Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonsh | Hacker News Reader

> I don't think Beijing anticipated or endorsed this.

This is endorsed and approved by Beijing, she already declared the bill dead this is just a matter of wording. Legally it can be brought back as laws are always evolving and Hong Kong needs an extradition treaty with other jurisdiction including another system in its own country.

For Mainland Chinese citizen the narrative will be altered, but will still be seen as symbolic defeat and for Hong Kong Chinese citizens it will be a symbolic win.

As it is said in order to win larger battle one needs to lose smaller one, extradition bill was already dead, now it's withdrawn until it's introduced by someone else later. In larger picture it will be sacrificing pawn.

If the violent protest continue, then it will be seen as challenging one country two system as the Hong Kong CEO proclaimed in her pre-recorded message. She is just saying in an indirect way this is her last ditch effort to salvage the situation.

Hope this brings down the tempers and hopefully this put an end to violent protests, which has destroyed city and society. Violence can never be a solution, only peaceful non-violent struggle can bring about real change.

View on HN

>only peaceful non-violent struggle can bring about real change.

Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power to ensure there's never any real threat to their position. "Just lie down while I stomp your neck. Don't resist. We'll discuss your objections later, at a more convenient time."

All political power emanates from the barrel of a gun. All civil power emanates from the people's latent threat to revolt and string up the members of an oppressive regime from lantern poles. The Founding Fathers understood that more than anything else. The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment.

Violence should never be the first (or even second) answer, but it is the ultimate answer, and should never be excluded on principle.

The non-violent protest thing seems like a myth that needs to be taken out back and shot, violently. We've seen for decades what they accomplish - absolutely nothing.

It reminds me of this. https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-help...

This NPR podcast/article argues different.

"...found that major nonviolent campaigns are successful 53% of the time, while violent campaigns are successful only 26% of the time."

The Protest Tipping Point (podcast): https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/736007317/the-protest-tipping...

The Magic Number Behind Protests: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-...

I'll take a look, thanks.

That might just mean that violent protests are deployed too widely. It's impossible to say in unique situations whether violence or nonviolence will fare better.

Was the Civil Rights movement in the United States violent or non-violent?

MLK may have been the face of it, but the man that really brought the government to the negotiating table was Malcolm X... Because of the implicit threat that if non-violent resistance won't work, here's a guy that is perfectly happy to have his supporters sit outside congress, armed with assault rifles, exercising their second amendment rights.

Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement.

It should also be pointed out that while MLK wasn't interested in engaging in violence himself, he had rather harsh words for people who cared more about non-violence than civil rights (see: Letter from a Birmingham Jail).

> Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement.

Not really a non-violent protest wins because majority move away from a violent group to a non-violent group.

So it makes a violent person who already has fear, more scared of being left alone. Non-violent protests need to be planned and require strategy in such a way, it helps those non-violent protestors to self-defend with the use of non-violent means, i.e. using deterrents which create fear in aggressors mind on use of violence.

A revolution is round :-) Of course one can't generalise at all, but very frequently quick change results in replacing one system with another that resembles the first one an awful lot. Real, long lasting change requires a long time to influence culture and to wait until the time is right to move.

However, I will also agree that usually violence is involved, even if one side doesn't participate. Gandhi referred to the people who participated in non-violent protests as soldiers because he knew that many would die.

I don't think violence is the ultimate answer. The ultimate answer is the answer that works. There are many paths to the same location. It's probably best to review your options before you decide which ones to exclude.

Look into the American Revolution.

Look into Northern Ireland.

That's actually a perfect example of a revolution resulting in a system that looks a lot like the previous system.

Mostly self-governing colonies with Parliament exercising some limited control over them turn into mostly self-governing states with a Federal government exercising some limited control over them.

Pretty much the only things that changed short-term were foreign policy and what kinds of imported goods were taxed.

