522
FBI adds LA protester to its ‘Most Wanted’ list for damaging government vehicles
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
522 points (98.9% liked)
News
30180 readers
4896 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wait, you're arguing with me because of what someone else said?
I said agitators aren't a conspiracy theory. You asked why I thought the violence from the protestors was "impossible". I said I didn't think that, and it's obviously possible and now you're upset that I used the word "possible"?
🙄oh, go fuck yourself. If you're getting to that level of nitpicking you aren't actually doing anything but looking for argument, unless you're actually so brain damaged that you think that all nonviolent protest is just "parades". Just in case: in this context, trouble is a word used and understood by native English speakers to mean "undirected violence and destruction perpetrated for it's own sake".
Not upset, and I do think I misread your list of reasons for why someone would be a 'violent protester' as an exhaustive list when you did not mean it as such. My point about priors still stands but you are correct that it is mostly directed at badbytes. What were you trying to communicate with your first comment if not re-enforcing badbytes message?
I appreciate this, however this definition runs opposite to your usage above about how police/accelerationists "came to the protest to cause trouble". Your usage there was to communicate "directed violence perpetrated for political sake".
The word "violence" is a bit murky here and I'm not sure I agree on it's inclusion in the definition of "trouble" however with how obstruction and vandalism are considered "violent" by police I stand by the statement that:
You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They're not, which was the point of my comment.
People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you're replying to.
Instead of assuming what I'm saying based on where it is in the thread you might try reading the actual words.
Agitators by definition are conspiritors, by definition making it a conspiracy. Try reading the actual words I wrote, I never said conspiracy theory which i understand has the connotation of false/crazy/unsubstantiated belief and I think you're confusing that with what was actually said.
Yes, but I don't understand what you're trying to communicate. What is your point?
I believe this is the third or fourth time I've clearly stated my point, so I'm going to start copying from previous comments to save you the trouble of scrolling.
In the context, conspiracy theory seemed the more likely meaning, since being pedantic about the word would mean most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.
Asking incredulously if someone really thinks the police are more likely to conspire to violence than people there under guise of peaceful protest is a level of naivete that I didn't assume.
But you are correct, I didn't interpret your words strictly literally, and assumed you didn't know about agitators rather than reading your comment as the naive defense of police it otherwise appeared to be.
If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.
The distinction I'm making is the "secret/secretly" part of the definition. A protest is not meant to be secret, infiltrating one is.
Why do you perceive combatting the myth of 'police as tactical geniuses who are highly adept at infiltrations' as defense of police?
My argument is simply that an individual demonstrating agency in a stressfull moment seems far more likely than an elaborate 5d chess tactical trap set by police. Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?
After saying over and over, you seem to have finally gotten it! Congratulations!
You vastly overestimate how much effort it takes to "wear jeans and a t shirt, go over there and throw stuff".
Up until now you haven't mentioned anything about any myths you're combating, so.... You kinda just came across as someone standing up for the noble police who would never stoop to trickery to find an excuse for violence.
When your argument consistently lines up with the actual fascists, people might mistake you for one when you give no other context. (Consistently arguing that it's protestors causing violence is literally the argument being used to justify violence). Doubly so when you respond to the hint that left protest organizers try to keep violence in check, so it's notable when it does happen with a "why do you think protest violence is impossible?".
Makes you sound like a bootlicker toeing the line.
I don't care. Basically everything else you wrote is arguing against something I never said or implied.
Do you believe that using strong language and massively over exaggerating the slightest wrong interpretation of what someone said, or what you'd rather they had said, makes you the literal second coming of rhetorical Jesus?
How did you get that? No, fuck the police and peace police too.