5 ms·

> What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who

> What is your process for determining whether or not a protest you read about is peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or if it is just a bunch of hooligans who want to break windows? Whether they smash windows and vandalise, or not.

IAmEveryone 7y ago
Or, you know, throwing tea into a harbour.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  I'm not up on US history really, but tea was expensive at the time and it was other people's tea being destroyed, so that might well be vandalism. Happy to be corrected though.
vkou 7y ago
1. How do you know that is actually done by the protestors, or some unaffiliated hooligans? 2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source. Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension - and is a distraction, used to condemn some protests (that you politically oppose) as illegitimate, and to endorse others, as legitimate? Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans, either planted, embedded, or just standing on the sidelines. I postulate that it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Your posts baffle me I'm afraid. You ask "[...] peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or [...] a bunch of hooligans" You then ask how I really know whether it's being done by either, well, if it's breaking windows it's hooligans. If it's not it's not. I gave you an answer. You then say "Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension" So you're saying it doesn't matter, then add "Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans" So you're claiming all protests will end up with criminal damage, then add "it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances" which seemingly negates the whole point of your original question. Mate, you're all over the place here.
  - dang 7y ago
    Would you please not cross into flamewar on this topic again? or any topic? We had a long conversation about this recently. It's not ok to just resume. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

IAmEveryone 7y ago

Or, you know, throwing tea into a harbour.

tempguy9999 7y ago
I'm not up on US history really, but tea was expensive at the time and it was other people's tea being destroyed, so that might well be vandalism. Happy to be corrected though.

vkou 7y ago

1. How do you know that is actually done by the protestors, or some unaffiliated hooligans? 2. How do you know that the news coverage of the event will accurately make a distinction between the two? My experience with this is that the distinction that is made is always conveniently aligned with the political leanings of the news source. Postulate: Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension - and is a distraction, used to condemn some protests (that you politically oppose) as illegitimate, and to endorse others, as legitimate? Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans, either planted, embedded, or just standing on the sidelines. I postulate that it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Your posts baffle me I'm afraid. You ask "[...] peaceful, fastidiously civic-minded, or [...] a bunch of hooligans" You then ask how I really know whether it's being done by either, well, if it's breaking windows it's hooligans. If it's not it's not. I gave you an answer. You then say "Maybe the 'peaceful' versus 'non-peaceful' demonstrations isn't actually a relevant dimension" So you're saying it doesn't matter, then add "Every demonstration is going to have a few vandals and hooligans" So you're claiming all protests will end up with criminal damage, then add "it doesn't alter the legitimacy of their grievances" which seemingly negates the whole point of your original question. Mate, you're all over the place here.
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please not cross into flamewar on this topic again? or any topic? We had a long conversation about this recently. It's not ok to just resume. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html