With the recent riots in France and Italy, and all the destruction that comes with them, I have some shit to say.
And honestly, what I have to say is a little different from what you might expect.
First things first: I don’t think migrants are to blame for the violence, and I’m sick of people automatically scapegoating migrants whenever something like this happens. If your first instinct is to blame an entire group of people based on their immigration status, just fucking stop. We can talk about violence, accountability, and the destruction of communities without turning migrants into convenient scapegoats.
But with that out of the way, I want to talk about something that has honestly taken me a while to think through.
I’m going to compare what’s happening with these riots to the riots that took place during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, following the murder of George Floyd.
And before anybody gets the wrong idea, I’m not saying that every BLM protestor was violent. I’m not saying that peaceful demonstrations should be equated with riots. And I’m certainly not saying that the underlying grievances behind these movements don’t matter.
What I am saying is that we need to have an honest conversation about the destruction of communities, regardless of who’s doing it, what their political beliefs are, or what cause they claim to represent.
Because I’ve come to realize something that I didn’t fully appreciate when I was younger.
Destroying your own fucking community is a problem. And it’s a much bigger problem than some people want to acknowledge.
It’s Not Just a Business. It’s Someone’s Livelihood.
Let’s start with something I’ve heard people say over and over again.
“Oh, it’s just a business. They can restock. They can rebuild. It’s not that big of a deal.”
And you know what? I used to think that way, too.
I used to think that if a business got smashed up, it could just replace whatever was damaged and get back to normal.
But here’s the thing nobody seems to want to talk about: rebuilding takes time, and it costs money.
A lot of money, sometimes.
And even if a business owner has insurance, that doesn’t magically make everything right overnight. There are claims to file, repairs to arrange, supplies to replace, employees to pay, and customers who might not be able to return until the business reopens.
And what happens when a business owner can’t afford to rebuild? What happens when insurance doesn’t cover everything? What happens when the damage is so extensive that the business never opens its doors again?
What then?
Are we just supposed to shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh well, it’s just a business”?
Fuck that.
Behind every business, there’s a story. There are people who invested their time, money, and energy into making something work. There are employees who depend on their jobs to pay their bills. There are families who rely on that income to put food on the table.
And sometimes, the business isn’t some massive corporation with endless money to throw around. Sometimes it’s a small, independent business that’s barely managing to keep its doors open.
You destroy that business, and you could destroy someone’s livelihood.
You could put people out of work. You could take away a source of income that an entire family depends on. You could leave a neighborhood without a grocery store, a pharmacy, a restaurant, or another place that people rely on every single day.
And for what?
Because you were angry?
Because you wanted to make a statement?
Because you thought smashing shit up was going to accomplish something?
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it.
Your anger doesn’t magically erase the consequences of your actions.
Destroying a Community Is Violence Against That Community
And this brings me to something even bigger.
When people talk about riots, they often focus on the immediate destruction. They talk about broken windows, burned buildings, looted stores, and damaged property.
But I think we need to look beyond the physical damage itself.
When you destroy the place where people live, work, shop, and raise their families, you’re hurting the community as a whole.
You’re not just affecting the business owner whose windows you smashed. You’re affecting the employee who might lose their job. You’re affecting the customer who depends on that store. You’re affecting the person who lives nearby and now has to deal with the aftermath.
You’re affecting people who might have absolutely nothing to do with whatever you’re protesting.
And that’s what gets me.
People can become so caught up in whatever cause they’re fighting for that they stop thinking about the ordinary people who are going to bear the consequences of their actions.
They stop seeing the community as a collection of actual human beings with their own lives, struggles, responsibilities, and problems.
Instead, the community becomes a backdrop for their anger.
And that is fucked up.
I would even go so far as to say that deliberately terrorizing a community through widespread destruction can be terroristic in its effect. I’m not making a legal classification here. I’m talking about what it means to make ordinary people fear for their safety, their livelihoods, and the places they depend on.
Because if your actions leave people afraid to go to work, afraid to visit their neighborhood businesses, or afraid of what might happen to their homes and surroundings, then you have inflicted harm that goes well beyond a broken window.
And I don’t care what political ideology you subscribe to. I don’t care what movement you support.
That harm matters.
My Thoughts on the BLM Riots of 2020
Now let’s talk about the comparison I’ve been thinking about.
Back in 2020, after George Floyd was murdered, there were massive protests across the United States calling attention to police brutality and racial injustice. Many people took to the streets peacefully to demand change, and those demands deserved to be taken seriously.
But there were also instances of rioting, looting, arson, and the destruction of businesses and property.
And I think we need to be capable of discussing that destruction without pretending that criticizing it means supporting police brutality or opposing racial equality.
