3 ms·

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

by 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.

woodruffw 5y ago
> 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. This is a chilling and dangerous responsibility to burden protestors with: are we to argue that every single person who protested peacefully outside of the Capitol on J6 is responsible for the rioters and insurrectionists who stormed in? They did, after all, interfere with the police response and provide moral support for the single greatest outrage against our government in nearly two centuries. Our cultural and legal standards of free speech enshrine protest, and ensure that protestors are not vilified for actions that are not theirs. I do not think we should undermine that.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > are we to argue that every single person who protested peacefully outside of the Capitol on J6 is responsible for the rioters and insurrectionists who stormed in? Didn't the government already decide the answer to this is "yes", though, by filing criminal charges against people just for being there?
- zepto 5y ago
  > This is a chilling and dangerous responsibility to burden protestors with: No it’s not. It’s simply a reality. The way the chose to protest facilitated the looting. When the looting started they could have ended the protest and summoned the police. You seem to be conflating legal liability with responsibility. I’m not saying they should be prosecuted. I’m saying that it’s just a mental fantasy to pretend they don’t bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions. > are we to argue that every single person who protested peacefully outside of the Capitol on J6 is responsible for the rioters and insurrectionists who stormed in? Sure - once it became a riot, if people stuck around and got in the way of the police, they certainly bear responsibility. > They did, after all, interfere with the police response and Yes, and they are responsible for thst. > provide moral support for the single greatest outrage against our government in nearly two centuries. Moral support is a different matter. > Our cultural and legal standards of free speech enshrine protest, and ensure that protestors are not vilified for actions that are not theirs. Preventing police from doing the job of protecting business from being looted is their action. > I do not think we should undermine that. Blocking police from doing their jobs is not speech. Nobody is talking about limiting free speech or protests. That’s a red-herring.

by zepto 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

> 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. This is a chilling and dangerous responsibility to burden protestors with: are we to argue that every single person who protested peacefully outside of the Capitol on J6 is responsible for the rioters and insurrectionists who stormed in? They did, after all, interfere with the police response and provide moral support for the single greatest outrage against our government in nearly two centuries. Our cultural and legal standards of free speech enshrine protest, and ensure that protestors are not vilified for actions that are not theirs. I do not think we should undermine that.

josephcsible 5y ago
> are we to argue that every single person who protested peacefully outside of the Capitol on J6 is responsible for the rioters and insurrectionists who stormed in? Didn't the government already decide the answer to this is "yes", though, by filing criminal charges against people just for being there?
zepto 5y ago
> This is a chilling and dangerous responsibility to burden protestors with: No it’s not. It’s simply a reality. The way the chose to protest facilitated the looting. When the looting started they could have ended the protest and summoned the police. You seem to be conflating legal liability with responsibility. I’m not saying they should be prosecuted. I’m saying that it’s just a mental fantasy to pretend they don’t bear responsibility for the consequences of their actions. > are we to argue that every single person who protested peacefully outside of the Capitol on J6 is responsible for the rioters and insurrectionists who stormed in? Sure - once it became a riot, if people stuck around and got in the way of the police, they certainly bear responsibility. > They did, after all, interfere with the police response and Yes, and they are responsible for thst. > provide moral support for the single greatest outrage against our government in nearly two centuries. Moral support is a different matter. > Our cultural and legal standards of free speech enshrine protest, and ensure that protestors are not vilified for actions that are not theirs. Preventing police from doing the job of protecting business from being looted is their action. > I do not think we should undermine that. Blocking police from doing their jobs is not speech. Nobody is talking about limiting free speech or protests. That’s a red-herring.