How many electrons were spent on how incredibly violent the LA protests were because a 4 trillion dollar company had a couple of their cars burned?
Micro, the argument youāve whipped up is completely in your own head. I know you get frustrated by ambiguity.
Itās in my head and the heads of basically all protest organizers and civil disobedience historians too. So he has company.
The problem is the federal troops report to Trump, and Trump is bad
I think once you begin doing damage to local businesses and property you start losing too much public support nationwide while also providing plausible justification for authority to use even more forceful tactics. With stuff like this I think itās incredibly important to win over popular opinion and violence or damage to local communities isnāt the way to go about it
The way to do resist is to dog these agents everywhere they go with whistles, horns, and loudly shaming them everywhere they go. Donāt give them a momentās rest. Donāt let them eat, sleep, or piss in peace and document their every move for the world to see imho
1 Like
Violence in the name of democracy against violent authoritarianism is not violent authoritarianism.
This is such well trodden ground. Thereās a whole paradox about it
3 Likes
No kidding. But imagine if Dems had used violent authoritarianism to actually enforce the laws on electioneering, classified document theft, and the other various crimes he committed.
I watch Fox News for short stints and the harassment of ice agents at hotels and refusal of service is violence to them. They whine really hard about it.
Yeah, calling things āviolenceā is not just semantics. People do or donāt do it for a reason.
2 Likes
Definitely done in service to the message.
The āviolent authoritarianismā was in reference to preemptively bombing other countries. Riots are just normal violence (or property damage, the distinction isnāt important to me as long as we agree both are wrong in the society we wish to live in) - often directed at targets that arenāt responsible for the thing theyāre allegedly fighting against.
I propose the right drops āproperty damage is violenceā in exchange for the left dropping āwords are violence.ā
Dunno if you noticed
And Iām not telling people what to say, just describing how the reasons for this usage are political and not just semantic.
Kinda funny (ironic) that the most properly directed property crime in the George Floyd protests, the burning of the police station, was a false flag done by a right-winger.
Right, people on all sides manipulate the word āviolenceā to fit their political goals. Thatās why people should be clear about the principles they actually believe in (not referring to you in these posts btw, I know you support free speech etc) so that we can find shared values instead of just being happy when the tribalism is directed to the opposing side.
The idea that burning someoneās house isnāt violence isnāt some fringe position. Itās easily the consensus position. Intentionally burning down someoneās house is a grave and serious crime.
Iām not really interested in your semantiking about whatās violent and whatās not. Your appeal to the authority of the FBI is obviously bullshit; you donāt believe in the authority of the FBI. I want you to explain why you think itās important. Are you going to say that a protest isnāt a riot if they burn down homes? Because youāre going to lose that argument to the general public. Are you excusing bad behavior because youāre sympathetic to the people doing it? Are you just being a hopeless pedant because youāre bored?
Thatās whatās interesting to me.
1 Like
Itās too complicated to explain like you want in this space and for you to comprehend. The answers to all of that is some kind of āin some casesā or āit dependsā or āto varying degreesā.
What Iām pointing out, in my opinion, is what reactionaries like you are doing with the word āviolenceā. You are using it that way for a political reason, not a semantic one. Imo, of course.
1 Like
The question is how to make the society something you like. I think itās hopeless at this point, but I think intelligent arguments can be made by well meaning people on both sides of whether or not property crime and even violence could be beneficial.
Oh so basically youāre butthurt about posts from a decade ago so youāre saying stupid shit? Got it
Calling me a reactionary like Rittenhouse, el oh el
I donāt care about your posts about Treyvon Martin one bit. Iām talking about who you are right now.