Thought experiment: would the apologists refuse to label self-avowed white supremacists as "terrorists" if for the last three months, they had gone around committing arson, attacking bystanders and people in cars, marching to the homes of Democratic politicians and threatened them? What say you?
Link: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1308944646987329537
93% of protests are peaceful and don't at all include "occupying shit, shutting and/or burning it all down, brandishing weapons and engaging in armed conflict." Also, they're against fascism, which in and of itself is a noble cause.
But I agree... there's very few marxists or anarchists in the streets. Just a pandemic of bipolar disorder.
suddenly want to argue the intricacies of the terms, "Marxist," "anarchist," and "terrorist." I actually don't use those first two very often. I usually just go with, "violent," ignorant," "privileged," and "muscleless."
Whitlock identified it as the core issue, I guess that gives me license.
A better me would come up with better alternatives but I am lazy since I know it wouldn't make a difference.
(no message)
Who are these people supposedly angry at? The police who had a warrant? The man in her bed who opened fire? Or is this just a 4 year political-type of anger?