No, this is just rioting. That’s not to say rioting is bad, it got redlining and segregated neighborhoods banned, and is an important part of peaceful demonstrations, as it shows what the consequences will be if they don’t give into your demands.
No. It’s not “just rioting”. Try that again without the value judgment.
We see this type of hidden judgement on a regular basis. The key words are “just” and “only”. It’s an annoyingly effective rhetorical device, because the statement looks like an objective description of things when it’s not.
Often, descriptors like simply, only, just, etc. are used to diminish or manage perceptions of dissent.
However, saying ‘no it’s just a riot’ in this case is merely accurate grammar, as it’s applying needed nuance and limits to the definition of civil disobedience.
As you pointed out, this is partly a matter of interpretation. So opinions could reasonably vary, and I respect that.
I believe it’s clear enough that in this case, saying that the situation is just a riot, is a way of taking focus away from the other things that were happening. Perhaps it wasn’t a riot and then turned into one, and maybe we should be focusing on what happened first. Or perhaps there was a riot happening along with something else, and that second thing is worth mentioning.
No, this is just rioting. That’s not to say rioting is bad, it got redlining and segregated neighborhoods banned, and is an important part of peaceful demonstrations, as it shows what the consequences will be if they don’t give into your demands.
No. It’s not “just rioting”. Try that again without the value judgment.
We see this type of hidden judgement on a regular basis. The key words are “just” and “only”. It’s an annoyingly effective rhetorical device, because the statement looks like an objective description of things when it’s not.
What hidden value judgement? I pointed out that rioting or other violent action, or at least the credible threat of, is necessary for any progress.
You’re both right.
Often, descriptors like simply, only, just, etc. are used to diminish or manage perceptions of dissent.
However, saying ‘no it’s just a riot’ in this case is merely accurate grammar, as it’s applying needed nuance and limits to the definition of civil disobedience.
As you pointed out, this is partly a matter of interpretation. So opinions could reasonably vary, and I respect that.
I believe it’s clear enough that in this case, saying that the situation is just a riot, is a way of taking focus away from the other things that were happening. Perhaps it wasn’t a riot and then turned into one, and maybe we should be focusing on what happened first. Or perhaps there was a riot happening along with something else, and that second thing is worth mentioning.