More than that, it’s telling that the 4th screencap has its force precisely because it describes *actual violence* involving harm to people. If you want to say destroying property itself is violence, you can’t use a case involving harm to people to make your point.https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1285941682865938433 …
-
-
Replying to @jttiehen
Though I'm not sure unintentionally harming someone in an arson counts as violence any more than would, say, a death caused by a drunk driver.
64 replies 3 retweets 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @averyfjames @jttiehen
Why would somebody write an op-ed about that?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @averyfjames @jttiehen
Sigh. The point of the refusal to make the distinction b/w bodily harm and harm to property is to justify exacting "self-defensive" bodily harm on people who threaten the economic interests of the propertied. That matters a lot in the context of protest against police violence.
12 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
take the L
4:01 PM - 22 Jul 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
10 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.