• orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 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.