In 2020, Words Are 'Violence,' Arson Is Not

The redefinition of the term diminishes actual victims of violence and trivializes why people are protesting.


There's a righteous anger driving protests against police brutality in the U.S. But an effort on the left to radically redefine "violence" threatens to alienate people who are attached to a more conventional understanding of that word and trivializes the very real reasons why they're protesting. A demonstration that hinges on an anti-violence orthodoxy needs to employ a coherent definition of their central tenet, should they not want to undermine their own movement.

The leftist case for redefining "violence" relies on two main arguments: damaging a person is morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is worse than physically damaging an object.

"One reason it's important to maintain a clear concept of what violence is and isn't, is because true violence is such a deeply terrible human experience," writes Nathan J. Robinson at the socialist magazine Current Affairs. "Actual violence leaves people with brain damage, nightmares, disability, and trauma. The destruction of human bodies is a moral horror that simply cannot exist in the same category as the breaking of objects. Using the word 'violence' to describe the smashing of a window (which is, it should not need saying, incapable of feeling pain) diminishes the term."

Journalists, pundits, and activists alike have made a case similar to Robinson's in dismissing criticism of rioters and looters who have damaged buildings and businesses around the country during protests against police brutality. "Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body," Nikole Hannah-Jones, the driving force behind The New York Times' 1619 Project, told CBS News last month. "Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral."

Hannah-Jones, Robinson, and many other supporters of the anti-police violence protests want to keep the media and America focused on state violence against black people, which is pervasive and chronic. Human lives are more intrinsically valuable than inanimate objects, but it does not follow that the destruction of property is insignificant, or that Americans who are concerned about that destruction are immoral or racist. Property is foundational to prosperity. Historical and institutionally racist barriers to obtaining property—like redlining—are a major reason why black wealth in America is a fraction of white wealth. While there is no shortage of concern-trolling about the destruction of black businesses during these protests, the fact is that black-owned businesses are less able to recover from property destruction.

You don't need to see a black life as equal in value to a black-owned business, or to a building or a car, to be concerned about damage to all of those things and resistant to people who say we should only be concerned about one of them. Litigating which kinds of damage count as "violence" might scratch some kind of polemical itch, but it is not a useful way to build the kind of broad political consensus necessary to end, or at least, dramatically curb state violence against black people.

At the same time, some on the left are attempting to expand the definition of violence to cover acts and behaviors that very few people have historically considered to be violent. "Silence is violence" is a good example. "Racism isn't a black problem. It's a white problem, and their silence is violence," Cherry Steinwender, executive director of the Center for Healing Racism, told the Houston Chronicle in a June 5 article titled, "'Silence is violence:' Why speaking up against racism speaks volumes."

Yes, we should speak up against injustices when we see them. But to say that declining to participate in the debate over policing and race is equivalent to actual physical harm, while also insisting that it is immoral to classify arson as violence, is incoherent.

But the redefining effort does not end there:

  • Julia Beck, a lesbian activist from Baltimore and former co-chair of the local LGBTQ Commission, was criticized and expelled from that group for resisting the city's effort to replace "sex" with "gender identity" in certain policies. The Baltimore Transgender Alliance accused Beck of committing "violence against the transgender community."
  • A protest last Wednesday in Richmond, Virginia, saw people opposed to lifting COVID-19 eviction moratoriums on the grounds that eviction is literal violence. (That idea isn't especially new.)
  • deandre miles-hercules, a PhD linguistics student, told Vox in an interview that white people asking black people how to refer to black people as a group is, well, violent: "People tune in to this, 'What is the word? Do I call you African American? Do I call you Black? What is the word that people are preferring these days? I know I can't call you Negro anymore! So just tell me the word so I can use it and we can go on from there.' But that lacks in nuance. And that lack of nuance is a violence."
  • To bring things full circle, consider the recent kerfuffle at The New York Times over Sen. Tom Cotton's (R–Ark.) op-ed calling for military support in quelling the violent demonstrations that peppered some of the protests across the country. "Running this puts Black @nytimes staff in danger," became a popular refrain on Twitter, repeated by a range of staffers at The Times. 

To review: not speaking is violence; speaking charitably but clumsily is violence; having an unpopular opinion or providing a platform for one is violence; insisting that both parties honor legally binding contracts is violence; burning buildings, smashing windows, and destroying businesses are not violence.

These attempts at redefinition are not just confusing, they are socially corrosive. In a heterogeneous society made up of an abundance of ethnicities, races, religions, sexual orientations, and perspectives, we need to actively work toward broad consensus not just to function, but to rally majority support for protecting minorities. This process has been and continues to be painfully slow for many members of the American project. In the case of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others, the consensus took too long. They died waiting for their fellow Americans—many of them white—to reach the conclusion that our police are too powerful, too violent, and too unaccountable.

But there also seems to be an emerging consensus that what happened to Floyd and Taylor should not happen ever again. We need to build that consensus until it is reflected in our laws. Does the effort to redefine violence beyond recognition get us closer to that goal, or slow us down?

NEXT: Body Camera Footage Shows Florida Cops Laughing About Using Rubber Bullets on Anti-Police Brutality Protesters

Violence Police Police Abuse George Floyd Protests Media

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

203 responses to “In 2020, Words Are 'Violence,' Arson Is Not

  1. These attempts at redefinition are not just confusing…

    They only confuse you if you stop to think about it. Recognize that your opponent is deliberately attempting to confuse you and is not arguing in good faith and it becomes much clearer. Clear communication is imperative for working out differences of opinion, deliberately obscuring the meaning of words is a clear communication that one is not interested in working out a difference of opinion. “Shut up”, he explained, and that’s all these lectures really amount to. “Shut up.”

    1. Of course a Marxist who believes shit just falls out of the sky would have trouble understanding how violence can extend to mere property – it’s not like it’s my property and I exchanged a piece of my life to obtain that property so in effect destroying my shit is tantamount to destroying me, everything I have is “ours” and you have just as much right as I do to dispose of that property. Sure, you fucking retard, explain again to me this shit about the workers owning the means of production requires somebody else to have created the means of production for the workers to own in the first place. Go build your own fucking factory and then tell me how the people who work in the factory have more of a right to the factory than the people who built the factory or the people who paid them to build the factory. Especially when it turns out your brilliant business plan turns out to be not so brilliant and nobody is willing to pay you what it costs to produce whatever it is your factory produces.

