[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.