Those are not the same thing.
You can believe that George Floyd deserved justice. You can believe that police brutality is a serious problem. You can believe that marginalized communities have legitimate grievances. And you can still believe that burning down a neighborhood business or smashing up a local store is wrong.
Those positions are not contradictory.
In fact, I would argue that taking the consequences of that destruction seriously is part of taking those communities seriously.
Because who lives in many of the neighborhoods affected by that destruction?
The very people who were already struggling.
People who might not have much money. People who might not have easy access to transportation. People who depend on nearby stores and services because those are the places they can actually get to.
When a neighborhood loses businesses, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The damage can make existing problems worse.
And the people who suffer aren’t necessarily the people who caused the damage.
That’s the part I want people to think about.
If you claim to care about a community, you should care about what happens to that community after the cameras leave.
You should care about whether people can still get their groceries. You should care about whether employees can still earn a living. You should care about whether the local business owner can afford to reopen.
You should care about what happens next.
Because a protest isn’t automatically justified in everything it does simply because its cause is important.
A legitimate grievance does not make every action taken in its name legitimate.
And that principle applies to the riots in France and Italy, too.
We don’t need to blame migrants. We don’t need to make sweeping assumptions about entire populations. We don’t need to pretend that every person who protests is violent.
But we absolutely can condemn the people who choose to destroy businesses and harm the communities around them.
We can do both.
“But It’s Not Our Community If It Doesn’t Represent Us!”
And here’s another argument I want to address.
I’ve seen the general sentiment that if a business, institution, or establishment doesn’t represent a particular group of people, then that group has no obligation to protect it.
And to that, I say: bullshit.
If you live in a community, it’s your community.
I don’t care if you agree with every business owner. I don’t care if you like the people running your local government. I don’t care if you feel represented by the institutions around you.
You still live there.
You still depend on the infrastructure around you. You still share that physical space with other human beings. And your actions still have consequences for the people who live alongside you.
You don’t get to erase those connections simply because you disagree with the people who own a particular business or operate a particular institution.
And let me be clear: I’m not saying that every business deserves our loyalty. I’m not saying that we should blindly support corporations, excuse exploitation, or pretend that businesses never do anything wrong.
Businesses can absolutely be criticized. They can be boycotted. Their owners can be held accountable for misconduct. Governments and institutions can be challenged.
There are plenty of ways to fight back against things you believe are wrong.
But there’s a difference between holding someone accountable and indiscriminately destroying property that other people depend on.
If your goal is to improve a community, then why would you deliberately make life harder for the people living in it?
If your goal is justice, then why would you inflict unnecessary harm on people who had nothing to do with the injustice you’re protesting?
And if your argument is that those businesses don’t represent you, then explain to me why the people who depend on them should have to suffer for that disagreement.
I’ll wait.
And Yes, I Think There’s a Privilege Problem Here
Now, this next part might piss some people off.
But I’m going to say it anyway.
Going out and smashing shit up can be an incredibly privileged thing to do.
And I know some people are probably going to be offended by that statement.
They’re going to tell me that people are angry for a reason. That they’re struggling. That they’ve been mistreated. That the system has failed them.
And look, I understand that people can have legitimate reasons to be angry. People experience injustice. People struggle financially. People get pushed to their breaking point.
I’m not denying any of that.
But here’s my question: what gives you the right to take your anger out on everyone else?
What gives you the right to destroy someone else’s livelihood because you’re upset?
What makes you think that your frustration gives you permission to impose the consequences of your actions on people who might be struggling just as much as you are?
Because here’s the reality: the people whose businesses you destroy aren’t automatically wealthy. The people who lose their jobs aren’t automatically privileged. The people who depend on those businesses aren’t automatically in a position to absorb the damage.
Some of them might be struggling just as badly as you.
Some of them might be working multiple jobs just to survive. Some might be trying to support their children. Some might be one unexpected expense away from financial disaster.
And now they have to deal with the fallout of something they didn’t even participate in.
That’s what I mean when I talk about privilege.
It’s the assumption that your anger, your grievances, or your political cause somehow entitle you to disregard everyone else’s needs.
It’s acting as though other people’s livelihoods are disposable because you believe your own struggle is more important.
It’s behaving as though the consequences of your actions are somebody else’s problem.
And frankly, I think that’s a pretty damn selfish way to approach the world.
“But People Are Struggling!”
Yes. They are.
People are struggling financially. People are dealing with political instability, social divisions, rising costs, and uncertainty about the future.
People are frustrated. People are angry. People feel like the systems around them aren’t working.
I get it.
But you know what?