      1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.ESd I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

        For more details………………Home Profit System

    2. Lying Jeffy hardest hit.

      1. The article seems to take for granted many progressive assumptions, such as claiming that “state violence against black people… is pervasive and chronic.” But statistically speaking, black people are slightly less likely to be shot and killed while being arrested than whites, as studies by the black Harvard economist Roland Fryer and others have found. Fryer found no racial bias in police shootings, although he did find some bias in use of non-lethal force.

        In 2019, 15 unarmed black people were shot and killed by on-duty police officers, compared with 25 whites. Victims remain mostly white if you expand the tally to include off-duty police officers and deaths from causes other than gun shots. Mapping Police Violence recently counted 28 unarmed blacks and 51 unarmed whites who died at the hands of police in 2019.

        Most unarmed people shot by the police are white, although the fact that the black crime rate and arrest rate are higher than the white rate does result in blacks comprising a larger fraction of those shot by the police than the black fraction of the general population.

        But it makes little sense to blame “the state” for the higher black crime rate (about half of all murderers are black, even though blacks are only 13% of the U.S. population).

        It’s not “state violence” that’s killing most black people. Eighty-nine percent of black victims are killed by black offenders, according to the FBI — very few of them cops.

        1. Fifteen? Others, who seem reliable, say it was 9 unarmed blacks were shot and killed.

        2. Every Reason article promotes the leftist world view

          1. Virtue signaling is cool, comrade.

        3. It’s a persuasion technique. Accept their basic premise as proven to gain trust.

          And the main issue where arrests are a problem are disproportionate enforcement of low-level offenses such as drug crimes in inner city areas, which are primarily minorities, compared to suburbs and rural areas, which are primarily white.

      2. What we are seeing is a socio-political faction aware that they are on a downward slide and flailing around for anything they think will preserve their position, no matter how stupid.

        History has seen this before. The Planter Aristocracy we’re losing ground to the industrial North, and were so freaked out about it that they started the Civil War. The European Aristocracies did amazingly stupid things, trying to hold their positions against the Industrialists.

        The Fascist Left is in trouble on so many fronts! Their control of the news media was Damaged by talk-radio and then broken by the internet. Oh, they still control the Legacy Media, but they are bleeding audience from all orifices, and their lace of experience with open opposition has rendered them cartoonish. They’ve pushed their influence in entertainment as hard as they can, and in consequence have created the trope “get Woke, go broke”. They were SURE that Britain would vote “remain in the EU” and couldn’t handle losing with any grace whatsoever. They were SURE Hillary was The Right Woman (and never mind all her negatives), they were SURE they could chase Trump out of Washington, they were sure of a lot of things that turn out to be seriously deluded.

        You watch; they’re SURE that riots in the streets and overreaching economic lockdowns are going to play into their hand…and I cannot for the life of me imagine WHY! And I seriously think they’re sure that this year they can steal enough votes to oust Trump, and it apparently doesn’t occur to them that maybe they didn’t get away clean with what they tried to pull in 2016.

        In Trump’s place, I would have evidence in hand of the massive vote fraud of 2016 (where did Her Shrillness win all her ‘popular votes’?) and be ready to jam it up the Democrats’ collective rump with jalapeño lube if they claim victory in 2020.

        They have severally and collectively lost their freaking minds.

      3. my co-employee’s ex-wife makes seventy one dollars every hour at the pc. she’s been unemployed for 4 months.. remaining month her take a look at became $13213 operating on the laptop for four hours each day.. take a look at. Click For Full Detail.

    3. “Clear communication is imperative for working out differences of opinion, ”

      A common language and a desire to listen is necessary to work out differences in opinion through clear communication. We don’t share a common language and have no desire to listen.

      1. You sure don’t

        1. Communication with the commenters on this board is not what I want. I find most here who respond to me are narrow minded partisan bores. More like sounding boards than worthy interlocutors.

          1. Yeah, but you literally come here to troll, so you don’t really deserve decent conversation.

            1. I don’t post here for decent conversation. As I said, I find most of those responding to me are narrow minded partisan bores. I find conversations face to face in person are more to my liking.

              1. Weve noticed. You’ve never attempted decent conversation. You dont get paid to.

                1. I have attempted that. It was years ago that I first came across this board. I was impressed by its tolerance, its format and manageable size. I use my real name, don’t use multiple accounts and try to avoid posting ideas and opinions that I’ve noticed others posting, try to make original contributions, in other words. This all makes me a troll in your eyes. As I said attempting worthwhile conversation with most of those who respond to me is a waste of time. If you haven’t found the same, I figure your criteria for worthwhile conversation is looser than mine.

                  1. When you argue from false assumptions or using false logic, which covers the majority of posts I’ve seen from you, you’re going to get pushback and called a troll. Put on your big boy points and argue better.

                    1. I’m giving my opinion here. If you disagree, you are free to tell me why or not.

                    2. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour on net. he has been job less for six months.SDc However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours.

                      Immediately join from the source……► Click Here

          2. Did you type all that while looking in a mirror?

            1. A week or so ago I bought a little mirror for my budgie, Merlin. How he loves to stand in front of it whistling the tunes I’ve taught him.

              1. Well on your path to being the next sqrsly.

                1. There’s a lot here I skip over.

    4. Hello…..Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….. Read more

  2. This is counterproductive nitpicking.

    We Koch / Reason libertarians need to get used to the fact that our progressive #Resistance allies use terminology that might have seemed unusual a decade ago. So what? Ultimately they want the same things we want — a Joe Biden Presidency and an open US / Mexico border.

    1. Stale.

      1. I will never stop promoting Charles Koch’s open borders agenda. If you find that repetitive, you might be more comfortable at Breitbart.

      2. Yeah. One-trick-pony.

        1. Still more enjoyable to read than 3/4 of the paid staff here.

          1. Author, to be sure, is excepted from that 3/4 confederacy of fuckwits

            1. Billy Binion?


    2. Bored now.

  3. Humpty Dumpty is going to get pushed; is that violence?

  4. Read a fucking dictionary dipshits.

    “ Definition of violence
    1a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy”

    1. Yes, this! Violence example in the extreme: NAZIs killing 6 million Jews in Europe! After abusing them by stealing their property, making them work themselves to death while blatantly and cynically LYING to them with “Arbeit Machs Frei” (work will set you free)-type propaganda, cutting off their hair to make fabrics, and skinning them to make lampshades! THIS is a textbook example of ultra-violence, AKA genocide!

      And would you believe it, SOME of us turn a blind, reality-denying eye to things like this!

