Chris Hayes: Why Is There a Different Reaction to Peaceful Protesters Who Are Actually Peaceful Protesters and "Peaceful Protesters" We Only Call Peaceful Protesters Because It Would be Racist to Say "Rioters and Looters"?

Why, indeed? Why do we not mass arrest non-lawbreaking white people while using tear gas to disburse rioters, looters, and arsonists?

I hope John Sexton's post won't get him in trouble with Karenpundit, the Salon #Hot25 True Conservative who has long had a homoerotic crush on the archprogressive toadling and dainty-fingered bridgetroll Chris Hayes.

Hayes’ point is that the protesters in Minneapolis were treated differently because they are progressive, or maybe because they are minorities. But there’s more to the story than that. On Tuesday night, police were criticized for using tear gas and foam bullets against protesters but the mayor said the police chief took that action because some of the protesters were becoming violent and breaking into police vehicles.

Sexton adds, dryly:

There's no doubt this actually happened because there’s video of it happening.

Racist video, you mean.

They were also liberating HD TVs from bondage at Target.

And setting the Fires of Freedom, all over a car dealership.

But nah, those are Racist Facts. The obvious answer as to why protesters were treated as protesters and rioters were treated as rioters is Because Racism.

They were also attacking a police precinct, which most people who are not on CNN or MSNBC and who are not NeverTrump Very Online Virtue Signallers would admit is the level of lawlessness and violence that usually invites a touch of police attention.

By the way, FoxNews -- your "conservative" news alternative -- is also only calling the rioters and looters "protesters." I just saw a chyron stating that Minneapolis was "bracing for another night of protests."

Oh? They're worried about protests, are they?

Why do I think that's not what they're really worried about? Is that why the National Guard has been activated? To protect against further "protests"?

FoxNews, man: It's CNN with pudgier anchors.*

This is the trouble with the constant demands we pretend, and pretend, and pretend, and demands that we constantly speak in falsehoods, and that the truth is illegal and will be punished.

We start by giving in and saying, "Oh, what's the big deal if we call rioters 'protesters,' all the liberals on Twitter say that would be polite and virtuous," and we move within hours to demands that we actually treat protesters and rioters and rioters as protesters.

We're not talking about Racially Polite Euphemism any longer. Now we're talking about real-world arrests (or non-arrests) which are mandated by our original concession to join the left in its Empire of Lies.

Because The Twitter Smart-Set (TM) says it would be racist to point out that many of these "protesters" are committing actual crimes, and serious ones, and violent ones.

And what can we do at that point? We've already conceded every point leading to that conclusion.

* Obviously, Tater is excluded from consideration in this particular comparative.

posted by Ace at 06:33 PM

| Access Comments