4 ms·
No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest. Both sides began under good
by textgel 6y ago
No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest.
Both sides began under good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get labelled.
- fzeroracer 6y agoAnd as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.
- textgel 6y agoUnfortunate as it is but neither you nor DanBC are the global authority on other peoples "real reason" for doing things no matter how you feel on the subject. Context is also a poorly thought out point to bring up considering plenty was provided; numerous examples of destruction of statues given before, no sign of slowing and future targetting given often and loudly.