      1. Fuck off bigot

      2. Arbeit MACHT Frei, verdammt dummkopf

      3. Let us remember, on this weekend that it is supposedly the position of the USA that “never again!”.
        What’s that you say? Communist China? Uyghurs?

        1. Those examples are fine because when your economic belief is based off bumper stickers it means no retaliation to any of the bad acts of china.

      4. Never forget Babi Yar dipshits.

        The story of Babi Yar is a popular lesson in Jewish schools described as the single largest event of the holocaust.

        The lesson is that between 30,000 and 100,000 Jews were taken to a ravine in Ukraine where they were killed.

        The story is told by one Jewish
        survivor, Dina Pronicheva, an actress who testified that she was forced to strip naked and marched to the edge of the ravine. When the firing squad shot, she jumped into the ravine and played dead. After being covered by thousands of bodies and tons of earth she dug herself out, unscathed, when the coast was clear and escaped to tell the story.

        They were stripped naked to leave no evidence.

        She is apparently the only person in history to successfully perform a matrix bullet dodge at a firing squad.

        The soldier aiming point blank at her never noticed her escape. Never walked a few steps to the edge of the ravine to finish her off.

        Naked she had no tools to dig herself out from under 30,000 bodies and tons of dirt.

        Only after the deed was done, the nazis realized that so many bullet ridden bodies were evidence oops. So they brought more Jews and millions of cubic feet of firewood to dig them up, cremate them and scatter their ashes in surrounding fields.

        There has been no forensic investigation at the site. None of the bullets allegedly burned with the bodies have been recovered. Not one shred of physical evidence of this has ever been found.

        There are aerial photographs of the area at the time but they don’t show any evidence of the narrative, no people, no equipment, no firewood, no moved earth, no tracks of any kind.

        Simply stating these facts is a crime in Ukraine where the Babi Yar narrative is taught to students.

        1. Paging Deborah Lipstadt…

        2. Asshole.

  5. Names and thoughts will break your bones, but stones will never hurt you.

    1. Good one —

      Bombs and drones may brake my bones, but it’s words that really hurt me.

  6. I’m curious if they’d think I was being nonviolent if I went over to their house with a baseball bat and began destroying their things. Is a racist being nonviolent when throwing bricks through the front windows of black-owned businesses?

    The truth is that they just want to say “It’s okay when we do it.”

    1. No; the truth is it is not OK no matter who is doing it.

      1. When one can arbitrarily change the meanings of words and actions anything one says or does can become immediately OK.

        We live in a work of fiction.

        1. Such as, for example, Rob Misek’s fictional world, in which the NAZIs never brutally butchered 6 million Jews!

          Sane people with a grip on reality don’t deny history, as history is defined by a vast, vast majority of historians, with (in cases like this) boat-loads of evidence. No, historians and history aren’t perfect… Nothing (or hardly anything) is. But your denial of overwhelming consensus history shows some pretty severe paranoia… Everyone is out to “get you” and to trick you, right?
          I am doing a service to readers who aren’t familiar with your paranoia… Let all new (or newer) readers beware, much of what Rob Misek has to say, needs to be examined carefully!

          The Earth is actually flat, and the center of the Universe.
          A secret cabal of Jewish bankers is diabolically manipulating the world towards world-wide communism.
          Space aliens secretly comprise 10% of Earthings, and are twisting us and them towards the day when they will enslave and eat us all!
          The Earth is hollow, with a vast array of large, powerful beings living underneath us.
          Being part of a TINY-TINY elite of humans who know the “secret truth” is the other element of your serious whack… Paranoia, and “special elite knowledge”… The later is evidence of mania, of egomania… Some serious self-examination on your part, would be in order!

          You can show Rob Misek an endless parade of well-documented history books about the holocaust, interviews with a few survivors, and video of walking tours of holocaust museums and preserved genocide sites (gas chambers etc), photos of starved corpses stacked cordwood-style…
          And Rob Misek will “summarize” for you, saving,
          “OK, sure, I’ve heard that before! Ha!…
          ‘Mustache Man Bad’ hyped propaganda!”

          1. Fuck off bigot.

            1. “You’re a bigot!” shrieked the stormfag, clutching his pink satin purse.

              1. You’re the faggot who celebrated the redefinition of marriage from, ”Between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, the only relationship that celebrates the nuclear family and the continuum of life, to “two men shoving their cocks into each other’s assholes”

                1. Holocaust denial AND homophobia. Libertarian AF!

                2. You think marriage has only one definition? Did Kellerstrom tell you that? Do you believe as he does that Paul McCartney was killed in the ’70s and replaced with a double? Is it true you have a stroke book of David Irving pictures?

                  The general definition of marriage is “to combine as one”, or a “close union”. Stupid stormfag.

                3. Misek= Asshole.

    2. A WhiteAntifa member is considered heroic by her peers for throwing Molotov cocktails at black-owned small businesses during demonstrations.

  7. “Silence is violence”

    Whatever you call it, it can be extremely fucked up and tantamount to supporting whatever the injustice depending on whether the inaction is borne out of ignorance, indifference or malicious calculation.

    1. And yet the slogan is just a way of saying, “Those who don’t agree with me on the issues, or who don’t support my stance enthusiastically enough, are guilty of crimes against me. Therefore, I’m justified in attacking them or defaming them.”

      Perhaps it’s important to stand with the idea that not everyone has the same standards of whether or not something it an injustice, or even if the injustice might stem from a different root cause than what you’re attributing it to. They might be silent because the loud, screaming people are wrong.

      1. Bingo.

        I don’t think the problems with disparate outcomes stem from institutional racism, but from police culture as a result of the war on drugs, and government created incentives with disastrous outcomes (like welfare and the destruction of black families). None of that denies that the horrible effects of those things are overrepresented in black communities, nor that it needs to change, but to them I might as well be a plantation owner with a whip in my hand because I don’t agree with their identified root problem.

        So they can eat a dick. A whole bag of them even.

        1. But the promotion of pervasive “institutional racism” keeps blacks “in their place”.
          Munchausen by proxy as politics.
          It certainly isn’t uplifting or encouraging to keep forefront the idea that a person will be oppressed if black.
          “Fighting” systemic racism is really just promoting systemic racism, and it’s psychological warfare.

          1. Yup.

          2. It certainly isn’t uplifting or encouraging to keep forefront the idea that a person will be oppressed if black.

            But is it true?

            If it’s true, who cares if it’s ‘uplifting or encouraging’ or not.

