That’s not whataboutism — that’s pointing out that your definition of violent uprising is ridiculously broad;
It’s not /my/ definition, it’s the dictionary’s…
And this isn’t about what protests I believe in, but let’s dig into that just a bit. Are you really trying to equate a protests/riots against systematic racism, for gay rights, or against racism/assassination of MLK JR with a riot based on lie? I’m sorry but I’m not interested in debating those on level ground.
Are you really trying to equate a protests/riots against systematic racism, for gay rights, or against racism/assassination of MLK JR with a riot based on lie?
I think I’ve been very clear that I’m not equating anything to anything. It may be a useful exercise to review what was written as-is, without assigning arbitrary assumptions to underly it.
Your definition of an uprising equates all of these things together, even if you didn’t intend it, because your definition is ridiculously vague.
Essentially, you’ve gone into the deep-end of no-true-Scotsman — a protest constitutes a violent uprising, if a policeman is injured, and heads of state are verbally threatened, and if and only if that protest is the Capitol Hill protest (so as to exclude all other protests that do not meet the prior criteria).
If you exclude that last clause, it’s hard not to find a protest constituting an uprising. Not because I’m being overly pedantic, but because five dead at a protest is a fairly mundane protest, and fighting with the police is basically a requirement of any protest, as is calling for the deaths of everyone in charge, as far as US protests go.
MLK and Ghandi are famous because they avoided it — because avoiding violence at a protest is abnormal; you expect fights with the police (or whatever relevant authority) at any protest… it’s basically tablestakes (because someone always starts something, with enough of a crowd). That such violence occurs does not immediately elevate it to the level of “uprising”, because then you would have no protests/riots anywhere — just uprisings.
Comments
It’s not /my/ definition, it’s the dictionary’s…
And this isn’t about what protests I believe in, but let’s dig into that just a bit. Are you really trying to equate a protests/riots against systematic racism, for gay rights, or against racism/assassination of MLK JR with a riot based on lie? I’m sorry but I’m not interested in debating those on level ground.
I think I’ve been very clear that I’m not equating anything to anything. It may be a useful exercise to review what was written as-is, without assigning arbitrary assumptions to underly it.
Your definition of an uprising equates all of these things together, even if you didn’t intend it, because your definition is ridiculously vague.
Essentially, you’ve gone into the deep-end of no-true-Scotsman — a protest constitutes a violent uprising, if a policeman is injured, and heads of state are verbally threatened, and if and only if that protest is the Capitol Hill protest (so as to exclude all other protests that do not meet the prior criteria).
If you exclude that last clause, it’s hard not to find a protest constituting an uprising. Not because I’m being overly pedantic, but because five dead at a protest is a fairly mundane protest, and fighting with the police is basically a requirement of any protest, as is calling for the deaths of everyone in charge, as far as US protests go.
MLK and Ghandi are famous because they avoided it — because avoiding violence at a protest is abnormal; you expect fights with the police (or whatever relevant authority) at any protest… it’s basically tablestakes (because someone always starts something, with enough of a crowd). That such violence occurs does not immediately elevate it to the level of “uprising”, because then you would have no protests/riots anywhere — just uprisings.