• @LifeInMultipleChoice
    link
    45
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The tea wasn’t owned by the mom and pop shop neighbors who were also fighting for the same cause. There is a difference to me in a large corporation sustaining damage it will recoupe from insurance and people trying to scrape by and now can’t afford rent until the hopefully if they had insurance, then maybe a check comes in a few months.

    Those places if a protestor breaks in during a riot I am fine with being shot at and even killed if need be. Your cause doesn’t give you the right to starve or put in jeopardy other people’s lives who did not choose to riot.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      Owners are owners. I can’t have too much sympathy if a group of disenfranchised people, who have never had the opportunity to own anything, don’t distinguish between hyper capitalists and regular vanilla capitalists. Both are pieces of the system that denies people the value of their labor.

      • Ataraxia
        link
        151 year ago

        That’s exactly what the government wants. They want you to eat each other not them and the corporations. Stop buying shit, stop paying for internet and cell service, stop buying cars etc. That’s the real control we have. Just be idle and watch them bail.

      • @LifeInMultipleChoice
        link
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What riots are you talking about, this discussion is about rioting needing to become more common, not a specific incident that already happened.

        That said, the deadliest listed on a quick seaxh was 1947, between 500,000-2,000,000. (Punjab, located between Pakistan and India today)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      It was explained to me as: “Your rights end where mine begin”. You have the right to protest, but you don’t have the right to infringe on my rights.