(part 1) Thank you for this thoughtful reply.

> 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?

I agree with you. Hong Kong is not a monolith. It's normal for different people to have different opinions, and that there are multiple factions who want different things.

My point however is that all those other factions are taking a back seat. The rioting faction has been the most prominent one for a while now. They poison the well for everyone.

What's also weird is that none of the peaceful protesters condemned the violence. Peaceful Black Lives Matters protesters condemned rioters, so why did peaceful HK protesters not condemn rioters? More on this later.

What's more, for the most part, the mainstream media doesn't differentiate between those factions, nor do they condemn the rioters. The still paint the Hong Kong movement, on a whole, as that of "peaceful protesters want more freedom", ignoring the fact that the actual peaceful protesters have been taking a back seat for quite a while now. This is an inaccurate representation of reality.

All of the above, is what I mean by "hijacking".

I am not arguing that the true peaceful democracy protesters have no legitimacy. They have. Rioters do not detract from the position of true democracy protesters. But to pretend like only they exist, and that nothing else is going on, is disingenuous.

> Or maybe even the peaceful ones are criminals, guilty by association?

Some people (not me) say that peaceful protester are indeed complicit, simply for refusing to condemn the violence. However I've also heard that many peaceful protesters are afraid to speak up, for fear of retaliation from rioters.

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

That's not how it works. Western mainstream media portray rioters are heroic, by pretending that they do not exist, by hiding or downplaying their crimes. For example, the media edited the footage of that guy who was set on fire. They only show the footage up until right before the guy was set on fire, and then say that in this scene "pro-democracy and pro-Beijing people were having an argument".

Or more recently, a guy used his motorcycle to run over policemen. And yet, CNN downplayed that part and focused mostly on how scary the security law is, making it look like we should sympathize with that guy: https://twitter.com/cnni/status/1280071981447159808

> 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?

My point is not that democracy is useless because they are already free. My point is that, by not having an answer ready as to what they want to have improved in their lives, they are showing that they do not truly understand democracy.

If they don't truly understand democracy, then that means they are treating it as a panacea, a magic pill. How will treating democracy that way, result in good outcomes? Participating in democracy, and making it succeed, is hard work. It requires good-faith discussion, good-faith cooperation, making informed choices, voting based on good understanding of the situation.

Look at the middle-eastern countries, where democracy was forced upon a population with no prior experience or understanding of democracy: disastrous outcomes. A well-functioning democracy requires good understanding.

This does not delegitimize a true quest for democracy. But if they're just chasing democracy for the label, not knowing what they're chasing, then can we truly say that they are chasing democracy? Shouldn't they go back to school first and learn what democratic participation really means? What we have right now is not a proper, practical call for democracy, it's a rampage.

Also, since they already rank number 3 on the Freedom Index, are they trying to rank number 1... by overthrowing the government? Isn't that a very strange method?

> 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.

It's true that discovering the things that most people want to change, is one benefit of democracy.

However, it's not a given. Look at the dysfunctional US democracy. Have they been able to find out what people want? Have they succeeded in improving the lives of their people?

Different people have different opinions => this is true. But this does not contradict my statement. One should be able to compile a table of "top 5 things people want changed, and % of population that supports that change".

I can list a couple of things that should be changed about Hong Kong. Sky-rocketing housing prices. Income inequality. Most of the rioters are from poor backgrounds. Strangely, protesters and rioters alike do not vocalize this.

My interpretation is that many people have bought into the delusion that everything that's wrong with Hong Kong is due to "lack of freedom". Which is strange, given that British-era Hong Kong, which was quite prosperous, also did not have universal suffrage.

> 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?

I have not. I do not know whether you believe me, but here are my observations: pretty much everybody have already made up their mind, and are not interested in changing them.

Most westerners have a very casual understanding of the situation in Hong Kong. They get most of their information from the mainstream media. They think that's all there is to it. Their existing worldview was, "China bad and totalitarian", and the stories fit that worldview, so they accept it. Yet they are totally convinced that they are right.

When I show more contrary information, more contrary evidence, most people dismiss them out of hand. They either show no interest in seeing that evidence, or they immediately label them as fake.

You could argue that I too have a bias. And you would be right, because everybody has a bias. I assert that I am doing a best effort. And that to the best of my knowledge, what I am saying is the truth.

> 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?

Because those are not actually allies. Isn't it strange to ally with people who don't have your best interest at heart?

Hong Kong was taken from China by the Britain by violence. Under British colonial rule, Hong Kong never had democracy. And one of the reasons for Brexit was "let's kick out all those immigrants". And people seriously think that the British are going to save them?

Recently, Britain announced that they would allow Hong Kong BNO passport holders to gain citizenship. At the surface, this looks like they are trying to save the people of Hong Kong from tyranny. But upon closer examination, you see that only people born before 1997 would have a BNO passport. Most of the rioters, most of the anti-Beijing people, are born after 1997. This is nothing more than a meaningless show to score points, it does not actually help Hong Kong citizen.

As for the US.. well... Hong Kong protesters yell "police brutality", but more people have died during the first week of Black Lives Matter, than during the entire year of Hong Kong protests (this is actually an understatement: NOBODY died because of the HK police). On a whole, the Hong Kong police are actually very nice. Furthermore, the US deployed the army while China never did. And protesters think that the US is such a good place?

Also notice how the Hong Kong protesters never condemned police brutality during Black Lives Matter.

All this tells me that they are delusional. They are living in a fantasy, where the UK and US are utopia.