Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[paulpablo]

my objection with you accusing me of being on drugs is that you accused me of being on drugs for making a point which you agreed with me on just a few paragraphs beforehand.

I asked, in a sarcastic manner. If you took it seriously, I'd advise you to stay away from the Internet.

You said obviously people who do a certain action find that action justifiable by the nature that they're doing that action followed by calling me a dullard.

Yes, because both points are obvious.

Then said I must be on drugs to think that people who do a certain action must feel justified in doing that action by the nature that they're doing that action.

That's the objection with that specific drugs comment.

My apologies. I had credited you with wit enough to detect sarcasm.

I can see now that that was a mistake on my part.

---

And I'm concerned with people jumping in calling me dense while making contradictions.

When you need something explained to you several times over, you're being dense. If you don't fucking like it, read for comprehension. It's not that hard and I'm told England too has public schooling.

---

All this talk of protest and violence/nonviolence has me pining for the heady days of self immolation. 

---

---

Build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for a night.

Set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

It's not the sarcasm I object to in itself.
It's the contradiction.
You saying it's obvious someone thinks their actions are justified on the basis they're doing that action then stating that it's obvious people don't always do actions they feel are justified.

You can place your statements next to each other and it looks like you're arguing with yourself while calling yourself a dullard and accusing yourself of being on drugs.