4 ms·

> You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. This w

> You didn't read it properly, because he never said protesters. Changing "rioters" to "protesters" completely changes the meaning of what Cotton said. This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters and drum up support for treating them as such. Even without reading into it, Cotton was advocating for bringing US military troops into US cities to put down the protests because some of them turned violent. That is NOT normal, and NOT something we should see in a healthy democracy. I might add that once the police stopped attacking protesters violently, the protests calmed down pretty quickly. > Spreading misinformation purposefully to trick people into agreeing with you is what is destroying this country right now and you are doing this. Projection is such an ugly thing to see.

nkurz 6y ago
> This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters I don't think this is true. Quoting from his piece: "Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes... He clearly says in plain words that the majority are law-abiding protestors. I suppose you could argue that the piece actually means something other than the plain words that it uses, and you could certainly argue that he's drawing the line between protestors and rioters in the wrong place, but at no point does the op-ed make the claim that all protestors are rioters.

nkurz 6y ago

> This was a calculated move to paint all the protesters as rioters I don't think this is true. Quoting from his piece: "Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes... He clearly says in plain words that the majority are law-abiding protestors. I suppose you could argue that the piece actually means something other than the plain words that it uses, and you could certainly argue that he's drawing the line between protestors and rioters in the wrong place, but at no point does the op-ed make the claim that all protestors are rioters.