The American Revolution was won by leveraging Iroquois-style confederacy [1] as effective propaganda [2], and by employing guerilla warfare tactics learned fighting the Algonquin. This enabled securing enough victory (i.e. Saratoga) to get the French involved as the focus shifted to the Southern theater.

It was the first successful war of independence [3], lead to establishing the modern elected head of state, outlawed explicit nobility, and inspired fanatical devotion to an earthly cause.

For the previous hundred years, Jacobite rebellions in Europe had been crushed, seemingly due mainly to tactical failure (e.g. Culloden, the last pitched battle in Britain).

But then, a few years after the American Revolution, the French: guerilla warfare, beheaded head of state, banished nobility, fanatical devotion to an earthly cause.

(Interestingly, the French Revolution occurred right around the time they hit 50% literacy [4], increasing the viability of written propaganda.)

Then Haiti launched the second successful independence war in 1791, kicking off centuries of decolonization.

The American Revolution was a break from history.

We haven't cycled back to pitched battles, if anything guerilla warfare is still under active development and experiencing significant growth. Propaganda, as an instrument of war, is only becoming more important. And colonial aggressors continue to lose when on someone else's home field.

1. https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/78

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#/media/File:Illiterac...

> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power

A non-violent protestor is a person who does not fear anything, and the person who doesn't fear is the most powerful one.

Violence is a result of fear, that's the reason need to use weapons and aids to fight back to increase the chances of survival. A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves.

It's very easy to fight violently, every animal do it including us. We are at least evolved to tame our violent urges and that's what makes us a human.

> All political power emanates from barrel of gun

This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun"

You might believe in it like every violent protestor. I don't. I believe power flows from the depth of heart and mind based on our connection with universe, nature and our endeavor to keep it balanced without resorting to violence.

> Second amendment

It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment.

Tianamen square and the surroundings are safe and peaceful, for decades now indeed.

Well, you know. You expect the violent person to be ashamed of themselves. That's a very bold assumption. A psychopath or sociopath won't feel a thing when they order their army to mow down peaceful protestors.

It's a beautiful idea really. But when you are given no option other than to fight, do you think it's wrong for them to do so? Jewish, Armenians, Chinese under Japanese occupation? Might have not mattered, might have. I guess it depends on the person. An exaggeration of course compared to the issue at hand, but it seems wishful idealism. In some cases, yes, it works. But when your adversary doesn't care, it's quite ineffective. Game-theory wise I think equal repercussion works quite well, where violence is met with violence in order to prevent it from happening. Sure not always, but if there is no punishment it's simply much too advantageous to use violence if it solves the problem.

I mean school bullies probably won't stop unless you hit them or they get some sort of punishment. Sure you'll feel probably mighty wise if you don't resort to violence or any kind of resistance, but it's unhelpful if it doesn't stop it. And in the meantime you'll be suffering tremendously.

It's not just a claim many studies do prove non violent struggle are more successful in bringing change than violent once. [1]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven...

I'm not disagreeing that in this case non-violent approach isn't the best. But depending on the setting, the parameters if you will, that approach might be inefficient. Another example would be the people living under the Stalin's rule in Soviet Union. Even if you resisted peacefully, I'm sure you would have been taken to the gulag either way.

The circumstance where non-violent behavior works is very specific and is best when there's:

A) much stronger opponent (British Empire, Chinese government)

B) level of civilization where both parties do not want to engage in violence (the majority of modern civilizations)

C) good chance for massive unrest if violence were to happen (no ruler wants to deal with domestic terrorism and internal squabbles, unless of course your regime is breaking up already and that's the only way to keep control)

The more primal the opponent, the worse are your chances. Aztecs would have welcomed non-violent behavior with open hands, they would have cheerfully enslaved people who didn't put up a fight. The reason why they stopped was basically the destruction of their civilization by the Spaniards. But maybe I'm mixing here war with protesting, which is a more of problem after you have lost and are under the oppressive regime. Then your options are limited: it's either violent insurgency or non-violent protesting. In modern world luckily we have electronic mass-media that helps immensely with the non-violence.

