My position hasn’t really changed, conflating property crime with violence is a time honored authoritarian talking point to the extent that you can find newspapers of the foundational protests that created this country that say essentially “why can’t these protestors protest correctly?” “I was with them until the property crime!”
I was not only talking about property crime, I was talking about throwing smoke bombs and rocks at the police.
Which, once again, I think is an entirely justified thing to do. My position hasn’t changed either, I suppose. I saw violent stuff, I think the violence is justified.
You haven’t read my comments, some of the smoke bombs appeared to be homemade from fireworks.
If I throw a smoke bomb or rock at someone’s face, I would consider that an act of violence, and if it was at a cop during these protests, it would be a justified act of violence.
Yeah so what? It’s smoke it’s not meant to harm, the smoke they fire at protestors is meant to harm and is actually more strictly controlled on the battlefield then the civilian policing world.
If they are wearing riot gear it’s not meant to harm it’s meant to say get the fuck out which is generally pretty easily discerned when they’re chanting get the fuck out. Saying it’s violence is what makes it a riot genius it’s why of you support it you shouldn’t die on this dumb hill.
If I spit on someone, it’s legally assault, so by the same token, throwing a smoke grenade at them also assault. Whether or not I, a random Lemmy user, consider this to be violence doesn’t make a damn difference to what Trump will do—he wants to murder everybody already.
But I guess if you want me to bow out and not die on this hill, then my answer is “yeah, whatever bro, I saw what I saw.”
No one is staying you didn’t, im saying your definition of violence is contrary to both dictionary definition and legal understanding and only helps to validate authoritarian concerns.
Maybe you are?
My position hasn’t really changed, conflating property crime with violence is a time honored authoritarian talking point to the extent that you can find newspapers of the foundational protests that created this country that say essentially “why can’t these protestors protest correctly?” “I was with them until the property crime!”
I was not only talking about property crime, I was talking about throwing smoke bombs and rocks at the police.
Which, once again, I think is an entirely justified thing to do. My position hasn’t changed either, I suppose. I saw violent stuff, I think the violence is justified.
When they shoot you with rubber bullets, pepperballs and tear has throwing them back at them is disorderly not violent.
You haven’t read my comments, some of the smoke bombs appeared to be homemade from fireworks.
If I throw a smoke bomb or rock at someone’s face, I would consider that an act of violence, and if it was at a cop during these protests, it would be a justified act of violence.
Yeah so what? It’s smoke it’s not meant to harm, the smoke they fire at protestors is meant to harm and is actually more strictly controlled on the battlefield then the civilian policing world.
If they are wearing riot gear it’s not meant to harm it’s meant to say get the fuck out which is generally pretty easily discerned when they’re chanting get the fuck out. Saying it’s violence is what makes it a riot genius it’s why of you support it you shouldn’t die on this dumb hill.
At this point, I just find this amusing.
If I spit on someone, it’s legally assault, so by the same token, throwing a smoke grenade at them also assault. Whether or not I, a random Lemmy user, consider this to be violence doesn’t make a damn difference to what Trump will do—he wants to murder everybody already.
But I guess if you want me to bow out and not die on this hill, then my answer is “yeah, whatever bro, I saw what I saw.”
Cool.
If you spit on a cop or may or may not be depending on context and even then force has to be met with equal force. Try a dictionary then:
No you’re too ignorant to know the difference and too obstinate to accept that your concept of violence may be skewed by capitalist interests.
Lol, yeah, whatever bro, I saw what I saw.
No one is staying you didn’t, im saying your definition of violence is contrary to both dictionary definition and legal understanding and only helps to validate authoritarian concerns.