zlacker

>I don't condone violence, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that modern American democracy was built on the foundation of political violence.

This is incoherent. You can't claim to not condone violence and in the same sentence say but actually it works.

>>devalg+(OP)
With that reasoning, anyone who supports the modern American state has to condone violence, because it was founded on it.

>>devalg+(OP)
I think perhaps you're putting uneven amounts of weight on violence depending on who is participating in it. My understanding of the protests is that it (at least partially) is currently serving as a response to the accepted police's monopoly on violence.

I see in another of your posts you said something to the effect of "If (protests) become violent, don't be surprised when (the police) respond with violence."

This solidly frames the protesters as the sole provocateurs and the police as solidly the ones that are backed into a corner. It's almost as if your argument relies on ignoring the literal murder of George Floyd when looking at the timeline of events.

To paraphrase a joke I saw a while ago, "If a police officer were kneeling on my neck, I would simply vote that officer out of office." It's patent nonsense meant for amusement, but the line of reasoning is similar to what you can construct out of specially selected MLK quotes or whatever.

>>newbie+B9
>I see in another of your posts you said something to the effect of "If (protests) become violent, don't be surprised when (the police) respond with violence."

You must have me confused with someone else. I've never made a comment like that.

>>devalg+ya
Oops, I did get you mixed up, my mistake. I don't think I can edit my post now, but my point largely still stands as a response to this comment that you did make > ...isn't it clear that your approach has failed?