Safe and peaceful is not the same thing as free.

Mao also said this,

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

> Violence is a result of fear

That's the part you got right: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cxz64b/300_uncut_...

But to just speak of violent protestors, while ignoring the triads and people with odd markings doing odd things, the police brutality, and things like this, is also not even close to a complete picture: https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cv9y4c/protesters...

> A true warrior is a fearless person who respond to violence with non-violence and make violent person ashamed of themselves.

You cannot make a person have empathy, you can appeal to it, where it exists. Otherwise, you have to defeat them. Not "crush" them, but disarm them and establish boundaries. Without military defeat of Nazi Germany, anything like reflection or reconciliation wasn't even thinkable. As a matter of fact, without their military defeat, we wouldn't know most of what we know about their atrocities today, they were set to purge all evidence as thoroughly as they had exterminated people.

Factual reality, which is at stake, is something even more important than peace -- in the same way atoms are more important than water or orange juice, without atoms, you can't have either. Peace can always erupt again, but destroyed facts remain destroyed, and that being done well enough, can make genuine peace impossbile. A static state of submission is not peace, peace without truthfulness is not peace, and low-intensity people getting disappeared, not asking what happened to your neighbour, is not peace.

    ignorance
    doesn't hurt anybody
    with the exception of those
    who can be hurt
    because nobody knows about it

-- Erich Fried, "Vorteile der Unwissenheit (in allen Ländern der Hochsicherheit)", or "Benefits of ignorance (in all high security nations)"

>Violence is a result of fea

Violence is a means to enforce ones will on another. It is only one of such means. It is the mean by which the entire legal system falls back on. It is the mean by which Americans won their independence. It is the mean by which bad people do evil things.

>This is the famous quote of Mao Zedong (毛泽东). "Power flows from the barrel of gun"

And it is the truth, especially if we see take this to be an analogy for strength (before guns, it was swords, before swords it was sticks, before sticks it was fists, these days it might not be guns at the national level, and one day it may be something else entirely).

>It's not a sacred thing, there are many places in this world way more safe and peaceful without the second amendment.

Generally with the backing (perhaps unwillingly) of the nation that has the second amendment, and even those places still use guns to enforce their will on those who do not play along. The smarter areas use it as a last resort and not the first response, but they still use it.

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but your points about the American Revolution and the Second Amendment could potentially be interpreted as permitting violence from protestors.

The US Revolution truly began forming after British soldiers started gunning down colonial civilians. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

>"John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on [the date of the massacre], and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence.

The colonists didn't just shoot the evil British tyrants telling them to go away because of their oppressive policies. They probably would have lost the war if that's how it started. That's not how you start a revolution. It started because the British fired the first unfair shots (or at least that was the perception).

Some protestors have been quoted saying they want a protestor, or a police officer, to die and become a martyr for either side so that a true revolution can begin. While the citizens of Hong Kong absolutely deserve democracy and civil rights, wishing death is not the way to do it. If the government does start the violence towards civilians of their own accord, with cruelty and brutality, perhaps reciprocal violence in self-defense may at some point become justifiable, but this is a very fine line and only a hypothetical scenario to be considered in response to grave danger, not something anyone should ever wish for.

>A non-violent protestor

Just an ordinary citizen, whose opinion can be disregarded.

This sounds like a naive dream.

Connection with the universe does not change political structures.

I get what you're saying and share your idealism. But you've been the beneficiary of many, many guns. And much violence. So while you may sound good, it's not based in reality.

Regardless, violence is relatively at a historically all-time low[1].

[1] https://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-ab...

If you go out and start shooting people you are quickly going to end up with the reputation of a school shooter, as opposed to, say, George Washington. Most people prefer peace and safety over any particular ideology, and they will turn against anyone who throws away the former to achieve their particular version of the latter.

