Read on Twitter
There is this weird sub debate in the U.S. that leftists always pull after a riot where they look for outside elements such as agent provocateurs to blame for private or public property damage. Shit happens during riots and looking for absolution negates the voice of the rioter.
When you commit a crime to express your voice, that is a challenge to society; the status quo, similar to when Anonymous destroys a website, we don't go around pretending some outside element caused us to choose that expression. We are all responsible for our actions and choices.
A riot is apolitical; while we'd like to project our own anger onto it, it is ultimately a rioter's expression to choose how they define their voice and actions. If they robbed a liquor store that's just someone robbing a liquor store, it's not driven by anger but opportunity.
A riot isn't holy and a rioter isn't a sanctified manifestation of anger or the oppressed. We choose to add our narratives as an overlay to their voices. It is a raw expression of discontent and a tool for those who feel powerless, feral, and/or looking for an adrenaline fix.
Riots are necessary and destructive if provoked under the correct circumstance to shake the status quo's passive endoreality and shock authorities into some sort of action, which isn't always in our best interest. Overall, it is only one way to express ourselves and nothing more.
