[jupiter90000]

The dictionary definition of violence seems to include meaning the use of physical force to damage or destroy. I mean we can say this is different here, but I'd imagine we'd feel different if it was like right wingers smashing up black owned businesses. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[neltnerb]

My main point is that the spin is so strong that if they had instead written "workers who believe they are being taken advantage of riot and destroy factory" it would be a heck of a lot less inflammatory (and is more accurate) than "the workers were violent".

Maybe I'm being overly legalistic, but I think if no one is in the hospital and no one's life was put under direct threat the crime was not violent. I am definitely not saying there shouldn't be a civil suit involved, or that it is okay. If said right wingers were rioting over unpaid wages and abuse over many months and years well, I would likely have a different opinion right? These are people acting in a way that causes financial injury in protest over financial injury, not out of racial bias or desire to cause physical harm.

It is not about violence to me at all; calling breaking a machine violence really dilutes the meaning and clearly is intended to make the reader think the the people doing this are hurting people.

[jupiter90000]

I agree about the inflammatory part regarding the headline. Keep it in context about the particular situation at hand.

That said, in general, I think it can be frightening and traumatic to some people to see angry people destroying things. I know it would be for a kid seeing an angry drunk parent destroy their tablet they play games on, even if it's just a machine. This isn't the same as that, but just trying to say, we should try to understand that certain violent (or whatever you'd like to call destructive) actions will frighten some people.

[rualca]

> My main point is that the spin is so strong (...)

There is no spin. It was a violent riot. There is no way around it.

Oddly enough, you're the one trying to spin the news to somehow hide the violent nature of the protest, and instead pretend it was just a few people mildly annoyed for having half they paycheck stolen by their employer.

I get it, you feel that the focus on the violent protests shifts the attention away from the salaries being stolen by the employer. Yet, are you really doing any favours by trying to spin away the resulting violence and brush it under the rug? Think about it. Do you believe that the kind of people who feels empowered to steal half the paycheck from all their employees is the kind of people who get bothered by the resulting mild annoyance? Or do you believe that having to face direct consequences in the form of.violent actions directed at them is a more effective way of ensuring this abuse is dissuaded?

[Arnt]

Let me guess. What happened would be roughly: 1. The first pay cut. 2. Protests, rebuffed. 3. The second pay cut. 4. Protests, again rebuffed. 5. Violence.

There is no way to deny the existence of point 5 on the list, but all of 1-4 offered excellent occasions to prevent point 5.

People who overestimate their power risk having their tea vilently thrown into the sea, and that's violence and illegal.