So in your view, rioters are not necessarily violent? When the rioters beat people to unconscious, bleeding bodies, throw flaming petrol bombs, or destroy a metro station, that isn't violent? (When they don't do that, or something as destructive, then most people won't call them rioters.) If that is your view, we have nothing more to discuss, as you are clearly not living in the real world.
Do you even read what I said? Not sure how would you jump to this absurd conclusion. From our perspective and view, rioters of course are violent. Any reasonable or not bias people would agree that the rioters are violent.
But that is what we see things not what the pan-Dems camp supporters see things. Most pan-Dems camp supporters have been brainwashed by the oppositions, rioters, and the media to think otherwise. They see things differently and justify violence in many ways and forms.(For the sake of no more confusion,
majority of the HK people support the rioters but some of them condone violence and some of them don't condone violence.) Some pan-Dems camp supporters who don't condone violence but still choose to support the rioters
for various reasons.
So for those who don't condone violence, what excuses they give to justify the violence?
1. The whole thing is stage. (Complete denial, if there is violence, then it is a show or fake.)
2. Those in black are actually police officers. (projection of blame, blame-shifting, fake news to sow confusion)
3. The police are more brutal, and the HK government is a tyranny. So violence might not be acceptable but at least understandable and justifiable.(The other side is at fault.)(fake news to sow hatred such as fabricated story of police killings at Prince Edward Station and to reinforce the notion that the police are the bad guys).
4. It is for the greater goods. A necessities for revolution and the only mean to fight back a tyranny(the hk government and the police) (Justification and glorification).
