China’s tyrannical Intrusion into Hong Kong
China’s Ever Growing Grip on Hong Kong
Unrest in Hong Kong stayed high for yet another month as China’s authoritarian grip over Hong Kong tightened as the world moved into October. The pro-democracy demonstrations initially started this past June in opposition to the tyrannical Hong Kong Extradition Bill that would have given China further control over HK but, since Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam agreed to withdraw the bill, the focus of the protests have largely shifted towards individual freedoms and China’s tyrannical intrusion into the semiautonomous zone. Tensions have recently reached a fever pitch with police shooting a protester in the chest during protests on October 1st, the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. Police brutality and violence is becoming ever more common at these demonstrations.
China’s response has largely been hands off so far but, things could change if the unrest is unable to be controlled. A build up of PLA troops and military equipment was spotted in Shenzhen, a city just north of Hong Kong sending an grave message to HK’s pro-democracy movement. If China decides to send in the military to ease the unrest a situation like what happened in Tiananmen Square but on a much larger scale could unfold.
China should not be encroaching on Hong Kong’s autonomy. When Hong Kong was granted independence from the United Kingdom in 1997 it was promised that China would leave the region as semiautonomous for 50 years, until 2047. China’s current moves are at least 28 years too early according to these agreements. The world’s democracies now have a decision to make. They can vow to protect freedom, or they can allow China’s authoritarian dictatorship to stamp out the flame of democracy and autonomy in Hong Kong. If no action is taken against China and Hong Kong’s democracy is allowed to fall it will send a chilling precedent throughout the world that no action will be taken against regimes that threaten freedom and democracy. It may seem that there is little we can do but, China’s political clout largely banks on their economic power due to them being a manufacturing mecca. If the powers of the world could band together to take advantage of this dependence, they could have some real leverage against China. In the end, the responsibility of preserving the spirit of democracy rests on the shoulders of the free world. That is the only way to ensure Hong Kong’s continued freedom and in part the rest of the world’s freedom.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
I’ll be happy to help, Vox.
Which one of these is your title? What’s the other one?
You asked two questions that I will answer briefly before I offer any other advice.
1. How can I avoid the “funnel approach” and make my argument more apparent in the first couple of sentences?
2. Am I following the general form of an editorial?
3. Does my argument hold up?
1. To avoid the dreaded “funnel approach,” make a bold clear opinionated claim (it could be your Thesis Statement) in the first sentence or two.
2. You are “following the general form” of an editorial by using mostly reason and rhetoric to advance your own position without leaning heavily on evidence or providing all the fact needed to persuade readers to join you in your conclusion.
3. Your argument doesn’t get a good start because you delay making your position known. Readers are left to draw their own conclusions most of the way. By the time you chime in, it may be too late.
Let’s examine your first paragraph, looking for evidence of your editorial position. I’ll CAPITALIZE the language that makes clear moral imperative claims.
Except for those three words, we have to ASSUME that you side with the protestors. Even shooting a protestor in the chest doesn’t necessarily qualify as an act of authoritarian aggression in a volatile encounter where violence can be almost random or accidental.
Your third paragraph is clearer:
Now we know you side with protestors demanding democracy and DON’T see them as lawless radicals bent on destroying a legitimate government.
So, you asked, how can I avoid the funnel?
ROBUST VERBS. The best way to forcefully present your point of view, Vox, is to deploy the most robust verbs. Here’s a list of yours:
stayed / tightened / moved / started / would have given / agreed / to withdraw / shifted / reached / is becoming / has been / could change / is unable / to be controlled / was spotted / sending / decides / to send / to ease / happened / could unfold. / be encroaching / was granted / was promised / would leave / are / have / can vow / to protect / can allow / to stamp out / is taken / is allowed / will send / will be taken / threaten / may seem / is /
can do / banks on / being / could band / could have / preserving / rests / is /
For an editorial about a violent regime crushing its opposition by shooting its own citizens, that list of verbs seems pretty tame. Agreed? Let’s change just one or two as an example of the value of careful word deployment.
Just an example. It may not reflect your actual position, but you have to admit it demands attention.
Is that helpful, Vox?
LikeLike
Could I potentially get some feedback regarding how I can avoid the “funnel approach” and make my argument more apparent in the first couple of sentences. Additionaly would it be possible to get some general feedback if I am following the general form of an editorial and if my argument holds up. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
The first thing I would advise you to do is establish your claim earlier. There’s not a lot to be found in the early sentences/paragraphs of your essay besides “news”; this could be a sign of a funnel approach as discussed in class. An editorial is more likely to grab the attention of readers if your title and early sentences clearly show what the claim is, especially if executed rhetorically well.
Also, your paragraphs should have organic transitions. Going from two paragraphs consisting of mostly news to two paragraphs that consist almost entirely of argument is… a bit too sudden. Information is best used when it’s a brief background or support for a claim. For example, do we really need to know all that information presented in the second paragraph, given that this is an editorial? It can, however, be useful if you condense it into one or maybe two sentences.
I don’t really need to comment on your grammar or your arguments because they’re pretty good. What I believe you should focus on is making sure the editorial is properly written and structured and has all the essential components that make one successful. Good luck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be back for peer review.
LikeLike
I’ll be back to write a peer review on this one.
LikeLike