Just because someone is a catalyst, I don't see how it logically and necessarily follows that 100% of the causal responsibility falls on them.

This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

Maybe the masses are upset and this is a sign of things to come, that should be listened to.

Myself, I'm a peaceful guy, if every protest I called (assuming I'm a "leader" of cause $INSERT_CAUSE_HERE ) resulted in violence, I would not call any more protests because that would go against my personal values. So it's hard to believe a group is peaceful if every time they have a protest it turns into a riot.

Would you be okay with being jailed for destruction of property because of a protest you organised that was co-opted by bad actors?

Then you could not organize any "leftist" protest in France :-) Note that they do destroy stuff, they just don't call violence against people. And definitely don't turn in riot every time

So now the state can silence you by simply sending plainclothes cops to start riots in all your protests

Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Technically, it "is on" whoever objectively plays a role in the underlying causality.

You "may" be referring to your perception of what is going on, as opposed to what is actually going on (which is unreachable).

>> This seems objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts.

> No, you just didn't liked that thing you like got attacked for the thing they did and are making up excuses.

Except I have the ability to describe the various ways in which it is (at least plausibly) objectively reductive and represents ideological beliefs as objective facts, whereas you have a much harder problem: proving that you can actually read my mind (or, are omniscient).

> Again, accidents happen, but if you are the catalyst over and over again it's on you.

Yeah, they "accidentally" carried swords, firebombs and molotov cocktails to a protest. It was an honest mistake, right? I mean, those are normal things people carry around on a daily basis, aren't they?

So should we apply the same thinking with police constantly inciting violence at protests ? At this point anytime there's a major protest in France, I consider it a win if no one in the crowd lost an eye, hand or worse, their life, from the grenades thrown by police.

So we should forbid firefighter and farmer's union ? And all leftist union ? And we should forbid any protest where people using black block technique could agree with ?

I think as long as most of the protests don't end up in violence and shop lootings they could stay.

That’s not how protests work though, is it?

What do you say to evidence that plainclothes police officers are tasked with infiltrating protests and stirring up shit?

In France, in most of the cases you don't need police officer for it, some people are willing to donage bank or fight with the police (especially after police overreacting, or being violent for free)

The fact is you don't know how will end up protest... And even when a protest end up damaging 1 mac donalds and 2 banks, most people are pacific protester... The question is how do you handle this in a democracy ?

If we'd implement what you says, you'd just found a way to systematically prevent protests. Doesnt work.

Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

> Then the state can prevent demonstrations and protests, by paying some of their own men to join as protestors and start throwing stones.

Oh, come on, as if that were a thing so common that there had been a specific word for it for nearly 200 years.

The responsibility is 100% on the police. They're the ones who are systematically coming armed to 100% of protests, they're the one gouging people eyes out, pushing people in rivers, causing limbs to be amputated, they're the ones who murdered my 80 yo neighbor during a protest. The ratio of police vs protestors injuries is about 1 vs 10.

Protesting for the survival of the planet we're all living on is not a crime it's a necessity to not go extinct.

That's not a good assessment at all. Because no one holds the government or its police to that standard.

Do you know how many problems in America regarding human rights stem from qualified immunity? Don't let that BS keep spreading.