"in defense of looting"
And while I'm at it - why isn't China being deplatformed?
They literally just posted on their embassy twitter account saying they fixed minority women who were "baby-making machines."
One can only guess they mean sterilization.
It's obvious who's allowed to be inhumane and who isn't.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-u...
Justifying around the "greater good" is so obviously fraught and subjective.
And since the workers in tech are overwhelmingly liberal, they will undoubtedly bias policies of mass communication platforms to disallow opposition.
Oddly enough people so concerned with minority representation will steam-roll minorities when they make blind "greater good" majoritarianism the norm.
And nowadays the definition of "harm" has been trivialized so far that really practically anything is a target.
Unless I misunderstood it this statement implies that a window smashing person would as well attack another humane being. It's not true. These acts are different, require different motivations and a different mentality/personality traits to follow through.
...if you attempt to stop them from smashing said window it is likely, yes. This happened a few times in USA in the past few months.
The acts are obviously different, if they were the same we would not have this discussion.
Have you ever seen Antifa in action?
It's a bad faith argument you're arguing against, which I'm sure you see, just want to call it out.
Why should anyone engage with your arguments when they are easily debunked both on principle, and with evidence widely available online? Why should anyone engage with your arguments when they are made in bad faith?
More to the point, can you demonstrate that you aren't trolling?
Only if you read it in the least charitable way possible and in the context of unverified claims from fringe figures like Adrian Zenz. It's a bad tweet, but the literal reading is that due to "emancipation" they are no longer only "baby making machines". Not even CCP propagandists are clumsy enough to admit to forced sterilization in a public forum.
Their "Crown Prince" assassinates a dissident journalist by placing a plastic bag over his head to suffocate him while his fiance waits outside the embassy in her car.
And leaders like president Rafael Reif at MIT invite this brutal dictator onto the MIT campus in order to thank him for his donation to the Media Lab in a photo op covered by the newspapers, presumably as a form of reputation laundering and because Rafael Reif cares about human rights about as much as he cares about the sexual abuse of 12 year-old girls.
Why is the Crown Prince's violence "more legitimate" than folks who perhaps mistakenly think the election was stolen from them and feel the need to break a few windows in order to protest the ballot count?