            1. You do your truth, Jeff.
              The rest of us will deal with reality

        2. You also have to wonder how many of these officers are former Iraq or Afghanistan veterans and have been desensitized to violence and suffering of others?

      2. It’s just another form of kafkatrapping. Leftists have been doing this for decades, they’ve just been ramping it up lately.

    2. Silence is complicity would be more accurate. Words actually do matter too.

      1. “Silence is complicity”?

        You prefer phony pandering?

      2. So you accept you are complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by marxists across the globe. Good to know. How long should your sentence be for the 100+ million murdered by you and your ilk?

    3. If someone ever says “silence is violence” to me, my response will be “then, fuck you.”

  8. Has anyone added up the number of “persons of color” who were in the tens of millions killed by socialists like the ones at BLM?

    1. Not so many. East Asians (Mao, Pol Pot) are not and Europeans are not colorful persons. The worst atrocities have been carried out against the not colorful.

      If reparations are in order, the line is quite long.

  9. “The leftist case for redefining “violence” relies on two main arguments: damaging a person is morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is worse than physically damaging an object.”

    No, the more fundamental leftist argument is that not suffering from “violence” due to listening to my words is more important than my freedom to say words.

    Oh, and Nikole Hannah-Jones is an opportunistic, scheming cunt.

  10. It’s like redefining the words of the constitution to suit yourself.

    The dictionary meanings of words is our only tether to reality.

    1. Wrong!

      Another primary tether to reality is believing the evidence of our senses!

      Yet another primary tether to reality is believing the evidence of the senses of the vast, vast, majority-based consensus of other humans! OK, SOMETIMES they get it wrong… Plate tectonics comes to mind! But, if you want to overthrow consensus, you’d better be willing to WORK YOUR ASS OFF and gather EVIDENCE, and study WAY hard! Sitting around navel-gazing and making up bullshit out of the blue… Or believing bullshit out of the blue, generated by others… Does NOT cut it, and will convince NO ONE who actually matters!

      1. People have worked their asses of gathering and sharing evidence.

        Some are in prison for doing just that because the evidence is banned in every nation where it could exist.

        Doctors of science and history have meticulously gathered the evidence and published it.

        Bigots refuse to review and consider the evidence.

        Examples of bigotry in a Sentence
        “ a deeply ingrained bigotry prevented her from even considering the counterarguments”

        Providing evidence does not make someone a bigot. Refusing to recognize that evidence does.

        1. “Providing evidence does not make someone a bigot. Refusing to recognize that evidence does.”

          Says the anti-Jewish, Hitler-admiring fascist who denies the NAZI-on-Jews Holocaust, despite overwhelming evidence compiled by historians and eyewitness testimonies from people who lost friends and family in said Holocaust! NONE are so blind, as those who refuse to see!

          Were the Moon landings faked as well? Does the Indian Ocean exst? Have you ever personally SEEN the Indian Ocean, and if so, have you verified that it couldn’t perhaps be given some other name? Maybe it’s not made mostly of “water”, it is mostly made of “dihydrogen monoxide”?

          Does denying reality, or giving everything different names than normal people do, give you some sort of special super power? How are things in your galaxy?

          1. I regularly review all evidence when presented and use science and logic to test its veracity and refute arguments that can be. I’ve done it here. That’s not bigotry.

            You and many others, for some irrational reason, refuse to consider arguments. That is by definition bigotry.

            Here is all the evidence, compiled by a doctor of science and history. Review and consider it or accept that you are the bigot. Then I say, fuck off bigot.

            Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality.



              Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland Paperback – April 24, 1998
              by Christopher R. Browning (Author)

              Brutally heart-rending and documented out the wazzoo! AND I have personally talked to friends who lost relatives to the Holocaust! PS, the Earth is roughly spherical!

              1. Yes in exchange for their “confession” they escaped punishment reserved for less cooperative Nazis.

                That’s coercion.

                1. Coerced testimony is not admissible as evidence.

                  That is refuted as evidence.

                2. I heard there were Holocaust deniers, but never encountered one before.

                  Amazing! The mental contortions one needs to do to take that position.

                  There are many, many personal accounts, and I knew a couple who survived Auschwitz. No coercion for them to recount their experiences.

                  Try ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’ by Viktor Frankl for another account. You just might learn something.

                  I feel sorry for you.

                  1. You’re the pathetic bigot who refuses to review and consider the counter arguments.

                    It’s your religion. Fuck off.

                    1. Misek = Asshole

                    2. Misek = Asshole

                      For once we are in complete agreement.

                    3. Awww, two bigots found each other.

                      Get a few more and you can have a circle jerk.

                    4. Whats funny is that Jeff doesn’t realize he’s basically the exact same as misek

                  2. Any Jew who has the most remote claim to victim hood During WW2 is well paid for their bullshit “testimony”.

                    That too is inadmissible as evidence.

                    Did any of those coerced lying dipshits ever mention piles of bright pink bodies as they would have necessarily been resulting from cyanide poisoning?

                    A remarkably notable detail to leave out don’t you think?

            2. ” Here is all the evidence, compiled by a doctor of science and history. ”

              Nice appeal to “authority.” Of course, he’s not a doctor “of science and history” but rather a PhD doctorate in the *history of science*. Which gives him absolutely no expertise whatsoever in history that isn’t the history of science.

              But you keep pretending that he is a “doctor of history and science” ok? It makes him an authority unlike all of the other credentialed people and their documentation of the holocaust, and so you’re totally smart to believe him.

              1. Kollerstrom, a doctor “of science and history” … like the “history” contained in his book :

                “The Life and Death of Paul McCartney 1942–1966: A Very English Mystery”

                Which maintains that Paul McCartney died in 1966.


                1. A published PhD in science and history has far more credibility than you.

                  You have your pathetic bigotry by refusing to review and consider the counter arguments.

                  It’s your religion. Fuck off.

                  1. I’m sure you don’t consider yourself to be an asshole. Many do. Why won’t you consider the counter argument?

                    1. What argument?

                      If I was perfect, you’d worship me dipshit.

                    2. If all other religions can lie about their divine origins for thousands of years, why couldn’t Jews turn themselves into perpetual victims beyond reproach?

                    3. It seems to be what all “victim groups” are trying to achieve today.

                  2. > A published PhD in science and history has far more credibility than you.

                    You have absolutely no idea of my qualifications, and in your own terms, it’s bigotry for you to assert that you do.

