Well, when I first brought it up in this thread, I was responding to someone else and it was relevant. Now you and I seem to be locked in some sort of pointless back and forth where I keep feeling like you are interpreting my words to be the opposite of what I’m saying half the time, and then you respond with either a question or another misinterpretation.
We may be stuck here until the end of the universe at this rate.
My position hasn’t really changed, conflating property crime with violence is a time honored authoritarian talking point to the extent that you can find newspapers of the foundational protests that created this country that say essentially “why can’t these protestors protest correctly?” “I was with them until the property crime!”
I was not only talking about property crime, I was talking about throwing smoke bombs and rocks at the police.
Which, once again, I think is an entirely justified thing to do. My position hasn’t changed either, I suppose. I saw violent stuff, I think the violence is justified.
You haven’t read my comments, some of the smoke bombs appeared to be homemade from fireworks.
If I throw a smoke bomb or rock at someone’s face, I would consider that an act of violence, and if it was at a cop during these protests, it would be a justified act of violence.
Yeah so what? It’s smoke it’s not meant to harm, the smoke they fire at protestors is meant to harm and is actually more strictly controlled on the battlefield then the civilian policing world.
If they are wearing riot gear it’s not meant to harm it’s meant to say get the fuck out which is generally pretty easily discerned when they’re chanting get the fuck out. Saying it’s violence is what makes it a riot genius it’s why of you support it you shouldn’t die on this dumb hill.
I don’t think your intent matters just the end result which is enabling authoritarians.
The end result is just me repeating things that are still available to see on YouTube. I’m not breaking any news here.
So why are you repeating it then?
Well, when I first brought it up in this thread, I was responding to someone else and it was relevant. Now you and I seem to be locked in some sort of pointless back and forth where I keep feeling like you are interpreting my words to be the opposite of what I’m saying half the time, and then you respond with either a question or another misinterpretation.
We may be stuck here until the end of the universe at this rate.
Maybe you are?
My position hasn’t really changed, conflating property crime with violence is a time honored authoritarian talking point to the extent that you can find newspapers of the foundational protests that created this country that say essentially “why can’t these protestors protest correctly?” “I was with them until the property crime!”
I was not only talking about property crime, I was talking about throwing smoke bombs and rocks at the police.
Which, once again, I think is an entirely justified thing to do. My position hasn’t changed either, I suppose. I saw violent stuff, I think the violence is justified.
When they shoot you with rubber bullets, pepperballs and tear has throwing them back at them is disorderly not violent.
You haven’t read my comments, some of the smoke bombs appeared to be homemade from fireworks.
If I throw a smoke bomb or rock at someone’s face, I would consider that an act of violence, and if it was at a cop during these protests, it would be a justified act of violence.
Yeah so what? It’s smoke it’s not meant to harm, the smoke they fire at protestors is meant to harm and is actually more strictly controlled on the battlefield then the civilian policing world.
If they are wearing riot gear it’s not meant to harm it’s meant to say get the fuck out which is generally pretty easily discerned when they’re chanting get the fuck out. Saying it’s violence is what makes it a riot genius it’s why of you support it you shouldn’t die on this dumb hill.