On "Protesters" /= "Rioters" & Portland's >2 months of nightly "protests"

To the first point, fair enough. I agree.

From CNN, today:

"Shortly after, protesters broke into the window of the office and started a fire, police said. Security video from inside the office shows unidentified people tossing flaming debris into the office to grow the flames.
Police said the people responsible committed "crimes of criminal mischief, burglary, and attempted arson." Police then declared a riot and ordered everyone to leave the area, including members of the press and legal observers.

When officers arrived to disperse the crowd, protesters threw "glass bottles and paint balloons at them," and pointed lasers into the eyes of police, police said. Three officers were injured, including two that were transported to the hospital and later released, police said."

Here's an excerpt from a CNN article a few weeks ago:

"Seattle protesters threw large rocks, bottles, fireworks and other explosives at officers Saturday, police said. Others set fire to a portable trailer and a construction site, police said in a series of tweets.

At least 45 people have been arrested on charges of assaulting officers, obstruction and failure to disperse, police said. Twenty-one officers have been injured from having projectiles thrown at them, according to police. Most officers were able to return to duty, the department's Twitter said. One officer was hospitalized with a leg injury caused by an explosive.
Police described the protest as a riot."

(Side note: This is in Seattle, not Portland. This example is to further illustrate the conflation of terms. Also, Police describe it as a riot? As in, no one else would hear a scenario like that and think "Hm, kinda sounds like a riot"...?)

Lastly, this is from CNN exactly a week ago:

"Hundreds of people gathered and marched on Saturday in Portland, Oregon, marking the 66th night of Black Lives Matter protests in the city, according to the Portland Police Bureau.

Police said hundreds of people gathered at the federal courthouse Saturday night to protest and hear speeches before marching through downtown. That march was peaceful, police said.

Separately, a few miles east, a group of about 200 people marched from Laurelhurst Park to the Penumbra Kelly Building, and they blocked traffic, directed lasers at officers and threw glass bottles at them, according to Portland Police.

One person in the crowd threw a glass jar or bottle filled with paint, which hit an officer in the head, police said."

So, in all fairness, I agree that "Protesting" indeed is not the same as "Rioting." This is obviously true. But it seems counterproductive to conflate the two in such brazenly ridiculous fashion, and then re-institute a distinction whenever criticisms of such "protests" emerge.

Lastly, when you have over two months of these "protests" ending the same way every single night (violence, property destruction, and arrests) at some point it might be beneficial to actually maintain the distinction between "Protest" and "Riot" so that the cause being "protested" isn't completely toxified.

Three scenarios to consider:

1) A husband spends over two months hanging out with a female coworker after work. His wife has serious objections to this, and thinks the coworker might be trying to seduce her husband. The husband responds by repeatedly telling his wife that they're "just friends." And yet, every single night the two hang out, the husband ends up sleeping with the coworker. They indeed might be acting like two people who are "just friends" for the majority of the evening. But if those interactions lead to sex, it's pretty obvious that they're not actually "just friends," and the wife's objections to them hanging out is justified.

2) A husband spends over two months hanging out with a female coworker after work. His wife has serious objections to this, and thinks the coworker might be trying to seduce her husband. The husband responds by repeatedly telling his wife that they're "just friends." Every single night the husband and coworker hang out, the husband spends half of the evening with the coworker in a strictly platonic fashion, and then leaves to spend the second half of the evening with his mistress. The wife's mistrust of the coworker is misplaced; as she isn't doing anything wrong. However, her overall mistrust of the husband is well-placed. Later in the evening, infidelity is actually occurring, there's just a different interloper engaging in with her husband in the infidelity. The coworker is innocent, and did nothing to deserve the wife's suspicions.

3) A husband spends over two months hanging out with a group of female coworkers after work. His wife has serious objections to this, and thinks that her husband's coworkers might be trying to seduce him. The husband responds by repeatedly telling his wife that they're all "just friends." Every night, the husband and coworkers hang out, and half of the coworkers go home after a few hours. Once the milder half has left, those that remain drive the husband to different singles bars. Some serve as a "wingman" for the husband, helping him meet women to cheat on his wife with. Others do indeed sleep with him. Most never actually engage in sexual activity with the husband, but rather serve as enablers and cheerleaders, as they are sympathetic to his complaints about his wife. The same group that does this enabling also repeatedly covers for the husband, actively justifying, downplaying, lying about, and making excuses for what is taking place.
The wife's suspicions of all the coworkers is not technically accurate: not all of them are trying to seduce her husband. In fact, many have a strictly innocent and platonic relationship with him. However, the wife's suspicions are not misplaced, either. Infidelity is indeed occurring, it's just more complicated than she realizes, or is willing to consider. Not everyone she thinks is an interloper is actually trying to seduce her husband. Some would never dream of such a thing. Others might enable it or cheer it on, but also aren't technically sleeping with her husband, either. And some are everything the wife thinks they are.

In the end, regardless of everyone's collective intentions that day, when night falls, someone inevitably ends up screwing her husband. And her husband's name is Portland.

🤙