                    Do you also believe that Paul McCartney is dead? If not, how do you account for the fact that your “expert” believes such an obvious hoax?

                    1. You’re obviously a cowardly anonymous dipshit. You have no “qualifications” here.

                      I’m not interested in Paul McCartney. Fuck off.

                    2. Oh? Rob Misek is your real name?

                      Not at all surprised you don’t engage with how ridiculous his Paul McCartney theory renders your “expert.”

                      I mean, your view is really :

                      “Sure, he believes an obviously false hoax about Paul McCartney, but this other thing he thinks is an obviously false hoax is totally a hoax, because he’s super smart and SCIENCEY AND HISTORICAL and right about.”

                      Thank you for the laughs. The Nazis were defeated by the mongrel races and the Jews, and will continue to be, forever.

                    3. You can’t refute what you don’t consider bigot.

                      The jokes on you.

                    4. ur mom gay

        2. DOCTORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Billy, you don’t protest enough. You can’t give an inch to these jackasses when they try to move the Overton window on the definition of violence.

  12. Ignore this stupid marxist word play and fix the real problem. End the drug war and don’t have cops assault unarmed people.

    All the other cries of racism are bullshit designed to distract you and gain power and control for the far left.

    1. Agreed.

      And I’d find it hilarious, were it not so sad, that the racism they’re “protesting”, wanton police violence against blacks, particularly in big cities, is a direct result of the policies put in to place by the very politicians *they’ve* put in to office for the last 1/2 century. They’re trying to blame this on republicans, but every city that’s had major “protests“ has been run solely by Democrats for a very very long time. But Biden, author of the infamous crime bill that’s a direct cause of large portions of injustice in black communities, is the fucking savior.


      1. Actually these cities have been responding to the demands of their black constituents. The vast majority of black people even in the big city ghettos are not criminals and gang bangers. They are victims of these thugs. They’ve been vocally demanding law and order in their neighborhoods for decades and re electing democrats that promised to produce it. Apparently nobody foresaw that this would lead to racial profiling, mass incarceration and police violence. Go figure.

        1. I’m sure libertarians saw the unintended consequences, as we usually do.

    2. When BLM succeeds in getting all of their newfound acolytes and corporate sponsors to lobby for an end to the WOD I’ll start paying attention. And I mean everything, heroin, meth, crack, fentanyl pick your poison. And no. You don’t get to send the users to reeducation camps or put any limits on their liberty. As long as they don’t harm any body else they can do whatever they want. It’s all or nothing.

  13. Words Are ‘Violence,’ Arson Is Not

    What if I commit arson on another person? It’s a grey area.

    1. Not if you don’t chastise them for their doubleplus unwoke thoughts whilst cleansing them of their impurities

    2. Give a man fire and you keep him warm for a day, set a man on fire and you keep him warm the rest of his life.

  14. Words are not violence.
    Free speech is violence especially if goes against the grain of our brave and proud Marxist-Leninist betters.
    Free speech causes people to bleed, fractures bones and forcibly removes a person’s teeth.
    More people have died in battle due to free speech than all the swords, spears, arrows, bullets and artillery shells combined.
    If you love humanity, then eliminate free speech.
    There’s enough blood that’s been shed because of it.

    1. What are words for when no one listens anymore?

  15. According to their argument, if an invading army comes in and flattens your community, burning it to the ground, but doesn’t hurt any person, it’s not violence.

    How about bombs dropped that kill no one? Still not violence?

    But if I hurt someone’s fee fees by using a non-preferred pronoun, even if by accident or by simply not knowing the preferred pronoun, that’s totes violence. Wearing a MAGA hat is violence. Minding your own business is violence.

    Get. The. Fuck. Out.

    1. Better-

      Burning a cross on someone’s lawn isn’t violence.


    2. “According to their argument, if an invading army comes in and flattens your community, burning it to the ground, but doesn’t hurt any person, it’s not violence.”

      They aren’t arguing that. Nobody is arguing that. Activists in groups like antifa embrace violence, especially destruction of property. They will also attack violently fascists and their efforts to organize. One of their methods is to expose closeted fascists to their employers getting them fired thereby depriving them of their livelihood. Inflicting harm on someone like that is arguably violence, wouldn’t you say?

      1. It depends on the politics of the government that sent the army.
        If a socialist country sends the army, no violence; if a free country talks about sending an army, war crime level violence.

        1. What do you mean ‘free country?’

      2. They’ll violently attack anyone they perceive as fascists. FTFY

        1. Do you think that exposing closeted fascists to their employers is violently attacking them?

          1. Define “fascist”. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

            1. Ask antifa how they define fascist if that’s what you’re interested in. My personal thumbnail definition is right wing authoritarian nationalist. I imagine antifa’s is not all that different, Check for yourself if you are curious. (Though anitifa doesn’t seem to speak with one voice. I don’t think they have a website or twitter account to act as a clearing house of party central so to speak. Remember they are anarchists.)

  16. “Actual violence leaves people with brain damage, nightmares, disability, and trauma.”
    Destroying someone’s livelihood can have these effects as well. By this definition it also qualifies as violence. It is frankly stunning to see the culture watch this economic destruction and respond not just with a shrug but with open hostility to it’s victims.

    1. It’s called cutting off the nose to spite the face. It’s a self destructive behavior pattern in failing societies. When fear, resentment, anger and frustration become the dominant motivations.

    2. Who is responding to property damage “with a shrug”?
      Maybe there are a few whackjobs who are, but I can’t see that as “the culture” responding that way.

      I think part of the point here is to point out that destruction of property is qualitatively different from physical harm to a human being. Call them both violent, that is fair, but don’t treat them as equivalent.

      1. All the people on Twitter, Facebook and the talking heads on tv rolling their eyes at people wanting the economies to open back up? Tony etc. saying it was just white people wanting to get perms and go to Applebee’s and protesting because of that?

        1. I was referring to the context of the police misconduct protests.
          I don’t see anyone saying that the damage to property caused by the protests is ‘no big deal’, except perhaps a few very fringey types.

          1. Well because you dispose of information you dont like. Many politicians and media members have dismissed the arson while claiming, as you do, the protests are peaceful. They call the fucking CHOP region a summer love festival for fucks sake. Theyve stated multiple times damage can simply be fixed so not a big deal. They are cheering on the destruction of statues.

            You’re honestly blind.

            1. Many politicians and media members have dismissed the arson while claiming, as you do, the protests are peaceful.

              Who has “dismissed the arson”? Give a citation. Name names.