> Utterly false, but persistently preached by those in power to ensure there's never any real threat to their position. "Just lie down while I stomp your neck. Don't resist. We'll discuss your objections later, at a more convenient time."

The post you responded to did not say "don't resist". It said "don't use violence".

Peaceful protest has some track record of bringing down systems, ending regimes, and enacting lasting change. Violent protest has a worse track record; it mainly alienates the man on the street and it cannot build consensus.

War can bring about lasting change, but only if your side wins. The difference between war and violent protest is that war implies two sides, each of which has a strong consensus. Violent protest only implies factions. Eliding this difference is a mistake.

This is not to say that violence is unjustified, just that violent protests almost never enact lasting change (because they do not create consensus).

> All political power emanates from the barrel of a gun

All political power emanates from consensus. Violence and coercion can only replace consensus for short periods of time. Consensus can be established and maintained through propaganda and brainwashing - which is frightening and complicates the picture.

If Mao was right then there would be no difference between a gunman and a police officer with a gun. Of course there is every difference in the world between those two figures, a fact proven by how differently we react to them.

> All civil power emanates from the people's latent threat to revolt and string up the members of an oppressive regime from lantern poles. The Founding Fathers understood that more than anything else. The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment.

I agree: sovereignty is defined by the ability to make exceptions. Citizens are only sovereign insofar as they can choose to remove themselves from their obligation to their nation.

My sense is that peaceful protests are the best way to bring about lasting change in China. What the anti-PRC groups need to do is build consensus. Once they've done that, if change does not follow, then war is on the table. But until consensus exists, I believe that violence will fail spectacularly.

> The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was never (and still isn't) meant to ensure the right of people to violently resist or overthrow the government. The way to influence the US government is to become involved in the process, not (threaten to) shoot people. If that's ever not the case, you don't have a country, you have a failed state.

It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check.

It's a persistent myth that this is not the case. The US was born in revolution and the founders were very concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government.

Even if it wasn't explicitly stated, the Second Amendment was written by people who had just used militias as a big part of their force to overthrow the government. They weren't senile. They hadn't forgotten. They knew what they were saying.

> It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government).

Nah, this is totally wrong. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over state militias to suppress insurrections:

"The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]

Further, the Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to take control of State militias, and this was famously used by George Washington himself to quell the Whiskey Rebellion.

> Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check.

He did, yes, but he was talking about States vs. the Federal government. He also later saw how bad militias were at being an army (a point Washington argued over and over again) in the War of 1812 and changed his position in favor of a strong, standing, Federal army. And FWIW, we put the question of States keeping the Federal government in check to bed in the Civil War.

[1]: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...

The right to bear arms arrived to the United States via English common law. It existed in English common law for the purpose of self-defense, resistance against oppression, and to assist the defense of the realm.

Whether or not Madison (or Washington or whoever) changed his mind at some point does not change the fact that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment. No other laws (like the ones you cited) change this fact, nor does the Civil War.

You can argue that this interpretation is obsolete, but it's the interpretation that was predominant when the Constitution was ratified. Denying that is ahistorical.

I'm sure many people interpreted it that way, but they're also wrong, and they evidently didn't write either the Constitution or the Militia Act, or 2A. And I guess when I refer to intent, I mean those authors.

Militias were explicitly under the control of both Congress and the president, by law and the Constitution. And militias were used to quell rebellion, not to serve it. These are facts. I understand they're counter to your and others' interpretations, but that doesn't make them any less factual.

And when you consider:

- 2A only applied to militias

- Any "security from tyranny" was States being free from Federal tyranny

- the Civil War erased any doubt about the States rebelling against the Federal government

- The last Militia Act in 1909 made militias into the _National_ Guard

then you have to concede 2A is just a relic from a time when the US had neither the resources nor the political will to create and maintain a standing army.

In a failed state scenario, as you mentioned, what's the recourse of the people?

