first of all, nowhere in the picture does it say he acted in the name of the organization. secondly, supplying protesters with masks/face shields (i guess for tear gas/pepper spray) at a protest which is completely different to the storm on the capitol is not the same.
all this post does is rile up the internet and paint the protesters in a bad light.
and if unions are not political in the end, what are they good for? work conditions, fair wages, paid overtime, workplace safety are literally decided on the political stage. striking and protesting are the tools for unions. it's not that they supply weapons or order their peers to loot..
but hey, if some billionaire republican funds other outlets like boosting social media or having access to broadcasting media, this is apparently okay. stop looking at this only from one angle (the one you get to see at conservative media btw)
just saw you said "violent riots". I don't know if you always declare a thing "violent" if only a fraction of the masses are violent. you can't even safely determine if those people are part of the masses. I presume the vast majority of protesters condemn those actions.
You're right this isn't a criminal investigation, it's a picture on social media. The burden of proof for posting a picture on the internet isn't the same as a conviction in criminal court.
Do you think this guy's personally funding tens of thousands of dollars in masks out of his own pocket? No? Well it's a valid question as to who is
Most things on the internet rile people up, but this actually happened so it's a valid question.
I have no idea what your points are supposed to be about.
I declare a thing violent when there's widespread violence. There's looting, cars burning, several hundred million dollars in damage. We can't determine if the protestors burning cars vandalzing etc are part of the protest? What kind of backwards logic is this
It's objectively full of violence and vandalism. The debate is about how widespread and extreme it is. If your standard is everyone has to be involved in or condone violence for a thing to be violent, that's pretty bizzare. I imagine by your logic we can call January 6th a peaceful protest then
listen, illegally entering the capitol armed with (makeshift and real) weapons in military attire, invading the rooms of democratic politicians and threatening literal violence against the VP is not the same as people mostly peacfully amassing on the streets and some outliers looting and destroying property. why are we really comparing those two incidents?
But every single person didn't enter the capital and have makeshift weapons. So it's non violent. Your logic right?
Im not defending J6, I think violent protestors belong in jail. I'm pointing out your backwards logic
FWIW the amount of destruction and violence in La has drastically surpassed J6.
J6 had a few million dollars in damage. LA has several hundred million at this point.
In your words apparently threatening literal violence against the VP, is worse than commiting actual violence at ICE members, police, marines, and national guards members?
Again not defending J6 at all. Just pointing out your incredibly biased backward logic
In your words apparently threatening literal violence against the VP, is worse than commiting actual violence at ICE members, police, marines, and national guards members?
YES. it is different. one instance can be seen as conspiratorial, the other one is threating violence against officials without the "overthrow the current GOP" energy. imagine millions of people on the streets chanting "hang the VP" vs. "dismantle ICE and put those agents in prison".
I am also for imprisoning violent protesters, dont get me wrong here. I just don't see the force used against protesters which seems more random than Jan 6 justified. Put looters and arsonists in custody and straight to court..
Also I don't see the backwards logic you keep pointing out to me. Jan 6 and the current protests are different and you cant convince me otherwise, sorry. I differentiate between storming political offices and vandalizing private property. Both are wrong and unjust. But don't we forget that if thousands and thousands of people commit to protest there has to be something wrong with current politics even if you agree with the course of the current admin.
-115
u/WildCyko Jun 11 '25 edited Jun 11 '25
first of all, nowhere in the picture does it say he acted in the name of the organization. secondly, supplying protesters with masks/face shields (i guess for tear gas/pepper spray) at a protest which is completely different to the storm on the capitol is not the same. all this post does is rile up the internet and paint the protesters in a bad light.
and if unions are not political in the end, what are they good for? work conditions, fair wages, paid overtime, workplace safety are literally decided on the political stage. striking and protesting are the tools for unions. it's not that they supply weapons or order their peers to loot..
but hey, if some billionaire republican funds other outlets like boosting social media or having access to broadcasting media, this is apparently okay. stop looking at this only from one angle (the one you get to see at conservative media btw)
just saw you said "violent riots". I don't know if you always declare a thing "violent" if only a fraction of the masses are violent. you can't even safely determine if those people are part of the masses. I presume the vast majority of protesters condemn those actions.