> To determine, if the aggressors potentiall will do more than bloody noses in the future. This is one of the jobs of the police
That's the question at the heart of the matter: What are the parameters, in your opinion? Can they just investigate dissent on the basis of a bloody nose, based on their own judgment? I think we need narrow restrictions, including objective reasons, or they can quash dissent just through intimidation of investigation.
> if a group of people celebrates violence, then violence is de facto part of their mission.
Maybe they are some drunk or otherwise thoughtless people, or people just lost in mob psychology - the norms of the moment, or over-excited?
Have you been to a protest? IME, most people don't really know much about what's going on and they have no direction or organization. They wander around looking for something to do; you can't really see what's happening - all the other people's heads are at your eye level; if people cheer, others cheer without knowing why. The news clips pick out a tiny fraction of the area for a tiny fraction of time.
I've been to protests where violence occurred that you likely saw on TV. I oppose the violence, but it was a few people in a tiny corner of the protest. My guess is that they wanted attention and had an audience. It had nothing to do with 99.99% of the people there, almost all of whom were perfectly safe and peaceful, but that violence was all that was on TV.
> my point all along.
If you are making a point 'all along' and the other person doesn't understand, isn't that probably on you? I'd assume it's me. I could get just as frustrated as you seem to be, but I assume communication is challenging, and I expectthat we will almost always reach the point of misunderstanding, and then the best communication occurs:
That's when I learn the things that are outside my assumptions - including ones I'm not aware of - and perceptions and limitations. Because that's where the breakdown always occurs.
I just need to be curious and trust the other person knows things that are far beyond me.
Quite some. Not so much as participant for various reasons, more so as a observer.
And the pattern I observed, is the very same from left to right to environmental to whatever. And most of the protests have their own media, which acts the same across the sprectrum:
- not ever mentioning violence by the own group
- but if the own violence brings in a violent counter reaction from the police - that violence gets dramaticed "oh the evil and violent police"
And if there is violence from the own mob, the own mob will celebrate it. Or ignore it, but very seldom be stopped.
And being drunk is an explanation, not an excuse. And group psychology is a valid analysis, but it makes the group not any better. And groups can do aweful things, precisely when they individually have no idea whats going on but going "with the flow". That can flow into nasty places.
So, I am really not a fan of the police in general.
But if people cheer violence and act as a coherent group - well, then whose job is it, to investigate whether they will keep it down, if not the police? Some revolutionary council?
That's the question at the heart of the matter: What are the parameters, in your opinion? Can they just investigate dissent on the basis of a bloody nose, based on their own judgment? I think we need narrow restrictions, including objective reasons, or they can quash dissent just through intimidation of investigation.
> if a group of people celebrates violence, then violence is de facto part of their mission.
Maybe they are some drunk or otherwise thoughtless people, or people just lost in mob psychology - the norms of the moment, or over-excited?
Have you been to a protest? IME, most people don't really know much about what's going on and they have no direction or organization. They wander around looking for something to do; you can't really see what's happening - all the other people's heads are at your eye level; if people cheer, others cheer without knowing why. The news clips pick out a tiny fraction of the area for a tiny fraction of time.
I've been to protests where violence occurred that you likely saw on TV. I oppose the violence, but it was a few people in a tiny corner of the protest. My guess is that they wanted attention and had an audience. It had nothing to do with 99.99% of the people there, almost all of whom were perfectly safe and peaceful, but that violence was all that was on TV.
> my point all along.
If you are making a point 'all along' and the other person doesn't understand, isn't that probably on you? I'd assume it's me. I could get just as frustrated as you seem to be, but I assume communication is challenging, and I expectthat we will almost always reach the point of misunderstanding, and then the best communication occurs:
That's when I learn the things that are outside my assumptions - including ones I'm not aware of - and perceptions and limitations. Because that's where the breakdown always occurs.
I just need to be curious and trust the other person knows things that are far beyond me.