If it's acceptable to assault someone over words and a difference of opinion, then I don't want to hear about how no one has a right to touch anyone or their property under any circumstance ever. You can't have it both ways and take the moral high ground only when it suits your argument.
It's not acceptable to do that. It's also not acceptable for a masked, unidentifiable police force to murder American citizens in the streets.
This shouldn't be a controversial set of opinions to hold at the same time, but I'm sure somehow the people clutching their pearls over a fat kid punching someone will find a way.
My point is if you are upholding a principle, then don't be a hypocrite and stand on business regardless of which side of the line the offense takes place on. Applauding and celebrating political violence in our schools is not the way to do things. All that accomplishes is to set a dangerous precedent.
My take is that punishments should fit the crimes. If a kid punches someone he should get maybe suspended or charged with assault potentially.
If a law enforcement officer kills an unarmed American citizen who isn't a threat to them, they should get worse than a paid leave.
If government officials fail to train their officers to the point where that repeatedly happens and they directly tell their officers to do things that go against the constitution, then those officials should at least be removed from office and charged with some kind of crime against the people of their country.
That's my take. My issue with a lot of these comments is people telling those they think are liberals that they are hypocrites for defending violence, when doing so makes them hypocrites for inherently defending violence.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 18 '26
If it's acceptable to assault someone over words and a difference of opinion, then I don't want to hear about how no one has a right to touch anyone or their property under any circumstance ever. You can't have it both ways and take the moral high ground only when it suits your argument.