In 2019, Hong Kong was deeply polarized between “blue” pro-Chinese Communist Party and “yellow” pro-Hong Kong democracy supporters. The Original Poster (OP) was unwaveringly yellow, boycotting everything blue. When OP’s coworker, Anna, tricked them into dining at a blue establishment, tensions erupt, leading to a dramatic lunchtime fallout.
In a nation divided, commercial establishments took sides during city-wide protests to enable “dollar-voting” and support like-minded businesses. They proudly displayed their allegiance as either “blue” for pro-government or “yellow” for pro-democracy.
Citizens Take Action
The political divide echoed deeply in the personal lives of Hong Kong’s citizens. Following incidents where business owners were shut down or ostracized for supporting Hong Kong’s democracy, citizens began boycotting blue stores and only patronizing yellow stores.
OP lived life draped in yellow. Yellow shops were businesses that supported protesters through action or donations. OP lived according to their pro-democracy beliefs. This commitment was so intense that they boycotted anything and everything blue.
The subway, a staple for many, was abandoned by OP. Even if it meant taking roundabout routes, they would avoid anything blue. Blue establishments and blue-minded people, who openly voiced opposition to the pro-democracy movement, were a no-go.
No one was oblivious to OP’s political stance, which was a big part of their identity. From family to friends and coworkers, everyone knew. The yellow circle was where OP stood, without a shadow of a doubt.
A Lunch Scheduled
Two weeks prior, a lunch with coworker Anna was planned. Anna had the responsibility of choosing the venue and placing the order. OP was wrapped up in work, trusting Anna’s judgment.
The Blue Revelation
Upon arriving, Anna dropped a bombshell: the restaurant was blue. Her fondness for the eatery made her keep this fact from OP. OP’s ire was immediate. Without a second thought, OP canceled their order.
The Abrupt Exit
OP’s food hadn’t even started cooking yet. They walked out, leaving Anna behind. Regret gnawed at OP after the abrupt departure. It was important to mend bridges. A conversation with Anna was inevitable.
Although Anna shared the same political hue, she was still upset. She understood OP’s reasons but was angered by the extreme reaction. The lunch debacle became a bone of contention. OP realized their oversight in not checking the restaurant’s political leaning.
OP poured out sincere apologies to Anna. However, they also expressed their discomfort with being tricked. Every member of the small company was a part of the yellow circle. Yet, opinions about OP’s actions were divided.
A simple lunch had turned into an office debate. Being yellow herself, Anna grasped OP’s sentiments. She knew the depths of OP’s convictions. Still, she wrestled with feelings of betrayal over the reaction.
The Ripple Effect
One lunch had triggered a wave of discussions. The office was torn between supporting OP and understanding Anna. Confused and seeking clarity, OP questioned their actions and needed validation.
OP wondered if they were the antagonist in this story. While all belonged to the same political circle, perspectives varied. Not every yellow-minded individual would have reacted like OP. The spectrum of beliefs was vast.
Reflections on Loyalty
Trust was put to the test that day. Anna’s choice of the restaurant questioned her loyalty in OP’s eyes. Yet, Anna’s anger posed questions on the extremity of OP’s beliefs. Amid this turmoil, OP wanted to know if they were wrong in their reaction.
Was The Friend’s Behavior Appropriate?
OP posts their story online for feedback and validation from the internet community. The readers in the forum had a lot of mixed views on the matter.
One reader said, “Anna obviously knew your stance and still misled you. The fault is completely with her. Honestly, I’m surprised she went through with it, given your stand and how faithfully you follow it.”
Another Commenter Thinks
Another responder wrote, “Here in the US, I refuse to eat at Chick-fil-A or shop at Hobby Lobby because of their Political/Religious beliefs. I completely understand where you are coming from. The fact that she had to lie to get you to go there shows that she is in the wrong.”
A Third View on The Story
A different person stated, “Boycotting certain businesses is a way to express political views and a form of speech that is important practicing in politics. It is a good nonviolent and effective way to say what you need to say and support (or specifically not support) what you think is just/unjust.”
A Final Perspective on the Matter
Another reader commented, “I don’t appreciate being misled either. You apologized to her. Maybe take her to lunch to smooth everything over?”