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
 

The unidentified demonstrator allegedly threw rocks at law enforcement and damaged government vehicles, the FBI said.

As tense anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles enter their fourth day, federal officers have ramped up law enforcement’s response – and have added one protester to the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted list.’

The unidentified demonstrator has been accused of assaulting a federal officer and damaging government property during Saturday’s protest in Paramount, a city 30 miles south of Los Angeles.

The suspect allegedly threw rocks at law enforcement on Alondra Boulevard around 3:30 p.m. Saturday, “injuring a federal officer and damaging government vehicles,” according to the FBI’s Los Angeles field office. It was not immediately clear whether the officer was injured or the extent of the damage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you're replying to

Yes, but I don't understand what you're trying to communicate. What is your point?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

while it's probably not the case that it's overwhelmingly likely to be an agent provocateur, it would be unsurprising if it were that, someone there to push for escalation with no police affiliation, or just petty hooliganism.

You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They're not, which was the point of my comment.

It's not a conspiracy theory to think that someone causing trouble came to the protest solely to cause trouble, for whom or why not withstanding.

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.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.

most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.

The distinction I'm making is the "secret/secretly" part of the definition. A protest is not meant to be secret, infiltrating one is.

naive defense of police

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?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.

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.

My argument is...

I don't care. Basically everything else you wrote is arguing against something I never said or implied.

Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?

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?

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

came across as someone standing up for the noble police who would never stoop to trickery to find an excuse for violence.

How did you get that? No, fuck the police and peace police too.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago

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.