[SpicyLemonZest]

Refusal to denounce rioting can be problematic, but I'm not comfortable equating it with support. If people came by demanding that I denounce some random riot, I wouldn't do it, not because I'm pro-riot but because I reject the implication that the rioters have anything to do with me.

I've been quite surprised seeing how many people will condone rioting, but I'm still confident it's a small minority, shrinking to a barely existent minority for riots which can't plausibly be spun as honest protests.

[packetlost]

Refusing to denounce rioting is almost always paired with something along the lines of "rioting is the language of the unheard" or "our organizations will not denounce any black person’s display of grief and/or rage", as is the literal case with one of the organizations from my hometown [0]. I cannot see that as anything but support. But trying to justify actions, you are, by definition, supporting those actions.

To be clear, it's the justification, not refusing to denounce.

[0]: https://madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/madison-...

[mcguire]

"If you are not with us, you are against us."

[packetlost]

I go out of my way to show that's not the mentality I have, nor one I want to promote.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Again, there are always some bad actors. I agree this statement sounds a lot closer to support than measured opposition.

[bhupy]

I don't know if you've heard, but it's no longer enough to simply be "not in favor of riots", you must now be "actively anti-riots" — or so goes that other talking point.

[nitrogen]

Indeed we've gone from "if you're not with us you're against us" to "if you're not afainst them hard enough you're with them".

It's divisive and contributes to the conflicts that keep us from finding common ground.