simply take the great man at his word and sigh in deference to a greater knowing. It’s like a koan, he is using insult to bemoan insult. On the face of it he seems to be completely lacking in self-awareness, he himself verging on what some hypersensitive Hongkongers may call insulting language himself. That would make him wrong. But would this be wrong if he said it in a forest and no one heard it? Did I hear it? Does it have any relevance? Is it even true? Of course it is wrong to insult a villager. Unless that villager is from Hong Kong. Obviously.
But like the most famous of his several billion ancestors, the great man is no mere pointer out of problems. He offers solutions, actions to remedy the problem of the dogginess of Hongkongers:
“No beating means no good. They cannot survive without beating.”
Classic Socrates. “It is good to beat dogs. Hong Kong people are dogs. Therefore it is good to beat Hong Kong people.”
The only way that could be wrong is if the first two propositions were wrong and it was not good to beat dogs and/or Hong Kong people were not dogs.
He then finishes as succinctly as he began:
“One word – piece of shit.”
I don’t know about you but I couldn’t agree more.
[Unnamed] University, it’s time to get out the pooper-scooper to scrape up what is left of your reputation.