I'm consistent: I reject all violence and all crime, and would never partake in any; I never have, in fact, even in situations where others did. But I hate inconsistency, which we see in 90 % of people : when it's a cause they agree with, they say "well it was a small number, most people were peaceful, and you can't blame the leaders for the elements who took matters into their own hands". But when it's a cause they disagree with, they go "see what happens when [insert idea or movement] is allowed? We get this."
It's just a matter of justice and intellectual honesty, which I put above all else. In the same way I won't blame a peaceful man who takes part in a BLM protest because antifa thugs decide to use the opportunity to smash up the windows of a local shop, I won't ascribe to millions of Trump voters, and to thousands of protesters, or even to the people who stormed Congress (which is certainly a lesser crime than homicide), the violent acts that lead to a man's death.
But such regard for intellectual honesty seems in such sort supply on both sides.
It's just a matter of justice and intellectual honesty, which I put above all else. In the same way I won't blame a peaceful man who takes part in a BLM protest because antifa thugs decide to use the opportunity to smash up the windows of a local shop, I won't ascribe to millions of Trump voters, and to thousands of protesters, or even to the people who stormed Congress (which is certainly a lesser crime than homicide), the violent acts that lead to a man's death.
But such regard for intellectual honesty seems in such sort supply on both sides.