> Do you disagree with me? If so, I'd love to hear why.

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.

> The Hong Kong "protests" are not about freedom or democracy. That's just a pretext for xenophobia, hate against mainlanders, and secessionism. Neither are they "peaceful".

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?

> Am I saying all Hong Kong protesters are rioters? No, many are indeed peaceful. What I have a problem with, is that the western mainstream media uncritically paints all Hong Kong rioters as heroes.

Do they? I haven't seen any Western mainstream media describe setting people on fire as "heroic".

> Despite the fact that the entire movement have been hijacked by criminals

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?

> What freedoms are they fighting for, that they don't already have? Let's say they get universal suffrage. What's the first concrete thing they want to change? Strangely, most aren't able to answer.

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.

> But notice how the protesters are repeating a mindless mantra, and are unable to engage in a rational discussion with good arguments.

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?

> We've seen rioters waving the UK and US flags[4]. There were even open calls for Trump (of all people!) to "liberate" them. Isn't that a bit strange?

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?

> Think about: if China is so bad, why do hundreds of millions of Chinese travel abroad every year, and why does nearly everybody return willingly? Heck, why do I still visit China?

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?

> Why do some people want to secede? One reason is because they've been fed a lie about China: that it's a backwards, dystopian hellhole.

And you've been fed a lie that Hong Kong is a violent, dystopian hellhole. Neither is true.

> Can you imagine a text book asking, "what were the benefits from Nazi Germany's holocaust"?

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.

> With "education" like this, is it any wonder that 80% of the rioters are teenagers?

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.

> a guy in Hong Kong who wants to establish a new party that aims to be a middle ground group

Do you think he has a chance of getting elected without universal suffrage?

> Do the Hong Kong people agree with what I say here? Well, 3 million people signed a petition in SUPPORT of the national security law.

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.

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.