5 ms·

> I witnessed the 2020 protests firsthand and saw no looting or riotous behavior; No, you witnessed a tiny portion of the protests. I personally know of busin

by zepto 5y ago

> I witnessed the 2020 protests firsthand and saw no looting or riotous behavior; No, you witnessed a tiny portion of the protests. I personally know of business owners whose businesses were looted, literally just local store owners.

woodruffw 5y ago
I am not denying that stores were looted, or excusing looting. Read the comment carefully: the distinction is between protesters and opportunists, with the latter not being protestors. There is no evidence that protestors individually or collectively engaged in looting.
- Anon1096 5y ago
  Are you going to make the same distinction for all the peaceful protesters on January 6th who never entered the Capitol? Because if not I don't really see a difference.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Actually, I do make that distinction, and I think most people do as well. I'm not particularly enthused about the initial protest, but I would not characterize the protestors who did not enter the Capitol (and did not encourage others to do so) as "rioters."
  - gumby 5y ago
    I haven’t heard of any investigation, much less charges leveled, of people who protested but did not enter the Capitol. People who might know of / ultimately be charged with incitement have been subpoenaed, but again, I don’t know of any charges. Anyone pressing such charges will have to show a clear line between first amendment speech and not, so they are going to be careful not to waste their time.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    I and all my personal friends make that distinction about both sets of events. Regardless - reading a thoughtful, honest post that you happen to disagree with on some ideological level, and projecting your internal image of a hypocritical political enemy onto them by extrapolating to things they didn't say, is one of the most common forms of conversation poison.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > projecting your internal image of a hypocritical political enemy onto them by extrapolating to things they didn't say, is one of the most common forms of conversation poison. Can you explain how they did this?
- zepto 5y ago
  > I witnessed the 2020 protests firsthand and saw no looting or riotous behavior; If that isn’t meant to imply there wasn’t any looting, then why did you add it? The rest of what you said is just about definitions and is irrelevant to the facts of what happened. “There is no evidence that protesters engaged in looting” That’s because you use a different name for the people who did. You have no way to be certain nobody who looted wasn’t also there to protest, so the labelling doesn’t mean anything. In aggregate the protests unquestionably led to looting that wouldn’t otherwise have happened. The fact that not all protesters were looters is irrelevant. The looting was part of the protesting, even if not all protesters supported it.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > If that isn’t meant to imply there wasn’t any looting, then why did you add it? Because there's a falsehood in the original post: that protestors were somehow responsible for the riotous behavior. The original post then goes on to use that falsehood to justify a different instance of riotous behavior, except that the specifics are inverted: the protestors and rioters during J6 were in the same crowd. The labeling means a lot in terms of the legitimacy and legacy of the single largest American civil rights protests in the last 50 years. I'm proud of the ways that hundreds of thousands of New Yorks peacefully and righteously comported themselves during the protests, and I do not want their legacy unduly influenced by opportunists. We should judge them not by others' actions.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Right - so you are trying to use language to separate the actions of the protesters from the actions of the looting. I don’t think it’s that simple. The riots only happened because of the protests. The protests interfered with the police response, and the protesters didn’t stop the looting themselves. That doesn’t make the protesters into looters, but it does mean that the looting was a side effect of the protests and the protesters bear some responsibility for that. The protesters actions had consequences, one of which was to enable looting and the destruction of people’s livelihoods. I’m fine if you want to say that the cost was worth it to make this political statement, but I think it’s ludicrous to pretend that the looting would have happened without the protesters.

by zepto 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

I am not denying that stores were looted, or excusing looting. Read the comment carefully: the distinction is between protesters and opportunists, with the latter not being protestors. There is no evidence that protestors individually or collectively engaged in looting.

Anon1096 5y ago
Are you going to make the same distinction for all the peaceful protesters on January 6th who never entered the Capitol? Because if not I don't really see a difference.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Actually, I do make that distinction, and I think most people do as well. I'm not particularly enthused about the initial protest, but I would not characterize the protestors who did not enter the Capitol (and did not encourage others to do so) as "rioters."
- gumby 5y ago
  I haven’t heard of any investigation, much less charges leveled, of people who protested but did not enter the Capitol. People who might know of / ultimately be charged with incitement have been subpoenaed, but again, I don’t know of any charges. Anyone pressing such charges will have to show a clear line between first amendment speech and not, so they are going to be careful not to waste their time.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  I and all my personal friends make that distinction about both sets of events. Regardless - reading a thoughtful, honest post that you happen to disagree with on some ideological level, and projecting your internal image of a hypocritical political enemy onto them by extrapolating to things they didn't say, is one of the most common forms of conversation poison.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > projecting your internal image of a hypocritical political enemy onto them by extrapolating to things they didn't say, is one of the most common forms of conversation poison. Can you explain how they did this?
zepto 5y ago
> I witnessed the 2020 protests firsthand and saw no looting or riotous behavior; If that isn’t meant to imply there wasn’t any looting, then why did you add it? The rest of what you said is just about definitions and is irrelevant to the facts of what happened. “There is no evidence that protesters engaged in looting” That’s because you use a different name for the people who did. You have no way to be certain nobody who looted wasn’t also there to protest, so the labelling doesn’t mean anything. In aggregate the protests unquestionably led to looting that wouldn’t otherwise have happened. The fact that not all protesters were looters is irrelevant. The looting was part of the protesting, even if not all protesters supported it.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > If that isn’t meant to imply there wasn’t any looting, then why did you add it? Because there's a falsehood in the original post: that protestors were somehow responsible for the riotous behavior. The original post then goes on to use that falsehood to justify a different instance of riotous behavior, except that the specifics are inverted: the protestors and rioters during J6 were in the same crowd. The labeling means a lot in terms of the legitimacy and legacy of the single largest American civil rights protests in the last 50 years. I'm proud of the ways that hundreds of thousands of New Yorks peacefully and righteously comported themselves during the protests, and I do not want their legacy unduly influenced by opportunists. We should judge them not by others' actions.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Right - so you are trying to use language to separate the actions of the protesters from the actions of the looting. I don’t think it’s that simple. The riots only happened because of the protests. The protests interfered with the police response, and the protesters didn’t stop the looting themselves. That doesn’t make the protesters into looters, but it does mean that the looting was a side effect of the protests and the protesters bear some responsibility for that. The protesters actions had consequences, one of which was to enable looting and the destruction of people’s livelihoods. I’m fine if you want to say that the cost was worth it to make this political statement, but I think it’s ludicrous to pretend that the looting would have happened without the protesters.