Taiwanese is not a nationality. There is an indigenous population on the island. But the dominant population of the island is Chinese and has been for 400 years. Taiwan is an island province of the country of China and has never stopped being an island province of the country of China. The KMT is a political party of the Chinese people. It lost in a civil war against another political party of the Chinese people. It retreated to the island of Taiwan, a province of China. Once there, it declared itself the rightful government of the country of China, of which Taiwan was a province. The CPC also declared themselves the legitimate government of the country of China, of which Taiwan was a province.

They're Chinese and they always have been. You're not even asking the right question.

The question is whether the people living in the island of Taiwan want to secede and become their own independent nation or whether they do not. The majority do not want to secede and become an independent nation.

And the problem with secession is that no one allows secession. The US wouldn't allow a state to secede - it's not in the constitution. The USSR is the only country that I know of that enshrined the right to secede directly in their constitution. They limited it to national republics, which meant that, for example the nation of Ukrainian people, which had their own Republic, could legally secede from the Soviet Union. But even if China had such a law, the people on the island of Taiwan are not a separate nation. They are Chinese people, descended from Chinese people. Only the indigenous inhabitants of the island are a nation separate from China. And maybe one day they'll get their island back.

The other important thing to note is that the KMT spent 40 years killing, torturing, and imprisoning anyone who didn't support the KMT's program of government-in-exile. After 40 years of the fascist reign of the White Terror, I think it's easy to acknowledge that public opinion on the topic might be massively, violently, and illegitimately skewed in one direction. It's why I imagine that there are so many who support taking no action - it's the safest way to avoid being persecuted. Not that the current government on the island is persecuting people today, but 40 years of trauma likely means that culturally people are disinclined (to say the least) to take a risk on this topic.

Im saying this is a country that seems to want to participate in their own democratic system and is being told no.

And yet, they're being told yes. China is the only country in the world with a "One Country Two Systems" approach to managing these conflicts. It has been the position of the CPC for 50 years now that Taiwan can maintain its government bureaucracy, its leaders, etc. But the PLA will be the one national military providing national security and self defense, which means the government of Taiwan would no longer be able to buy arms and train its own military against the PLA. China's been consistent on this point, again, for 50 years.

The author doesn't seem to view Taiwanese independence as legitimate.

Is that a problematic position or simply a difference in world view and political analysis. Do you think anyone that disagrees with you on this topic is morally bankrupt, delusional, or otherwise "problematic"?

Im a big fan of letting people who want to be independent, be independent. I can think of a current genocide happening based on very similar sentiments.

You're not though. You wouldn't support racist white supremacists claiming independence from "woke" America. You wouldn't support Chinatown in NYC seceding from NYC and then forming military ties with China. I assume you don't support Russians in Ukraine seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia.

Your support is therefore selective. It is based on specific conditions, not on a shallow principle like "anyone should be able to declare themselves a nation and then secede and it doesn't matter at all if they then ally with their previous nation's psychotic mortal enemy, and it certainly doesn't matter if that psychotic mortal enemy has been promoting secession for decades as part of their program of violence"

You have real standards. But you're not fully informed of the history, the real details and nuances in the debate, nor the steelman versions of both sides of the argument.

This author has a different perspective than you born from their engagement with the topic which is different from your engagement with the topic. I wouldn't call that problematic.