Quote:
Originally Posted by Whostheboss
My point is gonna be hard for me to get across. What i'm trying to say is that, it appears that violent protesting is the quickest way to get attention.
Like as i said, i'm all for peaceful protesting but for those who sometimes protest violently, i feel their pain. When a group of people have had enough bullshit, they retaliate with a violent rally.
But in Ferguson's case, it was a peaceful protest, it did get wild at times but stupid out of state thugs came in and turned it really violent.
|
If you're saying that rioting is good at getting attention, then maybe we agree. Where we disagree is the premise that the Ferguson incident is in anyway, lacking in attention. It's being covered constantly in the media, with or without riots.
I believe they are ATTEMPTING to accomplish via rioting is change, not simply attention. I think they want to see officers punished when black people die, regardless of the details of the case. If a black person's blood is shed at white hands, they want to see them punished. Rioting doesn't give a point of view credibility. It's simply is a display of the level of anger behind said point of view.
If someone were to make the counter-argument that their position of "an eye for an eye, regardless of the details" is one of emotion and not logic, then rioting only reinforces that point. It also does so at the expense of an innocent third party.