196

16738 readers

2124 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

608

Riots rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

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.