kek after this "peaceful protester" is gonna never mean the same thing again

@crunklord420 I thought you were smarter than this.

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.

@alyx @crunklord420 looting in that context is a noun.

@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.

@alyx @crunklord420 yes, it's not perfect grammar (because it is ambiguous). But assuming it means something nonsensical is ridiculous, the writers clearly assumed that people reading the headline would be able to discern which of the possible meanings they meant. apparently, some people have failed that.

@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".