Well, sadly, it's of course violence. The basic contract of government is you give up some liberty for safety (Hobbes), i.e. you don't go around robbing people, and the government will see that no one else goes around robbing you. But this sort of first form of government was inflexible, and if you wanted to change it you basically had to kill the people in charge. The chief innovation of liberal government was "self governance", and the trade there was "OK, we'll listen to you, you don't have to murder us to effect change". Practically everyone does this via some form of voting.

But as soon as that contract breaks down, i.e. the government stops listening to you, then that contract is breached and generally trouble starts. It gets (arguably) even worse if the government falls entirely, because then you get the kind of lawless marauding you had before any government.

Exactly. Hence, to me, the 2nd Amendment of US Constitution.

Obviously it's and absolute last ditch, not taken lightly and very undesirable. But, to have the option, is true sovereignty to me.

I mean, I guess the argument here is "well, if the gov't goes crazy we still have weapons because 2A let us amass them". But in reality, the US government is unimaginably powerful. Like they could easily take control of all energy producing facilities everywhere, every major city, port, road, railroad, airport, hospital, etc. There are probably close to a million law enforcement officials in the US. And all that's to say nothing of advanced military, surveillance, and espionage capability.

Basically, the idea that 2A would let us protect any semblance of our current way if life is fantasy. The most you could hope for is to join a resistance and dig in for a generations long, probably species destroying authoritarian regime to run its course.

I agree as far as unimaginably powerful. However, see: Iraq War, Afghan War, Am. Revolution, Guerilla warfare, etc. And it's not a fantasy.

> Violence can never be a solution, only peaceful non-violent struggle can bring about real change.

That’s facially not true. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Bangladeshi War of Independence, Irish independence, etc. History is full of examples where the right to self determination had to be vindicated with guns.

Categorically delegitimizing violence against an oppressive state is a bad precedent. Obviously it should not be accepted as routine. But it is an important safety valve. The Irish won their independence, after hundreds of years of oppression at the hands of the British, by starting a shooting war that the British could not put down while maintaining appearances among the community of nations. If violence had been categorically delegitimized in the early 20th century, the British could have used more heavy handed measures to put down the Irish Revolution while the community of nations looked the other way.

Now, whether Hong Kong wants to or has the capability to do that against China is an entirely separate matter.

History is littered with graveyards upon graveyards of violent struggles for independance that didn't end up so well. Meanwhile, in the modern times, peaceful protests can being down even nuclear armed superpowers as we've seen in the 80s. Take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...

And peaceful protestors can also be massacred and completely fail to bring about any change.

Peaceful protests can work sometimes. Other times they do nothing. Same with armed resistance. Declaring one or the other to be the only possible way to bring about change is in direct contradiction to the facts.

And protest movements don’t always need to be all violent or all peaceful. School children are taught about Nelson Mandela peacefully bringing down Apartheid. But there is a reason the logo of the ANC is a hand holding a spear and shield. Mandela co-founded the military arm of the ANC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe.

> And peaceful protestors can also be massacred and completely fail to bring about any change

Can you give an example? Every example I can think of right now that had a massacre of innocent protestors and no armed struggle either led to some change later down the road (eg. galvanizing the movement, reforms, or total collapse of the opressor), or became a major problem for the oppressor later down the track. A massacre is not that easily forgotten.

Just some random examples: The Polish protests of 1970, resulted in 42 people killed and protestors were overpowered by tanks and military, but the killings arguably accelerated the popularity of the movement. Look up the story of "Janek Wiśniewski" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janek_Wi%C5%9Bniewski

Your reading history backwards. You assume that while 1970 protest, leads to 1980 protest and that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. However that is wrong way to look at it, the right way is that in 1970 the Soviet Union had the will do stop the protesters, but not later. Those things mostly have to do with the discussions and political institutions the elites were working in.

The protesters in late 1980 might have been larger and more popular, but if the Soviet unreleased it might, it would not have mattered.

Nope. Totally wrong. Those early protests, even though seemingly unsuccessful at the time, gave the people one important thing: hope.

