

Why do you think that? Because I’m trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?
Why do you think that? Because I’m trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?
It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”
Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.
It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.
Only if you’re shorting them to further a political goal.
He didn’t say “swasticars.” He said “property.” Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.
My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it’s just property damage.
What if I blew up a water tower?
Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)
In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That’s harm.
Maybe not a lot of harm. But it’s harm.
It’s honestly not too bad an idea, provided they are old enough.
I have no expectation of inheriting anything. Between medical bills and consumer debt, and the fact that my family is poor as shit anyway, there will be nothing to inherit. They might as well run that credit card debt up, because it dies with them.
I might feel differently if I had any reason whatever to feel bad about cheating credit card companies out of their money, but banks and financiers as a whole address not on my list of favorite people.
I’ve failed those before, probably because I move rather mechanically. I’ve tried deliberately putting delays and random mouse movements while don’t them.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.