The protesters are getting increasingly violent as a response to the increasingly violent and authoritarian tactics of the Hong Kong police and a government they have no legal means of removing. The police have absolutely no independent oversight and are not answerable to anyone, invade private property without warrants, collude with the triads, indiscriminately attack people (protesters and bystanders both) with batons, pepper spray, and tear gas, deliberately target and attack journalists and social workers, physically and sexually abuse those who have been arrested, and at this point pretty much see the general Hong Kong population as their enemy. People have lost their jobs for their political views, schools have called the police on protesting students, the police have violently broken up even completely peaceful demonstrations, the government is using colonial-era emergency powers to pass drastic new laws. And remember, this is not a democracy. There will never be a point when Hong Kongers can vote their government out, a government which increasingly only takes direction from Beijing. This is not a situation where a purely non-violent movement is even possible.
To directly respond to your OP, of course not everyone in Hong Kong supports the protesters. No mass movement in history has had perfect 100% support. Protests like these are incredibly disruptive to society and there's a real cost to continually escalating violence. For quite a lot of people, an imagined return to the status quo is preferable, if such a thing is even possible at this point.
This narrative appears to be a super common way of discrediting anti-establishment movements by laser-focusing the conversation on individuals and their tone/actions, instead of focusing on the demands of the movement as a whole. It's extremely hard to not read what you wrote as state propaganda, in all honesty. Many countries are familiar with this kind of conversation, and it raises my alarms every time I read these 'both sides' justifications.
This, basically.
One thing I dont understand is that what are they still protesting? I thought they officially withdrew the bill?
The bill was what sparked the protests initially, but they have expanded to encompass a much larger range of complaints against the government and the state of society in general. The commonly stated five demands of the protests are: withdrawal of the extradition bill, an independent inquiry into police brutality, retraction of the classification of the protests as "riots", amnesty for the arrested protestors, and universal suffrage for legislative and executive elections. 1 out of 5 demands is not good enough. This is fundamentally about the political and cultural future of Hong Kong - will it continue to maintain some degree of autonomy or will it be completely absorbed into the mainland post-2047? China has been increasingly assertive in intervening in Hong Kong affairs over the past several years, so the current political situation, even ignoring the protests, is not stable.
There were five demands listed back in late summer but I'm not really seeing movement on any real discussions or negotiations going on on that front.
Who the fuck are they going to negotiate with? The only people the Hong Kong government are willing to listen to are in Beijing.
