[mdszy]

I don't see how this is on-topic in the slightest, nor how this could lead to any form of useful discussion on this site.

Regardless, if you agree with the article wholeheartedly, maybe stop to consider why you're getting more worked up over destruction of some property than over the decades-long oppression of black, hispanic and other minority communities by the police.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I think there's a discussion worth having on the increasing trend towards argument by analogy, where we judge things as good or bad based not on a concrete analysis of their effects but whether we can attach a label like "violence" to them. It's obviously prone to dragging people into political slapfights (which I see you're excited to engage in yourself!), but I don't know if that should be a disqualifier; a lot of important topics have that quality.

[mdszy]

> which I see you're excited to engage in yourself!

There is nothing in my comment that indicates that I'm looking to engage in a "political slapfight" - that's entirely your deal.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I have no interest in engaging myself, but I encourage you to reread the last line of your comment and consider how it comes across to people who don't agree with your perspective.

[mdszy]

So you're saying that you think that some property is more important than murders of innocent people by police that have been going on for decades?

If that's not what you're saying, you should make yourself clear. Because you imply that you don't agree with my perspective, which I think is pretty straightforward and clear - people are more important than property.

[blotter_paper]

I, for one, both agree with your perspective and see how the last sentence of your original comment could be taken as engaging in a "political slapfight" (a pretty vague term) when viewed from the other side. I think being able to view the world from the eyes of the other is a useful skill, even when the other is a literal fascist -- I'm not even arguing that you should necessarily come across differently, just that you should understand how you may come across to people with different perspectives.

[diffrinse]

Or, put another way, you can't say one side's behavior is historically determined but not the other's.