But the point I can't ever seem to get across is this - action is meaningfully different than inaction, regardless of what is the status quo. It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayonets.

> I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese who wish Uighurs and Hong Kong protestors would just calm down and understand that civil order is more important than "justice."

I think there's also plenty of Chinese who wish their own government backed down and let Hong Kong go its own way. And as a westerner, while my heart is with Hong Kong on this one, every time someone proposes that maybe the US should get involved I start wishing either of the sides involved just gave up, because quite frankly, none of this is worth the price of a nuclear war.

> To use another example more directly relevant to MLK (...) [if] the civil rights movement only ever worked within the bounds of the law

By "order", I don't mean "the law" (and I don't think MLK meant it either). In the MLK era, the Civil Rights Movement achieved their goals without plunging the country into a civil war. They've treaded the line between justice and order well.

The point I'm trying to get across is that there are situations that are less like civil rights movement, and more like asking US to threaten China with nukes to get them to back off on HK. That the potential collateral damage may outweigh the gains. That doesn't mean abandoning pursuit of justice - only being mindful of the importance of preserving some order when deciding what to.

Because, once the dust settles and the justice has been won, it would sure be nice if there were people left to enjoy that justice.