Nobody here did so and I've never heard anyone anywhere say so. In every instance ever there are various events often over days or weeks and when anyone of a ce

Nobody here did so and I've never heard anyone anywhere say so. In every instance ever there are various events often over days or weeks and when anyone of a certain stripe talks about the entire period it's as if Joe random stealing a playstation and Bob somebody standing in the street are part of a connected whole instead of disconnected events that share no meaningful connection beyond the tangential. This complete failure of analysis comes through when the individual is completely incapable of disintangling disconnected events from each other as if people holding signs destroyed a community. This usually coincides with holding views opposite of the protestors wherein the speaker is attempting to degrade the opposition by fictitious association with criminality. It often further coincides with exaggerating actually negative events within scope in an attempt to generate an emotional instead of rational response. Eg 10,000 people protest, 5 people loot a Walmart and we degrade the 10,000 by declaring that "protestors" burned down the city as if a meaningful portion of the people protesting looted the Walmart in protest rather than 5 opportunists. If you look at it a little closer it's not much different from having a million immigrants having 99 rapes committed by citizens and 1 by an immigrant and declaring immigrants rapists even when the population commits the act at no higher rate than baseline. It's manipulative, disingenuous, and unhelpful. In short we never started calling looting protesting so have no need to stop doing so.