4 ms·

No, it just means we don’t have to make excuses for riots, and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. I

by zepto 5y ago

No, it just means we don’t have to make excuses for riots, and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. If riots are a “mistake”, then protestors should be admitting that, rather than attempting to excuse them.

tsol 5y ago
>and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. Since when are protectors a monolithic entity that can sense when a single individual is doing something unjust? I can show up to a riot and break into a house, and the other rioters will continue doing what they were doing totally unaware of my actions. But this also means if people are justly rioting all it takes is a single bad actor to throw a brick through a window in order to force everyone else to leave. Otherwise it would mean everyone else is being unjust. Again, a single cop beating protesters is seen as doing wrong, and a single soldier raping a foreign citizen is seen as a lone violator. Seems like a double standard. With this standard, America's founding was closer to terrorism than revolution. People threw hot tar and feathers on innocent tax collectors. Rather than apologize, they armed themselves. America couldn't exist if the world followed these ridiculous rules
- zepto 5y ago
  > Since when are protectors a monolithic entity that can sense when a single individual is doing something unjust? It’s not hard to see when people are looting and move away. It’s also not hard to say “hey there is looting happening here, let’s move the protest away”. Anyone can do this. No monolithic entity required. The reason it doesn’t happen is because the protesters don’t in fact have a problem with the riots. > But this also means if people are justly rioting all it takes is a single bad actor to throw a brick through a window in order to force everyone else to leave. Leave, no. Move away from the vandalism, yes. If protesters did this instead of giving cover, the rioting would stop.
  - tsol 5y ago
    >It’s not hard to see when people are looting and move away. If you're asking that everyone in viewing distance leave, I figure that'd be an area about 20 feet around. The vast majority of protestors are in that area, and cannot even see the rioting. >The reason it doesn’t happen is because the protesters don’t in fact have a problem with the riots. This is an oversimplification and a generalization. The logic doesn't even hold up in reality. There already are cops around the majority of large protests. There aren't looters freely destroying things beside them. Looters are separate from protests, they just get grouped together. Looters aren't all in close geographic distance of protests
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Looters are separate from protests, they just get grouped together. Looters aren't all in close geographic distance of protests There is no evidence of this, and all of the reporting from the BLM protests showed them together. If you have some way to support the claim that riots and protests are somehow always distant from each other, it would be interesting to see. > Looters aren't all in close geographic distance of protests This seems like a straw man. We are talking about riots that co-occur with looting, of course. In any case it doesn’t matter. Protesters could distance themselves from riots, but don’t and that is the problem.
HWR_14 5y ago
> the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. So a small group of three people breaking windows is enough to force 3,000 people to go home? Because I can think of people who would break windows at events they disagree with. There are accusations that that occurred already during BLM protests. > f riots are a “mistake”, then protestors should be admitting that, I'm not sure what this means.

by zepto 5y ago

tsol 5y ago

>and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. Since when are protectors a monolithic entity that can sense when a single individual is doing something unjust? I can show up to a riot and break into a house, and the other rioters will continue doing what they were doing totally unaware of my actions. But this also means if people are justly rioting all it takes is a single bad actor to throw a brick through a window in order to force everyone else to leave. Otherwise it would mean everyone else is being unjust. Again, a single cop beating protesters is seen as doing wrong, and a single soldier raping a foreign citizen is seen as a lone violator. Seems like a double standard. With this standard, America's founding was closer to terrorism than revolution. People threw hot tar and feathers on innocent tax collectors. Rather than apologize, they armed themselves. America couldn't exist if the world followed these ridiculous rules

zepto 5y ago
> Since when are protectors a monolithic entity that can sense when a single individual is doing something unjust? It’s not hard to see when people are looting and move away. It’s also not hard to say “hey there is looting happening here, let’s move the protest away”. Anyone can do this. No monolithic entity required. The reason it doesn’t happen is because the protesters don’t in fact have a problem with the riots. > But this also means if people are justly rioting all it takes is a single bad actor to throw a brick through a window in order to force everyone else to leave. Leave, no. Move away from the vandalism, yes. If protesters did this instead of giving cover, the rioting would stop.
- tsol 5y ago
  >It’s not hard to see when people are looting and move away. If you're asking that everyone in viewing distance leave, I figure that'd be an area about 20 feet around. The vast majority of protestors are in that area, and cannot even see the rioting. >The reason it doesn’t happen is because the protesters don’t in fact have a problem with the riots. This is an oversimplification and a generalization. The logic doesn't even hold up in reality. There already are cops around the majority of large protests. There aren't looters freely destroying things beside them. Looters are separate from protests, they just get grouped together. Looters aren't all in close geographic distance of protests
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Looters are separate from protests, they just get grouped together. Looters aren't all in close geographic distance of protests There is no evidence of this, and all of the reporting from the BLM protests showed them together. If you have some way to support the claim that riots and protests are somehow always distant from each other, it would be interesting to see. > Looters aren't all in close geographic distance of protests This seems like a straw man. We are talking about riots that co-occur with looting, of course. In any case it doesn’t matter. Protesters could distance themselves from riots, but don’t and that is the problem.

HWR_14 5y ago

> the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. So a small group of three people breaking windows is enough to force 3,000 people to go home? Because I can think of people who would break windows at events they disagree with. There are accusations that that occurred already during BLM protests. > f riots are a “mistake”, then protestors should be admitting that, I'm not sure what this means.