They'll use whatever methods they'd have resorted to beforehand, obviously. If that's beating then it's beating, if it's water cannons it's water cannons, if it's rubber bullets it's rubber bullets, if it's nothing it's nothing. Probably a mix of these.
What is the point of this conversation again? Oh right, according to you they were going to get steamrolled by tanks and shot if that fails. No, I don't think that's what would happen, not in Serbia specifically right now. Is it possible they'll get there? Sure. Just not the likely option, for now. Does having a sound cannon rule that option out? Also no. But ultimately I don't know why anyone would even entertain such an outcome, short of them somehow enjoying the thought of people suffering or dying. Which I'm pretty sure is why you were asked by that other user, whatever the fuck is wrong with you.
But let's go even further! Are there potential benefits to using something like a sound cannon as opposed to the aforementioned? I can certainly think of a few. But instead of bringing those up and actually characterizing the topic further, you were entirely too busy trying to ridicule and mock whoever you could, and try to frame others as wanting people's deaths. Was having a discussion on this ever really a goal for you at all? Is this how you discuss other things with other people too?
> Your goal is to promote awareness of the immoral use of force. Don't get distracted from your propaganda aim.
Is mind reading part of your "presenting facts and making arguments" repertoire, or how do you know what my goals and aims are? Do you really think garbage like this is not why you're so often downvoted, rather than not having popular takes or presenting unpopular facts? Surely one cannot be so out of touch, nor stupid? And we both wrote at length how stupid we regard each other.
Speaking of stupid, do you not think of your own words as propaganda or something? Surely you're familiar with what the term means, right? [0] [1]
> Getting into attack mode over nothing distracts from your goal.
Is this an acknowledgement that you said nothing of substance so far?
> is - or should be - your goal.
But two paragraphs prior you say my goal is to "promote awareness of the immoral use of force"? Is the mind reading machine broken? Or is this one of those where you divine an opinion (such that "calmly presenting my position and repeating it over and over" and "promoting awareness of the immoral use of force" are equivalent) and present it as universal truth all over again, like you did with the false dichotomy scenario of "sound cannon vs. tanks/guns"?
Or they fire warning shots and arrest everyone?