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.
@Jack @mewmew @crunklord420
The easiest way to tell if this was the case, is if the title was quickly removed (cause someone noticed the problem) and either not used again, or corrected. But we'd need a longer section of footage to be able to tell.
@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".
It has nothing to do with ideological assumptions but with basic literacy and critical thinking.
@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.
@Jack @mewmew @crunklord420
To be fair, I probably have too little at this point.
I have zero.
Old man had a saying "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see"
@mewmew @crunklord420
Steven 
@Jack @mewmew @alyx @crunklord420 For once Mewmew isn’t going out of his way to be wrong. I’ve read multiple accounts saying there are people coming into the fray solely to direct violence and looting.
There’s actually a video of some guy strolling through breaking windows, then heading for his car. Another one of fake gunfire in news coverage. Some more conspiratorial feeling stuff too; white kids in masks giving inconsistent stories about their motives for being there, helping the harambe’s along. Probably college fags who fancy themselves Antifa rebels.
>takes white people to organise the riots
Colour me shocked
@alyx @crunklord420 @mewmew
@Jack @alyx @crunklord420 @mewmew According to Dax they’re actively directing targets of hostility, pouring water on people’s faces to mitigate tear gas. Vito wouldn’t second him on any of it but he’s a fat cuck who was staying in areas without cops so hard to say.
They need to change the type of tear gas they are using. The sprays and shit they use here only flare up more when water is applied.
@alyx @crunklord420 @mewmew
@Jack @alyx @crunklord420 @mewmew They might just be using pepper spray.