              They call the fucking CHOP region a summer love festival for fucks sake.

              “They” is only one person, the mayor, back when it looked a lot more like some hippie gathering rather than what it inevitably turned into. And she very obviously changed her mind when she sent in the police to clear it out.

              Here is someone who compared CHAZ with the Burning Man festival, and not in a complimentary way. She didn’t call them violent thugs.


              They are cheering on the destruction of statues.

              That is about the only thing that you’ve stated that is accurate. To the extent that the statues were of Confederate traitors and on public property, I’m cheering it on too! They should never have been put up in the first place.

              1. You should’ve never been born.
                I’m cheering for your death, hopefully sooner rather than later

      2. If I take all your shit and burn it, I have done more violence to you than if I punched you once. I have left you without shelter or substance. That is far more harmful than a black eye.

        Stop pretending other people’s property is meaningless.

        1. Stop lying about me, asshole. I never said ‘other people’s property is meaningless’. That is you being a lying asshat as usual. I said that violence against property is qualitatively different than violence against people. And it is. Punching you in the eye would cause you actual physical pain. Burning your stuff would not.

          1. That is an meaning without a difference. and likewise being denied shelter can lead to physical issues you raging fucktard. But apparent harm from the elements doesnt exist in your sophist world.

            1. When you claim that I “pretend” that “other people’s property is meaningless”, that is a LIE on your part. You are a liar, Team GOP Water Boy.

              That is an meaning without a difference.

              No it is not. Show me one example of violence resulting in property destruction, that was not also simultaneously a physical injury, in which the victim felt physical pain. Just one.

              If it was “a meaning without a difference” (I think you meant ‘a distinction without a difference’, you baboon), then why does the law tend to treat violent crimes resulting in personal injury much more severely than violent crimes that do not?

              Your problem is that you just cannot think about these issues in an abstracted sense. “Violence is violence” is about as far as you get with your cognitive abilities.

              You are a sad little man who derives self-worth by sycophancy to Team Red and can only respond with insults and lies when you are outclassed.

              and likewise being denied shelter can lead to physical issues you raging fucktard. But apparent harm from the elements doesnt exist in your sophist world.

              So let’s see. If you burn down my house (something I’m sure you would really love to do), does that by itself cause physical harm to me? No. So, let’s suppose that after burning down my house, it gets really cold and I freeze to death because I have no shelter. That would really fill your heart with joy, wouldn’t it? What would then be the cause of my death? Would the coroner write “cause of death: burnt house”? No. Think hard, Jesse, but I think even you can come up with the answer.

              Your idea however does bring up some interesting legal theories. If a man is evicted by a landlord, becomes homeless, and dies on the streets, can the man’s former landlord be charged with murder?

    3. US prosperity is so large that it’ll linger for a while. Wait until 2025…

  17. “White Silence Is Violence” sounds like something a middle school boy might say about his friend’s quiet flatulence.

  18. “It’s good to pause every year and think about how we are completely and utterly dependent on the government for everything,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

    “We have to give up all our rights to the government to find out how dependent we can be.”

  19. Destroying property is not in and of itself a violent act. The word “violence” should be reserved for harm done to people. Otherwise, we risk making the term conceptually incoherent and—much more importantly—conflating acts that do very serious physical harm to people with acts that have not physically harmed anyone.

    That is from Nathan Robinson’s linked article. I don’t agree with his conclusion, but I think he has a point – if you burned down my house, vs. if you chopped off my arm, both would be acts of violence, but they would be very qualitatively different. Property can be replaced, arms can’t. Protests which result in property damage but no physical harm to anyone, should be regarded as qualitatively different from protests which result in personal physical harm to individual people. They are both wrong, they are both violent, but they belong in two different categories of wrongness IMO.

    That is also what the law concludes as well, btw – property damage is not generally regarded as a severe a crime as physical dismemberment.

    1. Wealth is time. It takes time to build wealth and an instant to destroy it. Destruction of property is theft of time. You can’t grow back an arm, sure. And you can’t get back the years it took to build wealth that is destroyed by protestors. You can build it again, but now you’re working twice for the same thing.

      To say property destruction isn’t violence is to dismiss the time and effort that can never be replaced.

      1. ^THIS^

      2. Good post.

      3. Exactly right. Destroying property destroys the labor of those that that built it. Ever heard of the broken window fallacy? When you destroy someones labor you destroy the wealth created and you can’t get it back.

    2. Chem….I think many miss the ultimate point here. Language is comprised of words that have meaning. Thoughts are composed of words in your mind. The battle to define language is really a battle over free thought and reason.

      WRT our government, the primary function of our government is to protect life, liberty and property. This effort to re-educate American society will erode our protections to the point of being meaningless.

      At that point, why bother having a government if they are not going to protect our lives, our God-given civil liberties, and our property (which represents the tangible expression of our labor)? Even our Founders acknowledge this. Thank God we have a POTUS who sees this, and pushes back on this utter tripe.

      1. I did not say that property destruction wasn’t violence. But it is a qualitatively different type of violence than personal injury.

        And our president is not some philosophical genius. He sits in his bunker and tweets about how he is the ‘real victim’ here.

        1. Again with the fucking sophistry. You’re a sad person.

          1. Definition of sophistry
            1: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

            What precisely is “sophistry” about my claim, that there is a qualitative difference between violence resulting in property damage, vs. violence that results in personal injury?

            Go ahead and spell it out for us, if you can.

            1. I believe you can’t see it.
              You’re psychotic.
              You’re a miserable person who (rightly) hates himself but is too much of a coward to accept personal responsibility, thus you have to collectivize your perspective to craft more and more convoluted delusions to avoid dealing with the truth that you are inherently worthless.
              Have fun with that

    3. Property can be replaced, arms can’t.

      Yes, replace that family photo album of the kids growing up. Burn the house down so they have no shelter. Cancel them so they can have no job to regain lost possessions.

      You’re a fucking idiot.

      1. Tell me, Jesse, is it difficult to wake up every morning and find new ways to compromise your own integrity in the service of mindlessly defending Team Red? Or does that come naturally to you?

        1. What integrity am I sacrificing dummy? Saying destruction of property is bad, especially u replaceable property?

          God you’re just dumb. And I think you know this, but wont just publicly admit it

          1. The integrity you sacrifice on a daily basis serving as Team GOP’s water boy. I expect you must be getting paid for your abject submission to Team Red, right? Is it enough to make up for the loss of dignity that you suffer?

