These UK news always portray Asian giants in bad news. I dont believe them blindly.
Edit: silent downvoting snipers confirm the stated idea (the nuance being productive vs depaupering).
This given, q., let us not forget the guidelines, «Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like».
The "political interest" is out of here, this is a place for debate on intellectually relevant topics. The interest here (specifically to these "theoretical suggestions" the new account/member triggered) is in language, response, awareness of the instruments, intellectual processes, intellectual productivity.
China over reacted and is not doing the right thing ... yet. It's not finished, the Earth is still rotating, it's still our country too, we'll find another way to express our discontent. What doesn't help is the news loop constantly exciting the debate to irrationality.
I think you dont need a CCP shill to say "they always say the same thing, I dont trust them blindly". This should even be said of Xinhua :D
Well xwolfi, in another post you wrote «from the competent bottom towards the rotting top»: Hong Kong is to some statistics a place of the highest concentration for well trained minds, education, competence - it may be really disappointing to those with a "technical" more than "emotional" idea of democracy, that in one of the few places in which people show numbers to really deserve the responsibility of judgement and administration, their participation is limited. For a condition like "you can participate provided you are aligned", strong intellectual skills are probably largely wasted.
And anyway, bar northern democracy, I think people are largely unprepared to wield power and the only argument I d present is that we can propose a compromise in exchange for policy buy in. We'll not yet, as a city, naturaly trend to long term benefit, but we should be trained to give a mild opinion, via voting, to the implementation quality of various policies. Just like in France where I was raised, which is an unbearable mess, but a mess we can say we chose.
So democracy why not, but we ll only reach optimum once Chinese people agree and implement the same thing: what s your strategy to actually make them do it ? Boycott the olympics and whine about Xinjian ?
About «democracy why not»: traditional democracy is not "the goal / the end of the path" - but one could suppose it should take an advanced society to achieve its milestone reform, its improved successor, its next perfected form.
You can say all you want but when an angry man discovered his gf cheated on him during a vacation in Taiwan, murdered her, went back to HK, triggered an extradition debate with Taiwan, made the other side of the border angry in turn (how dare we isolate Taiwan as a jurisdiction, it's China all the same, they say between expletives), triggering a discussion of extradition to the mainland, making this side of the border angry in turn, triggering big protests, making the police angry in turn etc etc, you wonder: if anger was less prominent in everyone's reaction could they simply compromise ?
Someone lost a daughter in all this, and the murderer is free to roam the streets in HK, so what was the meaning of all that angry jazz...
You are now presenting instances in which it seems that for "sanguine" you mean: "a beast".
Do not use the concept of "Italians" for that, because it would be improper factually. Italy (land of Pareto) is extremely composite, first of all, and in general you can easily find the most controlled people even among the most ignorant (probably owing to a very "integrated" societal configuration of the past). This in fact is a characteristic that is noted by visiting foreigners, in general noticing an extremely less violent environment (up to the label of "effeminate"). Note, numerically, that it is a country of moderate wine drinkers, among countries with much more marked habits towards consumption and substance type.
When I used 'sanguine' or 'warm blooded' I - of course - always assumed, "mentally lucid, reflective and controlled" at the same time. Because normal people are lively and with a functioning prefrontal all the times - the two things are not conflictual, they go together.
You have confirmed my statement «there is an issue on measurements and it is difficult to get a "complete" idea of a population on quantitative data only, because many fundamental qualities are not measured» - or, moreover, even when measurable and measured, it seems they are not easily apparent.
The topic though was "democracy deserving populations". Again: if the population is ignorant, they will be poor to disastrous in judgement: they will be unable to distinguish mice from eagles, they will take the first dog and call that dog "a leader that will lead us to years of cheers", they will believe things like "politicians should not receive a salary", they will believe that they have judgement where they do not have it. If the population is highly skilled - on average, median and typical -, democracy has more reasons to be a good idea. If the population is not, there surely is a problem to be fixed.
Hong Kong (e.g. top average IQ worldwide to some informal data, in absence of a "civilization index") projected an image of competence: if the image corresponds to facts, it would be a pity if representation is not extended. If a strong component of the population is competent, they should be empowered. And those who are "beasts", whatever the percentile they are in, majority or minority, and whatever the role they are in, appointed or marginalized, must be a social concern (of everyone, they themselves first) even outside the context of some "right for representation".