Michael Mitchell: Archive

He answers the question. He's just wrong. The rioting must be condemned. Destroying private property isn't a fair response to systemic injustice, nor is destroying public property.

It's the difference between self-defense in the moment, when your physical well-being is threatened, and revenge, which happens later when there's no threat. In the moment, you have the right to protect yourself from harm, afterwards that's when you must delegate that right to the government, to the rule of law and not your emotional whims, justified or not. The foundation of every society or culture, civilization itself, stands or falls on this principle.

Rioting ("pussy vigilantism") actually sanctions the evil it's allegedly against. The idea -- if there actually is one and you're not merely a nihilist getting off on destroying shit -- is when peaceful protest doesn't work you have to step it up and any innocent victim caught in the crossfire is an acceptable sacrifice for a greater cause. What's the fucking point in any cause, then? If individual lives (including their property, without which no one can live) are expendable, then why not destroy your own shit, go on a hunger strike, set yourself on fire, stand for what you allegedly believe in, rather than harming others and forcing them to live with the consequences of your "beliefs"? Are you not expendable, too?

The hypocrisy of that shit is unbelievable. Rioting isn't "civil unrest". It's not civil at all. It's the "might makes right", mob mentality ruled by witch doctors, like BLM, manipulating our emotions for personal gain, pure fucking ignorance exploited by elitists -- which is why it's mostly the youth who fall for that shit -- no different than every social disaster in the history of the human world.

Without respect for the rule of law, it's anarchy, gang warfare, and the biggest gang will always win. Think...