            1. So much projection.
              Maybe you want to switch it up to denying that BLM and antifa are Marxist orgs?

        2. Ad hominem attack, personal foul, 15 yards. Replay the comment.

          In other words, if you can’t reply to his substance, you LOSE.

          1. Ad hominem attack, personal foul, 15 yards.

            I guess that would place Jesse on the -700,000 yard line.

      2. You are a tribalistic moron who argues against plain truth if it is uttered by the ‘wrong side’.

        1. What plain truth dummy? That destruction of private property is bad?

          Lol. God damn man, stop digging just to defend your leftist protestors.

          1. Property can be replaced, arms can’t.

            Do you agree or disagree?
            If you agree, why are you even arguing with me about it?
            Oh I know, because “scoring a point for Team Red” is more important to you.

            1. Your property can be replaced is as ignorant as saying liberty can be restored so it’s not that big a deal if we toss innocent people in jail for decades. At scale it’s the same thing, irreplacable things are gone forever and the investment made (or wasted) is destroyed and cannot be regained. You’re a malicious, evil POS if you hold to that at any but the most trivial of degrees.

              1. Except nowhere did I ever say that property destruction is “not that big a deal”.

                Violence resulting in property damage is bad. But it is bad in a different way than violence resulting in personal injury is bad. I don’t care how many irreplaceable heirlooms are lost forever by some vandal. The act itself of destroying irreplaceable heirlooms does not cause the victim *physical pain*. Emotional pain? Sure. But not the physical sensation of pain associated with a physical injury. Is destroying irreplaceable heirlooms bad? Yes. Is it violence? Yes. Is it the same as causing someone physical pain? No.

                I swear, sometimes you all just pick fights and arguments with me for no good reason.

                1. What is the point of you making a distinction between property damage and physical damage, Chemjeff? Do you think anarchists burning down buildings now have public safety in mind? “Destroy structures, but spare lives”?

                  You’re making a vacuous comparison of two concepts in a total vacuum. If a band of lunatic burned down every building in a city, the effect on society would be profound, and it would silly to think that it would not result in physical harm to citizens. And it would be even sillier to undercut the gravity and scale of that situation by saying “But objectively that’s not worse than North Koreans getting beaten to death in a gulag because you know, physical damage and stuff”

                  Would you go to a black person who’s grieving over rioters destroying his business and say “cheer up, this is nothing compared to you getting shot by a cop”? Again, what’s the point?

                  If the current state of riots did not result in a single fatality, it would entirely appropriate for society to condemn them. If they burned out every grocery stores and took down every supply truck, people will starve and die from resulting diseases. But they’re just property, right?

                  You seem like an literate person, but 90% of the time you’re not intellectually honest in your argument. You often take a stubborn and arbitrary position (like your insistence that a nation’s border enforcement cannot be likened to private property in any form), and the community calls you out, you play victim.

                  1. What is the point of you making a distinction between property damage and physical damage, Chemjeff?

                    That should be “a distinction between property damage and personal injury”.

                    Because people are more important than things.

                    Because, all else equal, an individual suffering a personal injury has suffered a worse calamity than a person suffering property damage.

                    No I am not talking about absurd extremes like “burning down an entire city vs. someone getting a hangnail”.

                    And the law agrees with me. In general, crimes that result in personal injury are treated far more harshly than crimes that result only in property damage but no personal injury. Just look at how the crime of arson is treated. In most places, a person guilty of arson would get a sentence of a few years if there was only property damage, but might get 20+ years or even life in prison if someone was injured or killed.

                    Referring to willful destruction of property as a violent crime is totally fine. Referring to willfully harming another person as a violent crime is also totally fine. What is not totally fine is flip-flopping between the two as if they were equivalent.

                    You seem like an literate person, but 90% of the time you’re not intellectually honest in your argument.

                    This is complete bullshit. I am absolutely intellectually honest in the arguments that I actually present. But just look at the current discussion. I make a point that violent crime against people vs. things is qualitatively different, and some dishonest people jump down my throat claiming that I believe “property is meaningless”. That is a lie, I never said anything of the sort. I am not responsible for the fake arguments that others try to stuff into my mouth.

                    (like your insistence that a nation’s border enforcement cannot be likened to private property in any form)

                    The argument is simple. I have a right to enforce the borders of my property because it is mine. I own it. I don’t have a right to enforce the borders of my neighbors’ properties, because I don’t own theirs. If you believe that the national government has a right to defend the borders of the entire nation in analogy with private property rights, then this necessarily implies that it is the national government that owns all the property and is exercising its property rights over all the property. And if you think the government owns all the property, then that is literal socialism. If that is the argument that you want to hang your hat on, then go right ahead, but be prepared for some uncomfortable conclusions.

  20. BLM is 99% rich white prog virtue signaling. They do not give a shit about black owned businesses and livelihoods being destroyed.

    1. Exactly!! They all go back to their leafy suburbs and hang out at the country club where they share stories of the slight smell of tear gas.

    2. Get your BLM mugs here

    3. BLM’s leadership is openly marxists. They have clearly stated their goals are for upheaval of the capitalist system.

      This is nothing more than the Womans march overtaken by radicals like Sarsour and the useful idiots protesting and giving the leadership power.

      Once it becomes obvious to the opiates masses what BLM actually is, and BLM eats each other from the inside, it will collapse like the Womans marches.

      1. BLM won’t go away until police misconduct issues are actually addressed in a substantive way.

        You can scream MARXIST!!! all you want, it won’t matter.

        1. I’m not the one screaming marxists you ignorant fuck. The literal leaders of the BLM organization did.

        2. “We actually do have an ideological frame,” Cullors said. “Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers.

          “We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories and I think that what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

          Do you understand now you ignorant fuck? BLM’s leadership literally told you their views.

          Look jeff, do you intentionally try to be ignorant?

          It is amazing how often you operate from a frame of zero information.

          1. The only people even bringing up Marxism are people like you, trying to use it as a magic word against them to shut down all debate. “Oh, they’re MARXISTS therefore we can ignore them.” Kinda like when left-wingers call you a RACIST, in order to shut down debate.

            Argue their ideas on their merits, or lack thereof. If you cannot refute their ideas without bringing up the bogeyman scare word of MARXISM then that is on you.

