I’m sure that’s how you see yourself in your mind. The rest of us read your posts that are definitely not just about historical artifacts and frankly smell of the white moderate concern of not having regular life disrupted by annoying activists. Your examples of valid protest are violence or vandalism against specific wrongdoers, not say the regular stuff like blocking traffic or vandalizing (non-priceless) surfaces in places that are visible to a mass audience rather than comfortably protected behind fences and security checkpoints.
This chain literally started with you responding to someone daydreaming about physically assaulting the young protesters with:
No no, you see, it’s for THEIR cause. The beatings would be happening to raise awareness of climate change, not to support oil companies. Isn’t that the logic, here? There’s no other relevance of attempted vandalism of a painting by a man who died before climate change was even fully understood. The cause is all-important; the act just a detail to catch eyes, apparently.
And paired with posts about how they’re only doing it for attention and an activists very symbolic public suicide by a method almost exclusively used as a protest action was probably unrelated to his activism. Yes, very much a level-headed non-disdainful simple art enjoyer who respects protest. As long as the targets deserve it and no one cares.
This chain literally started with you responding to someone daydreaming about physically assaulting the young protesters with:
The point of that, something that you seem to have still missed, was not “I want to hurt them for being idiots”, though that may have been secondary, but “If the act doesn’t matter, just the cause, by principle that leads to absurd things, like acts with no conceivable serious connection with the cause being touted as a great success for that cause simply for linking the name of the act and the cause.”
not say the regular stuff like blocking traffic or vandalizing (non-priceless) surfaces in places that are visible to a mass audience rather than comfortably protected behind fences and security checkpoints.
I literally cite arson, riots, and general strikes as valid, but go off I guess.
I’m sure that’s how you see yourself in your mind. The rest of us read your posts that are definitely not just about historical artifacts and frankly smell of the white moderate concern of not having regular life disrupted by annoying activists. Your examples of valid protest are violence or vandalism against specific wrongdoers, not say the regular stuff like blocking traffic or vandalizing (non-priceless) surfaces in places that are visible to a mass audience rather than comfortably protected behind fences and security checkpoints.
This chain literally started with you responding to someone daydreaming about physically assaulting the young protesters with:
And paired with posts about how they’re only doing it for attention and an activists very symbolic public suicide by a method almost exclusively used as a protest action was probably unrelated to his activism. Yes, very much a level-headed non-disdainful simple art enjoyer who respects protest. As long as the targets deserve it and no one cares.
The point of that, something that you seem to have still missed, was not “I want to hurt them for being idiots”, though that may have been secondary, but “If the act doesn’t matter, just the cause, by principle that leads to absurd things, like acts with no conceivable serious connection with the cause being touted as a great success for that cause simply for linking the name of the act and the cause.”
I literally cite arson, riots, and general strikes as valid, but go off I guess.