5 ms·

If that's the worst across multiple countries, it seems very peaceful. Much worse happens in the general public. Are you suggesting that because a few people d

If that's the worst across multiple countries, it seems very peaceful. Much worse happens in the general public. Are you suggesting that because a few people did things you don't like, everyone involved is violent? That is not only clearly false, but very dangerous.

lupusreal 3y ago
You don't understand... these farmers are all kulaks, enemies of the revolution! They're dangerous as a class and need to be treated accordingly.
lukan 3y ago
If significant elements of a widespread protest show signs of radicalisation - and there are lots of signs - then it is the job of the police to investigate, how serious and organized the radicals are. Some drunk nuts blowing off steam vs. the beginning of domestic terrorism.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That justification is used to criminalize and suppress protest and dissent. The GGP didn't show lots of signs, just a few incidents. Where is evidence of 'lots of signs'?
  - lukan 3y ago
    I did not say anything about the police being justified in suppressing legal protest. I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation. And about signs, in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters. I did not noticed a widespread condemnation of said action by the rest of the protestors. That alone justifies investigation.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation. That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history. > in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters Do you have evidence? And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly? Again, the tools of oppression - 'law and order!'
      - lukan 3y ago
        "That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history." Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete. "And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?" Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        > Not per se. What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power. > Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans. That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
        lukan 3y ago
        "There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. " Yeah, because they do not bow to violence. "What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?" The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
        3y ago

lupusreal 3y ago

You don't understand... these farmers are all kulaks, enemies of the revolution! They're dangerous as a class and need to be treated accordingly.

lukan 3y ago

If significant elements of a widespread protest show signs of radicalisation - and there are lots of signs - then it is the job of the police to investigate, how serious and organized the radicals are. Some drunk nuts blowing off steam vs. the beginning of domestic terrorism.

wolverine876 3y ago
That justification is used to criminalize and suppress protest and dissent. The GGP didn't show lots of signs, just a few incidents. Where is evidence of 'lots of signs'?
- lukan 3y ago
  I did not say anything about the police being justified in suppressing legal protest. I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation. And about signs, in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters. I did not noticed a widespread condemnation of said action by the rest of the protestors. That alone justifies investigation.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation. That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history. > in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters Do you have evidence? And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly? Again, the tools of oppression - 'law and order!'
    - lukan 3y ago
      "That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history." Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete. "And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?" Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > Not per se. What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power. > Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans. That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
        lukan 3y ago
        "There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. " Yeah, because they do not bow to violence. "What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?" The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
        3y ago