5 ms·

If it's a choice between protesters getting tear gassed vs your shop and livelyhood being burnt down by rioters the gas is not that much of a price to pay

onlypositive 3y ago
Are there actually any small businesses left in Portland?
- woodson 3y ago
  Even big ones like REI are closing their last location in Portland: https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2023/04/rei-to-close-its-only-portland-store-citing-break-ins-theft.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2023/04/rei-to-close-its...
AlexandrB 3y ago
Even accepting this dichotomy at face value, rephrasing this a bit you could say it's a choice between bodily injury (to the protestors) or property damage. It's telling that in the US property "wins".
- hellojesus 3y ago
  Property is acquired through the trade of one's resources, which are acquired through a time tradeoff in almost all cases. The property vs. body isn't about valuing "things" more than people. It's about recognizing that the decision to destroy someone else's property is illegal, and that activity should be interrupted by the government. It is one of the few responsibilities a government should have. Underlying the property, real damage is being done to real humans by destroying their past and future bodies through the proxy of property and the tradeoff they would need to make to reacquire it.
  - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
    It is about valuing things more than people. By saying that it's ok to respond to property damage with violence you are valuing property at at least the same, if not more, than people.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Yes. My point is that it took the equivalent of human life to acquire the property, so destroying someone else's private property is akin to destroying their life. Obviously they're still alive so can spend time acquiring more, but let's not pretend property crime is priceless. That said, I don't advocate for violence and would prefer to see the legal system work the issues through.
- dabbledash 3y ago
  This is a silly way to frame the issue. If you tell me "I have a baseball bat and I will use it to either hit a random person or smash the window of this car," I 'll choose the car. On the other hand, if a random person walks up to a car and starts smashing it, I don't have a problem with someone using force to stop that.
  - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
    If it's worse to attack someone then it is to damage property then why would it be ok to attack someone to stop them from damaging property?
    - dabbledash 3y ago
      Because I value living in a society where people aren't free to victimize others more than I value that person being free from arrest or other violence.
bearmode 3y ago
In most cases, the protests were perfectly peaceful until the police escalated with tear gas and rubber bullets.
- ehvatum 3y ago
  Perfectly peaceful? You must be talking about a different Portland. One without a Federal courthouse that was attacked nightly for months on end. “Fiery, but mostly peaceful” is a euphemism we all can live with.

onlypositive 3y ago

Are there actually any small businesses left in Portland?

woodson 3y ago
Even big ones like REI are closing their last location in Portland: https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2023/04/rei-to-close-its-only-portland-store-citing-break-ins-theft.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2023/04/rei-to-close-its...

AlexandrB 3y ago

Even accepting this dichotomy at face value, rephrasing this a bit you could say it's a choice between bodily injury (to the protestors) or property damage. It's telling that in the US property "wins".

hellojesus 3y ago
Property is acquired through the trade of one's resources, which are acquired through a time tradeoff in almost all cases. The property vs. body isn't about valuing "things" more than people. It's about recognizing that the decision to destroy someone else's property is illegal, and that activity should be interrupted by the government. It is one of the few responsibilities a government should have. Underlying the property, real damage is being done to real humans by destroying their past and future bodies through the proxy of property and the tradeoff they would need to make to reacquire it.
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  It is about valuing things more than people. By saying that it's ok to respond to property damage with violence you are valuing property at at least the same, if not more, than people.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Yes. My point is that it took the equivalent of human life to acquire the property, so destroying someone else's private property is akin to destroying their life. Obviously they're still alive so can spend time acquiring more, but let's not pretend property crime is priceless. That said, I don't advocate for violence and would prefer to see the legal system work the issues through.
dabbledash 3y ago
This is a silly way to frame the issue. If you tell me "I have a baseball bat and I will use it to either hit a random person or smash the window of this car," I 'll choose the car. On the other hand, if a random person walks up to a car and starts smashing it, I don't have a problem with someone using force to stop that.
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  If it's worse to attack someone then it is to damage property then why would it be ok to attack someone to stop them from damaging property?
  - dabbledash 3y ago
    Because I value living in a society where people aren't free to victimize others more than I value that person being free from arrest or other violence.

bearmode 3y ago

In most cases, the protests were perfectly peaceful until the police escalated with tear gas and rubber bullets.

ehvatum 3y ago
Perfectly peaceful? You must be talking about a different Portland. One without a Federal courthouse that was attacked nightly for months on end. “Fiery, but mostly peaceful” is a euphemism we all can live with.