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.
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.
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.
While I don't disagree with my reading of your statement (which may differ greatly from your intent -- I'm not sure), I also don't see it as another way of putting my last comment; I was attempting to make another point entirely.
Yikes, that's embarrassing, could you possibly clarify your meaning? My point was that communicative strategy changes significantly depending on whether you account for the other person also having a perspective which is also a product of history