Of course, the other motivating factor was that the economy went to shit. People were hungry and tired of waiting in long queues with shelves at the stores almost empty. Nothing to do with "discussions and political institutions the elites were working in" though.

You are totally fundamentally wrong. You are disagreeing with most scholarship on how revolutions happen in political science.

Hope doesn't work if there are tanks who shoot at you. The people in Poland were not braver then those in China or those in Hungary. The difference is that in those cases the political system had the will to oppose them with the force required.

Unarmed protestors simple can not win against an army. Its pure idealism to believe that.

Tiananmen Square. Rabaa (Egypt, 2013). Prague Spring. Some more are scattered around this Wikipedia list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

The aftermath of a massacre comes down to the government’s willingness and ability to control the narrative and suppress further dissent. Some governments can be quite successful at this. There’s absolutely no guarantee that a massacre of protestors results in anything beyond dead protestors.

Tiananmen Square still continues to be a major thorn for the CCP today, both internally and diplomatically, it's obvious that ramafications are continuing, and why Beijing just can't march in to Hong Kong.

Prague Spring lead to reforms and set the inspiration for the next generation that ended in victory (source https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...) .

Rabaa, the situation is still ongoing, and unfortunately it's not a completely peaceful movement right now as it escalated to insurgency... (Source https://timep.org/esw/non-state-actors/revolutionary-punishm... )

What practical consequences did Tiananmen Square have? You say it’s why they can’t just march into Hong Kong, but I don’t believe that. They can’t just march into Hong Kong because of the international condemnation that would ensue, and because it would wreck an economically valuable city. Both of those would remain true if Tiananmen Square had never happened. You say it’s a “major thorn” for them today; how? Domestically, it’s like it never happened. Internationally, they happily ignore pressure to do better on human rights. I don’t see any consequences that vaguely resemble what the protestors wanted.

The Prague Spring’s reforms were quickly reversed and the country was communist business as usual for decades afterwards. Crediting it for the fall of communism in 1989 seems like quite a stretch; for any successful protest, there will be failed ones that came before and provided influence. Does that mean that all protests are successful by definition when you look at a long enough timeline? Seems like a highly pointless metric if so.

> What practical consequences did Tiananmen Square have?

CCP is still grappling with it.

Quote "As foundational as the crackdown at Tiananmen may have been to the CCP’s current strength, it remains largely invisible to the people. Despite claiming the moral high ground against what it calls a “counter-revolutionary” rebellion, the Party is still sensitive to the fact that its slaughter of students and laborers put a stain on its legitimacy."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5600363/china-tiananme...

Sorry, but you can't just burry a massacre, especially if it's been well documented.

> Does that mean that all protests are successful by definition when you look at a long enough timeline?

They may also look like separate events on the timeline, but still part of the same overall movement. Change doesn't happen overnight.

That quote is vague fluff, not “practical consequences.” What actual change was brought about by those protests? As far as I can see, there was none: no democratization or other political liberalization happened, just a bunch of dead or disappeared people.

> it remains largely invisible to the people

No, it's certainly not visible to the people. If you are talking about Chinese people, not HK people.

> What practical consequences did Tiananmen Square have?

It began the process of deterioration of relations between the PRC and the Western democracies, a process that has continued to the present day. People began to realize that China may not liberalize on its own the way Taiwan did—that the government of the PRC is often hostile to liberal democracy. One of the consequences of this realization is in fact these Hong Kong protests. There are numerous other consequences of this cooling in relations too—for example, protectionist tariffs against a country seen as hostile to Western values are easier to sell politically in the West. Tariffs obviously impact China.

Tiananmen didn't achieve what the protestors wanted, but it's clearly a significant historical event.

- The 2014 "Umbrella Movement" was peaceful yet the only thing achieved was the incarceration of the student leaders.[0]

- On June 9th this year, a million people joined a peaceful march fighting this bill. Carrie Lam's response? Go ahead with the Second Reading anyway.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_Movement

[1] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201906/10/P2019061000710...

