you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (26 children)

That's not violent that's disorderly like... A protest. It's like you think we simply showed up and told the British we were displeased and dispersed in an orderly fashion when ordered to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    It was the smoke bombs and rocks that I consider violent, but I also think it is justified. Pacifist methods of resistance have been playing into the desires of the ruling class for a long time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Those things that exist at every protest? You get cars on fire for championship games where their team wins.... This is a hiccup in protest history Jan 6 lasted a sixth as long as had two confirmed deaths at last I checked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    You seem to think I’m making disparaging comments about the protestors. I fully support them and think they are entirely justified in using any means necessary to repel the illegal forces of government that are violating the rights of citizens.

    I am only relaying what I have witnessed live through a camera lens, not casting judgment against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    I don't think your intent matters just the end result which is enabling authoritarians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    The end result is just me repeating things that are still available to see on YouTube. I’m not breaking any news here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    So why are you repeating it then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (19 children)

    Well, when I first brought it up in this thread, I was responding to someone else and it was relevant. Now you and I seem to be locked in some sort of pointless back and forth where I keep feeling like you are interpreting my words to be the opposite of what I’m saying half the time, and then you respond with either a question or another misinterpretation.

    We may be stuck here until the end of the universe at this rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    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!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

    When they shoot you with rubber bullets, pepperballs and tear has throwing them back at them is disorderly not violent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    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.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    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:

    the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    Lol, yeah, whatever bro, I saw what I saw.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Okie dokey. Should I stop responding so you can have the last word and feel satisfied?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    You get that particular idiotic attempt at a dig goes equally well to you correct?

    You seem to have responded specifically to get the last word, of you didn't want a response maybe don't respond?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    I was asking if it would make you feel better. You seem to really want it, but then you respond with more questions.

    At this point, I’m not trying to make any digs or prove anything—what’s the point, we will never agree anyway. I’m just munching my popcorn while you charge at windmills.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    I mean you seem to really want it, you complain that I'm furthering conversation to have the last word and your solution is to continue the conversation yourself but solely to complain about it.

    Tilting at windmills, you should really read the series because that quote doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Munch, munch, munch. Cool, man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    And then you double down, neat! I will advise you harassing me isn't the best choice but you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    So throwing a smoke bomb or rock at a person isn’t violence, but trolling you a little with popcorn noises is harassment. Aye aye, cap’n. You have me quaking in my boots over here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    By definition no it's not violence and yes targeted continual contact against warning to cease is harassment.

    Dictionaries and code books, read like one ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments