That's not true. There have been countless violent protests that have destroyed shops owned by mainland companies (like bakeries, nothing particularly nationalistic), set fire to and destroyed MTR (subway) stations, thrown petrol bombs at other unarmed civilians who disagreed and the police of course, and beat a guy in the head with a large pipe for removing bricks in the road. They even videotaped this because they were so proud of their actions. The people they severely burned were ridiculed in online forums (calling them "barbecue", etc.). Hundreds of posters chimed in and liked replies like this.
At the end of the day many people on that side will argue that each case of violence against other citizens was just undercover police trying to make them look bad, or just an isolated incident. It's like saying "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" on the CNN chyron. People can't credibly claim to be "for democracy" will silencing critics with violence. Otherwise anyone can claim to be a/for democracy, and who is anyone to say they aren't? Might as well add the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the German Democratic Republic (former East Germany), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the list.
| ... is the cause worth the unrest? ... and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement.
I'm repeating myself here, but violence against fellow citizens is not justified in the name of democracy. Democracy would be the ideal outcome for HK, obviously, but neither the protesters nor the CCP are offering a path to that. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Quoting another poster in this thread:
"If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground."
Well, guess what? Many people in HK aren't up for destroying everything in their lives and don't agree with the "protesters". Does their opinion not count, while they're claiming to care about democracy?
Quoting the same person:
"I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible."
So these protesters want to destroy everything they can in HK, and _then leave_. Thanks for nothing I guess. Perhaps they should change the order - leave for another country, then start assaulting people and setting things on fire. Maybe elsewhere they will be prosecuted and face justice for their actions.
| And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves.
There needs to be an absolute standard for what's acceptable in a democracy, so it's not necessary to compare HK to the US or the US to anywhere else, but since you mention the US it's worth mentioning CHAZ in Seattle. There is absolutely zero chance that something like CHAZ could secede from the US had they wanted to do that. It's equally naive to believe that China would relinquish Hong Kong, or that any other nation would do anything other than write a strongly worded letter if the PLA were to move in and take over. Hong Kong _did_ have an agreement to have a separate way of life until 2046, but the CCP finally got the perfect excuse to move that date up by 25 years. Losing 25 years of relative autonomy with nothing to show for it was decidedly _not_ worth it.
I think you avoided addressing the most important part of the comment above.
| If you're reading this in China, or are native Chinese, I ask you...do you feel there would be consequences for you if you spoke up in defense of the protests? Put aside whether you think the protests are a good idea or not. If you defended them publicly, what would happen? Whether or not you support the protests, I think you should consider that question, and decide if you like the answer.
It's ok if you don't want to address it, but maybe you shall take some time to think about why.
That's not true. There have been countless violent protests that have destroyed shops owned by mainland companies (like bakeries, nothing particularly nationalistic), set fire to and destroyed MTR (subway) stations, thrown petrol bombs at other unarmed civilians who disagreed and the police of course, and beat a guy in the head with a large pipe for removing bricks in the road. They even videotaped this because they were so proud of their actions. The people they severely burned were ridiculed in online forums (calling them "barbecue", etc.). Hundreds of posters chimed in and liked replies like this.
At the end of the day many people on that side will argue that each case of violence against other citizens was just undercover police trying to make them look bad, or just an isolated incident. It's like saying "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" on the CNN chyron. People can't credibly claim to be "for democracy" will silencing critics with violence. Otherwise anyone can claim to be a/for democracy, and who is anyone to say they aren't? Might as well add the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the German Democratic Republic (former East Germany), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the list.
| ... is the cause worth the unrest? ... and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement.
I'm repeating myself here, but violence against fellow citizens is not justified in the name of democracy. Democracy would be the ideal outcome for HK, obviously, but neither the protesters nor the CCP are offering a path to that. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Quoting another poster in this thread:
"If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground."
Well, guess what? Many people in HK aren't up for destroying everything in their lives and don't agree with the "protesters". Does their opinion not count, while they're claiming to care about democracy?
Quoting the same person:
"I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible."
So these protesters want to destroy everything they can in HK, and _then leave_. Thanks for nothing I guess. Perhaps they should change the order - leave for another country, then start assaulting people and setting things on fire. Maybe elsewhere they will be prosecuted and face justice for their actions.
| And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves.
There needs to be an absolute standard for what's acceptable in a democracy, so it's not necessary to compare HK to the US or the US to anywhere else, but since you mention the US it's worth mentioning CHAZ in Seattle. There is absolutely zero chance that something like CHAZ could secede from the US had they wanted to do that. It's equally naive to believe that China would relinquish Hong Kong, or that any other nation would do anything other than write a strongly worded letter if the PLA were to move in and take over. Hong Kong _did_ have an agreement to have a separate way of life until 2046, but the CCP finally got the perfect excuse to move that date up by 25 years. Losing 25 years of relative autonomy with nothing to show for it was decidedly _not_ worth it.