4 ms·
(not parent) >They're here to flex "ownership" of a national capital Seeing how the government & media reacted at the start, I highly doubt a change.org petit
by totony 5y ago
(not parent)
>They're here to flex "ownership" of a national capital
Seeing how the government & media reacted at the start, I highly doubt a change.org petition would have had accomplished much. Having flashy show of support is way more impactful. This is the whole point of protests.
>This is a Facebook conspiracy theory convened to experience itself in person.
As I said in OP, reductionist views like this are very toxic and not how you approach disagreements in a democracy.
Attacking the character of some organizers (be it true or not) adds nothing to the discussion except divisiveness. Not only that, you seem to imply that their demands are invalid because of that, which is just a smear campaign to ignore the issues they (and the other protesters) raise.
- noisefridge 5y agoOnce again: > Can you describe what sort of evidence would convince you that this movement is a problem, other than the political affiliations and concerns of the organizers, the behavior of people on the ground, the symbols on display, and what actions they are calling for?
- totony 5y agoMore importantly, why do you insist on labelling them as a problem? What do you propose be done once you do label them as "a problem"?
- MatteoFrigo 5y agoYours is a pathetic rhetorical attempt to reduce a complex issue to your narrow-minded ontology. You are like the dude who, during the plague of 1630 in Italy, was arguing that Aristotle had said that everything is either a substance or an accident (where "accident" has a technical meaning that I won't discuss here). He then argued that the plague cannot be a substance, and it cannot be an accident either, and therefore the plague does not exist. QED. Small minds discuss people. Great minds discuss ideas.