[nkoren]

False flag op was my instant reaction as well. The original protestors were fastidious in their civic-mindedness. These are not them. These protestors are producing made-to-order photos for the Chinese press. When China steps in to "restore order", this will be why.

[koenigdavidmj]

My guess is that this is legitimate, but a strategy like the Republicans used in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that your little city can't defeat the PLA. What you can do is make yourself ungovernable without making China do things that would tarnish their world reputation. If China quells this protest, but in the process turns Hong Kong into another Xinjiang (including the "reeducation" camps for protesters, and the invasive surveillance on the rest of them, most of whom were alive during British rule), all in violation of the treaty with the UK, then they lose.

[Tijdreiziger]

Since the world already turned a blind eye to Xinjiang, what makes you believe they won't turn a blind eye to Hong Kong?

[slaymaker1907]

Xinjiang isn’t a major finance hub.

[pishpash]

And this is good for Hong Kong how?

People need to get over the reality that One Country Two Systems was meant to be a transition, not a permanent condition. Legally. The most legitimate path that is not tinged with racism or colonialism is to use that time to make sure China becomes a prosperous and free country that everybody wants to live in, as it should be.

[koenigdavidmj]

The point is that China has external pressure not to do that.

[chewz]

And much stronger internal preasure to do this disregarding externalities

The trick with running an autoracy is that it has to be absolute. If one city could disobey and contend the rulers then others will follow.

I would expect few car bombs to follow soon. Terrorism is such a tabu in the West that it would give China carte blanche in HK.

[vkou]

> The original protestors were fastidious in their civic-mindedness.

General question: What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows?

How do you apply that process for determining the nature of protests in your local city?

I ask, because I've never been to, seen, heard of, or read about a protest whose nature was not in dispute by conflicting media. The side that a publication supports is nearly always framed as a group of angels, while the opposing side frames it as a bunch of savages, that were rightfully put in their place by a police response.

[tempguy9999]

> What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows?

Whether they smash windows and vandalise, or not.

[vkou]

1. How do you know that is actually done by the protestors, or some unaffiliated hooligans?

2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source.

Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension - and is a distraction, used to condemn some protests (that you politically oppose) as illegitimate, and to endorse others, as legitimate?

Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans, either planted, embedded, or just standing on the sidelines. I postulate that it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances.

[IAmEveryone]

Or, you know, throwing tea into a harbour.

[tempguy9999]

I'm not up on US history really, but tea was expensive at the time and it was other people's tea being destroyed, so that might well be vandalism. Happy to be corrected though.