"Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process.
Property damage is not violence.
Property damage is not violence.
And, property damage can be violence. Arson, in particular, has a non-zero chance of killing someone.
And property damage - especially if it's to a home - can cause trauma to people. It's not just some innocent form of public expression.
I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that any homes have been looted or burned by protestors, or that anyone has been killed by protestors. Only "what if"s, like "what if the fire killed someone?" It didn't, but we have a very real case of a police officer killing someone -- shouldn't that be the most important thing we're focusing on here?
It doesn't have to be burning homes for arson to have potential to kill. Burning a Target can easily kill someone too.
And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever.
> And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever.
Okay, but then people are more likely to be killed by a police officer than by arson. So why don't we focus on the actual violent catalyst for all the protesting (and the ones playing out all over the country), which actually happened? Why are we so focused on the potential of the protestors to accidentally kill someone, rather than the very real threat of police actually killing unarmed US citizens?
One of these types of supposed violence is actually much more deadly than the other, with ample evidence.
Boloney. It is individuals, even if in positions of authority (and even if far too many of them), carrying out their own warped agenda, not that of the state.
> Okay, but then people are more likely to be killed by a police officer than by arson. So why don't we focus on the actual violent catalyst for all the protesting (and the ones playing out all over the country), which actually happened?
Why should I choose? I oppose violence (or even excessive force) by police officers, and I oppose arson by rioters. And I oppose both for the same reason.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that the justice system in the US is inextricably tied to systematic, institutionalized racism, and that the justice system and its roots cannot be divorced from those who are enforcing its laws. Minorities in this country are arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced differently from their white counterparts because of that institutionalized racism.
> Why should I choose? I oppose violence (or even excessive force) by police officers, and I oppose arson by rioters. And I oppose both for the same reason.
Fair enough.
Yeah, I disagree. And yet...
> Minorities in this country are arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced differently from their white counterparts because of that institutionalized racism.
I'm not sure I can disagree with that. I wish I could...
If you equate all violence as being the same, then you're saying that the violence committed by the oppressed is the same as the violence committed by the oppressors. Once we recognize that they are not the same, then we can understand that yes, rioting is bad, but the police response is far worse.
I need evidence here.
> and businesses
Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices?
> there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced
I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.