>>Your comment is kind of long and you probably already had dozens of conversations like this without hearing any good arguments (otherwise you'd have changed y

>>Your comment is kind of long and you probably already had dozens of conversations like this without hearing any good arguments (otherwise you'd have changed your mind already), but okay. I’d have to start by saying your arguments appear extremely similar to those I hear on the ground in HK, among my “yellow-ribbon” friends. But okay. >>What if there are multiple movements going on at the same? Those who want freedom and democracy, those who hate mainlanders, those who want to secede, those who enjoy violence and any combination of those. Does it detract from the position of those who peacefully demonstrate for democracy in all of China if there are others who attack mainlanders for xenophobic reasons? Yes there are. That is to be expected in any movement. However what is astounding and disturbing is the deliberate lack of moral compass in the movement, which OP did not adequately highlight. The problem is not that there aren’t peaceful members of the protest. The problem is that NONE of the prominent figures supporting the protest condemns violence and other crimes. In sharp contrast, many BLM leaders unequivocally condemn violence. They do so on TV, on Twitter, on MSM.. you name it. There has been a very famous slogan兄弟爬山，各自努力 – “as brothers we hike together yet make our own individual efforts”. Another famous line: “核爆都不割席” – “even if nuclear strikes were to land on our heads, we would never separate from each other or condemn each other’s actions”. I’m not sure whether you have heard of them but at least it gives an idea of what the real color of the movement is. When innocent civilians were beaten to a pulp, it is these ideals that keep the peaceful protesters refraining from condemning the apparent wrong doings of the violent factions, and compromising their own moral integrity in doing so. >>Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic". It would be moronic to show a video of violent rioters beating civilians to pulp while depicting it as fight for freedom. The MSM does this by editing videos of wrong doing, removing graphic violence and avoid showing their existence altogether. >>So what is it? Are many protesters peaceful or has the entire movement been hijacked? Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association? Yes, indeed, guilty by association because none of the peaceful protesters came out to condemn what was absolutely wrong that happened. What message does this give to bystanders? To people who disagree with them? For example, people fear that their identities might be doxed by the “peaceful protesters” and fed to the violent ones. Indeed it has been happening. >>You said you understand the importance of democracy. Yet you seem to think that universal suffrage would be useless for Hong Kongers because they're already free. What then is the importance of democracy? Would it only be apparent once they're no longer free? I also don't buy that they can't come up with anything concrete they'd change. It would probably be something different for every person you ask, but in my opinion the value of democracy lies in being able to discover the things that most people want to change. “the value of democracy lies in being able to discover the things that most people want to change”. Sounds good. Only that such democracy only applies to people who support the riots? What about people who stay in the middle or oppose? Democratic discourse means different parties express their ideas in peaceful, rational debates. The rioters have no interest in debating anyone. The peaceful protesters have not written anything re how they will govern HK to make it a democratic paradise, to ensure people’s wellbeing and economic status, to make it a fair and equitable society. It has always been the simple conclusion “once democratic it will be all rainbows and fairies”. Indeed, on LIHKG there was a very famous thread where people posted for pages and pages what they will do once HK is “光复”: the comments are comical at best and I strongly encourage you to go there and take a look. >>I didn't bother to watch the video, but I guess they thought their arguments were good. I guess you think your arguments are good. Have you ever convinced anyone? Isn't it strange? Is this how you engage in a meaningful conversation by repeating a bunch of meaningless tautology? >>Who else would be willing to help them? It's not like the People's "Liberation" Army is going to do their job. What's strange about trying to get as many powerful allies as possible? The OP is pointing to the moral hypocrisy of the movement. The protesters claim it is all about human rights, equality and democracy, yet they call for help from the most hypocritical and undemocratic US administration, opposed by many in their own country who believe it to be bigotry, racist and hegemonic. >>Oh, China isn't so bad, yeah. But think about it: millions of Hong Kongers are still living there. Apparently, to them, the riots aren't so bad that they would leave for the mainland. Isn't that strange? Again meaningless sophistry. >>And you've been fed a lie that Hong Kong is a violent, dystopian hellhole. Neither is true. What the OP said about HK protestors is certainly not saying that all HK is a hellhole, of course not. There are many citizens of HK who love peace and oppose the atrocity committed by the rioters. How can HK be a hellhole if there are still a substantial population who take this stance? >>As a German, I think it's funny you say that, because my textbooks spent a lot of time talking about how bad the Nazis were, yet "what were the benefits of Nazi rule?" was a question asked by the students who were capable of enough critical thought to realize that Nazi supporters must have had reasons for their support. So "what were the benefits from Japanese invasion to China in WWII?" is an excellent question to ask considering the existence of collaborationist Chinese who supported the Japanese occupiers. Isn't that strange? It will forever seem strange unless you can understand how they benefitted. The OP was asking about TEXTBOOK yet you talk about STUDENTS. Sophistry much. >>Has education recently gotten worse, such that anyone who's not a teenager has been unaffected by it? I think a more likely explanation is that teenagers are more willing to revolt, and always have been. The major population influx into HK happened in 1960s-1970s during China’s tumultuous years. This young generation of HKers had no experience of the atrocities. Their parents did. However their parents are overall strongly pro-China. They themselves are very much anti-China. This is something that cannot be explained without adequate focus on the educational sector. I can go on and on about this but just to highlight that there are things you aren’t aware of re HK. >>Do you think he has a chance of getting elected without universal suffrage? Again you are talking about things you aren’t aware of in HK. I personally know people who are working on this, and they are not a few. Only the groups that already demonstrate strong secession tendencies like Demosisto get themselves into DQ trouble. On the ground, as long as that redline (re sovereignty) is not touched, the political atmosphere is much more laxed than people imagine. >>Meaning, that even if all of those signatures were made by one citizen of Hong Kong each (online signatures are too easy to fake) the majority did not sign in support. So you cannot claim that "the" people of Hong Kong agree with you, just that some do, which is less surprising. And don't forget that signing a petition doesn't mean they agree with you; they may have other reasons completely different from your own. Again sophistry not meaningful debate. Your own logic can be used to refute the “popular representation” claimed by protesters: they claim of 2mil appearance in their marches. Even if true (which is absolutely not, but for separate discussion), that means 5.8mil have not come to their marches. >>I don't think what I said above changed your mind about anything. I wrote it down mostly to clarify my own thoughts. I do have one last recommendation I hope you'll consider seriously: don't think you have to pick from a limited selection of sides. You can slice and dice them however you want. If there's a group whose aims you agree with but whose member's actions you don't like, you don't have to reject them all. Just look a little closer, remove the illusion that groups of people are monolithic entities acting with a single mind and assemble your own personal "side" from those parts of disparate groups that you can agree with. This is a valid point and something everyone should strive to. Especially the “核爆都不割” bunch.