Let's see if you would adopt that attitude if it was your dad, or your store, and it was vandalized. It's windows broken, it's door smashed in, it's merchandise stolen and your dad, or you were just about making it and your insurance didn't cover all the damage, all the needless destruction, so you just lost your livelihood that provided the means of taking care of your family. Violence comes in many forms, and perhaps your negation of this type of violence is a reflection on your lack of character, and not mine.
I agree with Jon. The idea that you can't damage property in the fight against fascism, enemy of the people and the most dangerous force in the world, is frankly ludicrous. Anyway, most property damage in protests is directed against violent police or violent capitalists. So it's fine by me. More than fine in fact.
Look, both of you seem to have an issue that endorses violence in one form or another. I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People have been hurt in these protests as people attacked the property of others like pulling them from cars, to steal them, or inflict damage, etc. No need for a reply. You can rationalize your hate all you want but I'm not buying it so push it elsewhere.
Fran, actually, you do. Fascism is extremely violent on many levels, so if you don't fight it every way you can you are enabling severe violence against not only yourself but others. Property damage is not violence. And physical violence against fascists is mere self-defense. Again, would fighting physically against the SS in Germany (similar to the police in the US) have been morally wrong? Would damaging Nazi infrastructure (property damage) have been wrong? Of course not. If you can't see that then I give up!
You're being vague. If you're talking about those who fought Mussolini, or Hitler, understandable and necessary, but you frame your argument, and the implementation of violence in vague terms, and maybe you are justifying street violence, the kind of violence which was quite prevalent in the streets of this country in recent years. Do I see that as acceptable. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, but you are thereby saying that only polite protests are allowed against the police murdering innocent victims, for example. My guess is that you are white and therefore would never be at risk from the police. I see all humans as my brothers, and I think property damage and non-lethal physical violence, if necessary, as wholly defensible in the fight against the crimes of the state and the crimes of capitalists. I think you are just too protected by your status to feel threatened and you don't feel an alliance with those who are. That's where you and I differ.
First of all you make a few very prejudicial statements, like I must be white because of what I believe, ergo prejudice which is nothing but BS. Most people, a very significant majority of people killed by police are not black, but white. There goes your argument. Look you SOB you haven't a clue as to what my life has been like and your assertions are far from the truth. I will not respond to your prejudicial mindset ever again.
You trotted out an insult when I in no way insulted you. I hope you think a bit about that and spare anyone else on this platform anything similar. Btw, black people, especially unarmed black people, are statistically way more likely to be killed than white people. Remember, black people only make 13% of the population. The fact that you made the argument that black people are at less risk than white people of being killed by the police makes me think you are--the best possible spin--just incredibly misinformed, but more likely you are simply racist. In which case you have some serious work to do on yourself. We can all heal if we want to. Good luck to you!
Look you ass, no one was referring to my father's store. He is dead! Died recently. I have no further commentary on your ridiculous ill informed verbal assaults, and your insults. Do not respond to any of my posts.
Let's see if you would adopt that attitude if it was your dad, or your store, and it was vandalized. It's windows broken, it's door smashed in, it's merchandise stolen and your dad, or you were just about making it and your insurance didn't cover all the damage, all the needless destruction, so you just lost your livelihood that provided the means of taking care of your family. Violence comes in many forms, and perhaps your negation of this type of violence is a reflection on your lack of character, and not mine.
I agree with Jon. The idea that you can't damage property in the fight against fascism, enemy of the people and the most dangerous force in the world, is frankly ludicrous. Anyway, most property damage in protests is directed against violent police or violent capitalists. So it's fine by me. More than fine in fact.
Look, both of you seem to have an issue that endorses violence in one form or another. I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People have been hurt in these protests as people attacked the property of others like pulling them from cars, to steal them, or inflict damage, etc. No need for a reply. You can rationalize your hate all you want but I'm not buying it so push it elsewhere.
Fran, actually, you do. Fascism is extremely violent on many levels, so if you don't fight it every way you can you are enabling severe violence against not only yourself but others. Property damage is not violence. And physical violence against fascists is mere self-defense. Again, would fighting physically against the SS in Germany (similar to the police in the US) have been morally wrong? Would damaging Nazi infrastructure (property damage) have been wrong? Of course not. If you can't see that then I give up!
You're being vague. If you're talking about those who fought Mussolini, or Hitler, understandable and necessary, but you frame your argument, and the implementation of violence in vague terms, and maybe you are justifying street violence, the kind of violence which was quite prevalent in the streets of this country in recent years. Do I see that as acceptable. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, but you are thereby saying that only polite protests are allowed against the police murdering innocent victims, for example. My guess is that you are white and therefore would never be at risk from the police. I see all humans as my brothers, and I think property damage and non-lethal physical violence, if necessary, as wholly defensible in the fight against the crimes of the state and the crimes of capitalists. I think you are just too protected by your status to feel threatened and you don't feel an alliance with those who are. That's where you and I differ.
First of all you make a few very prejudicial statements, like I must be white because of what I believe, ergo prejudice which is nothing but BS. Most people, a very significant majority of people killed by police are not black, but white. There goes your argument. Look you SOB you haven't a clue as to what my life has been like and your assertions are far from the truth. I will not respond to your prejudicial mindset ever again.
You trotted out an insult when I in no way insulted you. I hope you think a bit about that and spare anyone else on this platform anything similar. Btw, black people, especially unarmed black people, are statistically way more likely to be killed than white people. Remember, black people only make 13% of the population. The fact that you made the argument that black people are at less risk than white people of being killed by the police makes me think you are--the best possible spin--just incredibly misinformed, but more likely you are simply racist. In which case you have some serious work to do on yourself. We can all heal if we want to. Good luck to you!
Look you ass, no one was referring to my father's store. He is dead! Died recently. I have no further commentary on your ridiculous ill informed verbal assaults, and your insults. Do not respond to any of my posts.