Arguably, even if the 2014 "Umbrella Movement" didn't resolve anything immediately then, the repercussion are still continuing today so it's unfair to say it didn't do anything. It's too early to say.

So far, it seems like it helped to inspire the current protestors, and they're much better organized this time round.

This is the typical old and wrong view about both the end of the cold war and other situations.

Revolutions, specially non-violent once succeed if the political establishment does not have the will or tools to resist.

The protestors in Europe and China were probably equally as brave. While in the Soviet system the elites had already divided and paralyzed themselves, that was the fundamental condition that allowed protest to be successful in eastern Europe.

The people in China, were simply shot down and 30 years after the CCP is in control still. The exact same thing could have happened in the Soviet Union, if the elites had not already crippled themselves.

Governments with modern arms don't fall to rebellions unless some significant part of the elite is either at least passive or actively supporting the revolution.

There are many studies done and in many non violent struggles are more successful in bringing change. [1] [2]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven...

[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/3040831/peaceful-protest-slow-an...

You said: “violence can never be a solution.” Your studies do not prove that. They prove that non-violent resistance is usually more effective than violent resistance. That doesn’t mean that, in any given situation, the non-violent solution will be superior. For example, it’s possible (even likely), that people only resort to violence where things have gotten so bad that political approaches have failed. Such situations are of course less likely to result in change than situations where people felt non-violence can work. That doesn’t mean that in that specific situation non-violence would have been more effective. (C-sections have a higher mortality rate than natural birth. That’s because C-sections are disproportionately used in more dire circumstances. But in the same given emergency situation, the C-section could well be more effective than going forward with natural birth.)

>Violence can never be a solution, only peaceful non-violent struggle can bring about real change.

I think that's the exception rather than the rule. More societies have gained independence through being a perpetual thorn in the side of whoever is subjugating them than any other way. If you make subjugating you an expensive road to nowhere they will eventually screw off. With the unanimity of opposition to mainland rule HK stands a pretty good chance. Imagine the troubles but without local opposition stabbing the IRA in the back at every turn. That's the kind of fight the PRC is in for if the situation spirals into a full blown shooting conflict.

IMO it's endorsed and approved in the sense that Lam left them no choice. Her resignation leak was yesterday, partly to signal to Beijing that ERO will not happen under her watch without an attempt at reconciliation and within 24 hours we get this announcement. 5 days ago, Beijing instructed her not to give a single inch and hinted at ERO was on the horizon.

>For Mainland Chinese citizen the narrative will be altered, but will still be seen as symbolic defeat and for Hong Kong Chinese citizens it will be a symbolic win.

Any other time and I would agree, but Xi just scored "people's leader" on August 25th, 70th anniversary is on October 1st, "symbolic defeat" is not in the cards. Together with rejection of Lam's proposal and effort to appease protesters as little as last week, I think we can either view this development as Beijing dealing with Lam cracking without warning. Or this as a calculated ploy to justify ERO on the assumption that the olive branch will not be well received by protesters. Lam's speech politely but explicitly said 4/5 demands would not be met.

"This is endorsed and approved by Beijing, she already declared the bill dead this is just a matter of wording."

My understanding is another bill would need to go through the original process that first introduced it which is a longer process.

How does Hong Kong legislation work? Do all bills need to be individual, separate bills? Or can they sneak in an unrelated bill into a more popular one?

The Rules of Procedure[0] are available online.

The bill in question is now at the Second Reading stage, specifically at the "[Reading] may be resumed on notice by the Member or public officer in charge of the bill" step. The "House Committee" debate was basically skipped.

[0] https://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/procedur/content/pa...

> Violence can never be a solution Clearly you missed WWI and WWII.

Violence, sadly, is almost always the solution. A tough pill to swallow.

Actually, violence is at the heart of every revolution and is absolutely the answer when facing tyrants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com