No, I am proposing that sufficiently large groups of people have some right to self determination, to only be part of nations which they choose to be part of. I'm saying Hong Kong is culturally, philosophically, and historically distinct from the People's Republic of China at this point, and pretending they're not is silly. You're talking as if, like, Singapore doesn't exist, that if any city state exists that's somehow an absurdity.

Hong Kong has some shared history with China but not a shared philosophy. That's why there's the AND clause there. If you have shared history but not shared philosophy, it's merely imperialism with a patina of historicity, i.e., "we should own this because we did at one point, regardless of the wishes of the people." If you have shared philosophy but not shared history it may work out, but don't be surprised when different cultures within your state react to issues in ways that are informed by their differing histories.

You are effectively saying that you don't have an issue with colonialism, just that the wrong people were doing it before and now the right people can do it. I'm saying that the people of Hong Kong deserve self-determination if their political will is not represented in the state of the People's Republic of China, which it will not be.