[testbot123]

Racist violence is political violence. It is agents of the state enforcing a racial order which is inextricable from (and perpetuated by) the politics of the state.

> 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.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Racist violence is political violence. It is agents of the state enforcing a racial order which is inextricable from (and perpetuated by) the politics of the state.

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.

[testbot123]

> 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.

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.

[AnimalMuppet]

> I believe that the justice system in the US is inextricably tied to systematic, institutionalized racism...

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...

[fzeroracer]

Even if you oppose both for the same reason, you should be able to recognize that they are not, in fact, the same. You're ignoring the power dynamics at play here which makes violence and excessive force by police officers far worse than arson by the rioters.

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.

[throwaway894345]

The arson targets are oppressed by definition, but often they are also part of impoverished communities. There is real concern that the few remaining grocers will cut their losses and leave rather than rebuild, creating even more food desserts. Flippantly disregarding this makes it sound as though you are happy to watch these communities burn if it means you can bring some political points home to the tribe.