3 ms·
They rioted and destroyed property. Some people were probably scared. That sucks. It also sucks that stuff got busted. I'm sure some people will get arrested a
by neltnerb 6y ago
They rioted and destroyed property.
Some people were probably scared. That sucks. It also sucks that stuff got busted. I'm sure some people will get arrested and charged with things. But these are things solved with money.
No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. I was reading with horror to see how many had died. That was why it stuck out to me when there were not even injuries.
It is as simple as that. Using a word that does not imply something that didn't happen -- it is just good writing, it's not pushing an agenda. Replace "violence" with "riots" and it has a much more generic implication. Simple.
- tasuki 6y ago> My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. It doesn't.
- rualca 6y ago> They rioted and destroyed property. You're describing acts of violence. > No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. You're trying to play the humpty dumpty game of just making up meanings of words to fit your whim of the moment. Riots are acts of violence. Destroying entire car lots in rage is an act of violence. Destroying buildings in protest is violence. There is no way around it. Enough with the doublespeak. People got screwed out of their paycheck, they felt enraged, thus sparking a violent protested. Understandingly so. There's no need to pretend things were different.
- anigbrowl 6y agoDo you feel the people who were screwed out of their paycheck were subject to economic violence?