The peaceful protesters are competing with the violent ones (who are looting, setting fires, etc) for attention.
💀
@mewmew @crunklord420
If that was their intention, I think they should have said "compete for nation's attention with rioters, looters, etc". I think you're supposed to put nouns there, not verbs.
@mewmew @crunklord420
"looters" is a noun. "looting" is a verb used as an object.
The statement basically works as a comparison. When you compare A to B, you need to make sure they're both the same thing. Either A and B are both verbs, nouns, etc. If A is a noun, and B a verb, it kinda implies A does B. Shit, even if you're taking "looting" as a noun, you're still comparing "protesters" people with "looting" an action. The comparison doesn't work right. You need to compare either 2 categories of people: "protesters" and "looters", or 2 categories of action: "protesting" and "looting".
Now, if you're ok with saying that the statement is bad grammar, I'm perfectly fine with accepting that as a plausible explanation.
@mewmew
No, the writers assumed people reading it would be of similar ideological position.
As for the meaning @crunklord420 took from this, it's not nonsensical imo. Although for his meaning, I would change the order of the words like so: "Peaceful protesters compete with looting, arson, for nation's attention".
@mewmew @alyx @crunklord420 no way man using those looting vs looters is some serious shit- deep state tricks!
@mewmew @crunklord420
Sure, you can use "using" too there, but it's not really needed. Even in my own language it is implied by using "with".
It has to do with ideology, because it biases you to frame a statement in either the best way or worst way possible. You become predisposed to interpreting something that is even slightly unclear in a particular way.
It has nothing to do with ideological assumptions but with basic literacy and critical thinking.