607

submitted 4 months ago by bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 4 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.