I can't help but think that there could be an unfortunate inverse to JFK's "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." in this. Tyrants finding their nonlethal weapons not working might more quickly turn to using guns.
This strict split is also one of the central theme of Poppers "The Open Society And Its Enemies".
"For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed — for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions
provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions- ensure that these i nstitutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution — that is to say, in most cases, not at all"
...
"the criterion of a
democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers — that is to say, the government — can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny. We need only distinguish between two forms of government, viz. such as possess institutions of this kind, and all others"
Doesn't this presume that the structures which prop up the government are already an intrinsic good? Consider the frequently seen sentiment that no matter who is in office, it is the office itself that does not serve the people, the government is not for the people, and the foundations of the government work against the people and will continue to do so even if a ruler is dismissed and another brought in. To use a more crude example, a slave does not cease to be a slave just because he can vote out his old master - rather it is the institution of slavery that must change, not merely adding the ability to choose.
This is frequently found in political philosophy that goes well beyond Popper's liberal egalitarianism. It's very strange to see this in the context of a country which is ostensibly (but not actually) democratic, such as China.
I am sure that riot police that saw this was actually grateful. The MO for protesters around the world is to haul the charges back at the police - he just disabled it.
In my experience, the only cops who like tear gas are those who never used it. They have a whole barrage of cynical jokes about tear gas (~"It's only weather control device that works - wind will turn 180 degrees a few seconds after you placed the charge.").
EDIT: Disclaimer - got some loads myself during protests but also have riot police in my family.
The failure of teargas to disperse crowds is cited as one of the reasons for quickly bringing the water cannons into service, despite concerns related to using them in the very densely populated streets of HK.
You dont really need pellets. The pressure of a water canon is high enough to break rips and pop eyes. You dont achieve anything more by adding pellets. They do however mix in the different variants of pepper spray into the water.
Some countries use regular pellet guns, for example India in Kashmir with the expected result of a lot of lost eyes.
Unfortunately this means you have the choice between accepting oppression, or face an escalation in force. That is how tyrants keep their populations subservient and living in fear.
As long as commerce keeps flowing, I think China has high enough self esteem that they'll do just fine losing some popularity, and I can't see Western corporations putting any money where their mouths are.
Actually, no corporations have really commented on the matter as far as I know, so they're not even being hypocritical. There is so much money on the line, it would have to get incredibly bloody before anyone would do anything, so I think China has lots of leeway, and I've seen nothing to indicate they're not incredibly sharp.
No idea why this is downvoted, I think its a daring thesis that China cares what the rest of the world thinks. On top of that there are only a few countries that can afford and are willing to actually act on something like this, there is just to much money to be made in the Chinese market.
That lethal force against protesters leads somehow automatically to breaking down of political support is wishful thinking. Do you really need a list of countries who regularly use lethal force against protesters and are good friends and partners of western governments? When it comes to a state killing protesters all that matters is who the state is.
The US started a trade conflict due to geopolitical interests, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The US is willing to act in their best interest, we are talking about countries acting against their best interest out of a humanitarian conviction.
