| > Sorry, but this is classical gas-lighting I sincerely apologize if it came off that way, because it was not my intention. I'm not trying to deny that there were crimes and arson and whatever else. They did happen, and they are inexcusable. I am specifically making the point, that the GP had posed the answer: > What intelligent person can cope with the dissonance of arson = peace? My point is simply trying to add nuance: nobody is saying arson is okay, the people I talk to say things like: "this protest I was at was OK. I left at 11 PM everything that happened while I was there was super peaceful and wholesome and people even brought their kids!" The bifurcation comes when we start to group everything that happened all across the country into one label of "protests". There were violent protests, there were peaceful protests. There were protests that started peaceful and became violent. Sometimes there were small violent groups that were literally ousted from the larger protest group for causing trouble. I'm not denying that there were violent protests. But I'm also not going to deny that there were a whole lot of peaceful protests. |
It is interesting thought experiment to keep your sentence the same, but replace "protests" with "police."
Police brutality is wrong, full stop.