            1. As Jesse pointed out, BLM is advertising the fact that they are promoting a Marxist agenda. So let’s argue on the merits. Marxist ideology in it’s various mutations is the cause of the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings in the last century. If you see some merit in mass slaughter of innocent people I’d like to hear your argument. Marxism isn’t a “scare word”. It’s a real thing . A guy wrote a book about it and BLM thinks it’s a really good idea. If BLM is really interested in ending the WOD and the police state I’m 100% on board. But when they openly admit that their agenda is actually promoting an ideology that inevitably leads to death and destruction I’m out.

              1. BLM is advertising the fact that they are promoting a Marxist agenda.

                Where? Where is this advertising taking place?

                All Jesse can do is dredge up some old YouTube clips. If that is “advertising” then BLM should fire their PR team.

                Evidently three of the BLM founders are Marxists. Fine, I can accept that at face value. I don’t like Marxism. I think it’s a pretty terrible idea. But I also think that what BLM stands for has gone beyond what those three founders believe, and furthermore, I also think that right-wing demagogues like Jesse are all too happy constructing false or misleading narratives about BLM so they don’t have to confront the real, non-Marxist problems and issues that BLM brings to the discussion. It is much easier to scare people about scary Marxists rather than have a nuanced discussion about police reform. And that is what I believe to be the Team Red strategy here.

                1. But I also think that what BLM stands for has gone beyond what those three founders believe…

                  Nonsense. BLM has grown because the founders have recruited an army of useful idiots. But if the marchers and rioters on the ground succeed in terrorizing their way to a seat at the negotiating table, it will be the Marxists at the top who occupy that seat.

        3. Police misconduct issues won’t be solved by defunding the police (lower paid cops will be even worse), or by electing more Democrats (they were already running the worst cities for the past 50 years.) Police misconduct can be reduced by getting rid of police unions, or at least declawing them (stop allowing political donations by public employee unions would help, as would putting disciplinary review for bad cops in the hands of citizen commissions instead of the unions.)

    4. They do not fgive a shit about black lives either.

      Nor civil rights.

      The next time some gangbanger guns down a bunch of kids in front of a school during a drive-by, many of these same people who called for defunding the police will say that only the police should have assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

      And they will not answer if asked where the police will go to confiscate assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

    5. They will however, complain that minority neighborhoods are “underserved” by a variety of types of business in a few years, without remembering what happened to the ones they used to have.

      And then they will complain about a lack of represenation in corporate advertising campaigns and logos, after purging all the existing ones.

  21. The problem we’re facing is a coroprate-controlled world that uses its media (all media is owned by billionaires and mega corps) to manipulate us like game pieces. Global warming, BLM, Covid are all media created to control us. My Fortune 500 company is seeing profits during all this. Wall Street is in the black. Fauci is part of the demonology.

    1. This has happened before.

      In 2016, there was major focus on police violence, systemic racism. People were claiming that police were waging war on black citizens.

      The next year, some lowlife gangbanger guns down a bunch of kids in school.

      That was when concerns over systemic racism and police brutality suddenly disappeared, and the police were trusted to enforce “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation to protect us from the street thug and the gangbanger.

    2. The people I’ve especially lost respect for are the ones who supported (and continue to support) lockdowns while their standard of living didn’t take a hit of any kind without a thought about the unseen destruction it’s causing to millions.

      Apparently, a family of four who earn a life through a family restaurant have to pay the price to save granny while Karen and Todd who work from home for a Fortune 500 company wearing their masks think they’re sacrificing and ‘saving lives’.

      Those people are the worst.

  22. Orwell was a genius. “War is peace” = Violence is silence. And then there’s the NY Times declaring looting and rioting are NOT violence. Welcome to 1984. The left uses it as a text book instead of a warning.

    1. “And then there’s the NY Times declaring looting and rioting are NOT violence. ”

      Except they’re not. Welcome to 1984.

      There’s an interesting debate on youtube
      Which is more prescient, Brave New World or 1984. I agree with Will Self who argued for BNW. 1984 was actually more a commentary on 1948 (the year it was written) than any attempt to predict the future.

      1. Where do you live? I’d love to come over and not do violence to everything that you own.

        1. Have I ever told you how rewarding conversation with you is? I didn’t think so.

  23. Meanwhile, the government of Virginia orders a large American flag removed from a Richmond construction site because it might become a target for demonstrators.

  24. Not just words are violent, silence is violence too according to the sign.

    But stealing and breaking windows and lighting buildings on fires is mostly peaceful protesting. Peacefully helping yourself to shoes or TVs, peacefully letting the outside air into closed businesses, and peacefully watching flames destroy what little was left of the small businessman’s dream after the state governments shut them down for months.

  25. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.ESd I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

    For more details………………Click For Full Details.

  26. I wonder what NYT would have to say about a poster reading —
    Black Peoples Science is Violence….
    Only White People Matter….

    1. Victims are beyond reproach.

    2. Now you’re just being silly.

  27. “,,, writes Nathan J. Robinson at the socialist magazine Current Affairs. “Actual violence leaves people with brain damage, nightmares, disability, and trauma. The destruction of human bodies is a moral horror that simply cannot exist in the same category as the breaking of objects. Using the word ‘violence’ to describe the smashing of a window (which is, it should not need saying, incapable of feeling pain) diminishes the term.”

    Socialists should know. They’re experts in mass murder.

  28. I’ll just leave this here.

  29. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Skills Required. FEd Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot..

    Heres what I do… Read More.

  30. Modern BLM radicals follow the script written by the epitome of White Patriarchy, Karl Marx, who would never shut up.

  31. Wow, Reason, if only some peoples had informed you about the real intentions of the people behind those “peaceful” protests before! If only…

  32. People put their labor to acquire property. Those who damage property to the point where is loses value enslaves the person who worked to acquire that property. Therefore, property destruction is violence.

    1. Or Read a fucking dictionary.

      “ Definition of violence
      1a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy”

      1. If you think dictionary definitions should change then you are already caught in a circular loop of faulty logic.

        If the meaning of words should change then any argument you make has changed before you can even deliver it.

        All past present and future recorded information, all science and logic becomes meaningless, erased like the statues that are being torn down.

        Maybe that’s your goal.

        After all, if you’re too stupid to understand the meaning of anything, the only way to compete is to make everything meaningless for everyone.

  33. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here….Click For Full Details.

  34. This is Really Good oputunity for everyone who wana make a big amount at home own laptop And make your family happy so can u do……Read More

  35. Thank you, Reason, for not capitalizing the word “black”. I don’t know how the capitalization came about, but it is a terrible thing.

    Progressives are really good at othering black people while posing as their defenders.

  36. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…..Click For Full Details.

Comments are closed.