"You haven't advertised a lack of privilege, therefore you must be overprivileged and wrong" is not the soundest of possible lines of reasoning. I will not deba

"You haven't advertised a lack of privilege, therefore you must be overprivileged and wrong" is not the soundest of possible lines of reasoning. I will not debate the subject further. Nevermind the slight catch that privilege is not a binary thing. I understand rage. I understand feeling helpless. I know those feelings. I have felt those feelings. I could go on and on and on, making all the declarations of sympathy and empathy and understanding you could possibly wish for here. Yet, at no point did I come to believe that random destruction of property would get me what I wanted to relieve that all-consuming rage. Doubly so when evidence on the subject shows clearly that riots don't work. Whether or not I have felt a particular flavor of rage is immaterial to the question of whether or not riots are an efficacious means of producing social change. The former is a question of unknowable perceptions, while the latter is a question verifiable against reality to the extent that reality is objective. Might I ask you to consider the basic question of "Do riots work?" Or the related basic question of if desperately wanting something to be true makes it so?