3 ms·

That's also neat, but I'm responding to you not calling them riots. Stay on target.

by asguy 6y ago

gshulegaard 6y ago
You offered your proximal living location as a claim to credibility. I offered my own proximity as an equal claim to credibility. And I did stay on target, let me re-quote myself: > And what I said is that there is violence going on and PPD has been trying to walk the line of declaring unlawful gatherings while respecting freedom of assembly for the majority who are non-violent. Since it seems like it wasn't clear let me try to elucidate. There IS violence going on that is not acceptable. But there are ALSO peaceful protests occurring. It is my perspective that the MAJORITY of participants are not violent, but this is not an excuse for the violent behavior of the minority. It's not accurate to broadly classify all the protests as riots. It's also not accurate to call all protest participants rioters. Doing so is a gross simplification; as gross a simplification as those trying to say these are just peaceful protests. Orthogonal to this unfortunate line the PPD has been forced to walk for an extended time, Federal agents should not be doing anything other than securing Federal property. To again quote myself: > I am fine with Federal agents defending Federal property; I am not ok with Federal agents using unmarked vans to leave Federal property and snatch suspects. So rather than resort to a false adhominem (claim that I didn't stay on target), perhaps you could instead forward the conversation. Although, perhaps it is best we politely leave things as they are since I think enough has been said. But if you think there are things I should be made aware of or still have something to add, I welcome further civil discourse.
- asguy 6y ago
  > You offered your proximal living location as a claim to credibility. No, I offered first-hand observation of what I would consider riotous behavior. I’m not arguing any of your other points.
  - gshulegaard 6y ago
    Ah I think I see the disconnect. I was trying to make a nuanced observation that these aren't just riots. Re-reading my original comment, I find my phrasing lacking so mea culpa. So it would seem re-reading the thread with that context, we actually agree. There is riotous behavior occurring, although not all participants are rioters. Regardless, Feds shouldn't be doing anything other than securing Federal property. Feel free to add nuance to the summary, not trying to speak for you, just recapping as best I can.

That's also neat, but I'm responding to you not calling them riots. Stay on target.

by asguy 6y ago

That's also neat, but I'm responding to you not calling them riots. Stay on target.

You offered your proximal living location as a claim to credibility. I offered my own proximity as an equal claim to credibility. And I did stay on target, let me re-quote myself: > And what I said is that there is violence going on and PPD has been trying to walk the line of declaring unlawful gatherings while respecting freedom of assembly for the majority who are non-violent. Since it seems like it wasn't clear let me try to elucidate. There IS violence going on that is not acceptable. But there are ALSO peaceful protests occurring. It is my perspective that the MAJORITY of participants are not violent, but this is not an excuse for the violent behavior of the minority. It's not accurate to broadly classify all the protests as riots. It's also not accurate to call all protest participants rioters. Doing so is a gross simplification; as gross a simplification as those trying to say these are just peaceful protests. Orthogonal to this unfortunate line the PPD has been forced to walk for an extended time, Federal agents should not be doing anything other than securing Federal property. To again quote myself: > I am fine with Federal agents defending Federal property; I am not ok with Federal agents using unmarked vans to leave Federal property and snatch suspects. So rather than resort to a false adhominem (claim that I didn't stay on target), perhaps you could instead forward the conversation. Although, perhaps it is best we politely leave things as they are since I think enough has been said. But if you think there are things I should be made aware of or still have something to add, I welcome further civil discourse.

asguy 6y ago
> You offered your proximal living location as a claim to credibility. No, I offered first-hand observation of what I would consider riotous behavior. I’m not arguing any of your other points.
- gshulegaard 6y ago
  Ah I think I see the disconnect. I was trying to make a nuanced observation that these aren't just riots. Re-reading my original comment, I find my phrasing lacking so mea culpa. So it would seem re-reading the thread with that context, we actually agree. There is riotous behavior occurring, although not all participants are rioters. Regardless, Feds shouldn't be doing anything other than securing Federal property. Feel free to add nuance to the summary, not trying to speak for you, just recapping as best I can.