Your struggles do not give you a free pass to make everyone else’s struggles worse.
I don’t care how angry you are. I don’t care how frustrated you feel. I don’t care how justified you believe your cause is.
You don’t automatically get to destroy other people’s property because life has been unfair to you.
And before somebody accuses me of being some bootlicking capitalist, a fascist, or a defender of the bourgeoisie, let me make something clear.
I’m not saying that the status quo is perfect. I’m not saying that corporations should be immune from criticism. I’m not saying that people should simply accept injustice and never fight back.
I’m saying that the people who suffer the consequences of riots are often ordinary people, too.
And those people deserve consideration.
We cannot build a better society by pretending that the suffering of innocent people doesn’t matter whenever it becomes inconvenient to our political arguments.
If we genuinely care about people, then we need to care about all the people affected by our actions, not just the ones whose experiences fit our preferred narrative.
That’s what empathy means.
And empathy doesn’t stop being important just because you’re angry.
You Know What Else This Does? It Gives Authoritarians Ammunition.
And now we get to another part of this that really concerns me.
When people engage in widespread destruction, they can hand authoritarian politicians and other heavy-handed leaders exactly the justification they want for cracking down.
Think about it.
A government that wants to expand police powers, restrict demonstrations, impose harsher penalties, or limit civil liberties can point to violent unrest and use it to argue that stronger measures are necessary.
Politicians can use images of burning buildings and smashed storefronts to convince people that extraordinary crackdowns are the only way to restore order.
And once those powers are expanded, they might not be used exclusively against the people who committed the violence.
They could affect peaceful protestors. They could affect journalists. They could affect ordinary citizens exercising their rights. They could affect people who had absolutely nothing to do with the riots in the first place.
And that is something we should take seriously.
Because I don’t want to live in a society where the government can use the actions of a few people as an excuse to punish everyone else.
I don’t want peaceful protestors to lose their rights because somebody else decided to start smashing windows.
I don’t want people to have their civil liberties restricted because politicians found a convenient excuse to expand their power.
And I certainly don’t want authoritarian leaders to be handed a political gift by people who claim to oppose authoritarianism.
Don’t give people who want to take your rights away an easy excuse to do it.
That doesn’t mean we should surrender our rights out of fear. It doesn’t mean governments should be allowed to use excessive force. And it doesn’t mean every crackdown is justified simply because violence occurred.
Quite the opposite.
We should be able to oppose both rioting and authoritarian overreach.
We should be able to hold people accountable for destruction while also holding governments accountable for disproportionate responses.
Those principles can coexist.
In fact, they need to.
Because the alternative is allowing one group of people to commit destructive acts and another group to use those acts as justification for taking away rights that belong to everyone.
And ordinary people end up caught in the middle.
Let’s Talk About the Double Standards
Here’s another thing I’ve been thinking about.
What happens when the people doing the destruction belong to a group that society generally considers privileged?
What happens when people from a wealthy, politically powerful, or socially dominant group go into a marginalized neighborhood and start smashing up businesses?
Do you think people would be as quick to dismiss the damage?
Do you think everyone would be saying, “Oh, well, it’s just a business. They can rebuild”?
Of course, some people might still make excuses. People have a remarkable ability to justify the actions of those they agree with.
But I think a lot of people would rightly recognize that destroying businesses in a community is harmful, regardless of who does it.
And it should be recognized as harmful.
So why should the standard change when the identities or political affiliations of the people doing the destruction change?
Why should we excuse an action in one situation that we would condemn in another?
Why should the circumstances of the person committing the act automatically determine whether the act itself is acceptable?
I don’t think they should.
We can acknowledge that different communities experience different forms of injustice. We can recognize that power imbalances exist. We can consider the circumstances surrounding a particular event.
But none of that requires us to pretend that smashing up a community is suddenly a good thing.
If destroying a neighborhood is wrong when one group does it, then we need a damn good reason before declaring it acceptable when another group does it.
And simply agreeing with the cause isn’t good enough.
I’m not interested in a world where we condemn violence when our political opponents commit it and excuse it when our political allies do the same thing.
That’s not a principled position.
That’s tribalism.
And tribalism is one of the reasons we keep having these same arguments over and over again.
Hold People Accountable. All of Them.
At the end of the day, I believe people should be held accountable for their actions.
Not because I want some authoritarian police state. Not because I think the government is always right. Not because I believe every punishment is justified.
But because accountability matters.
If somebody deliberately destroys a business, they should face appropriate consequences. If somebody commits arson, assaults another person, or loots a store, those actions should be investigated and addressed through fair legal processes.
And the same standards should apply regardless of political affiliation, background, or identity.
At the same time, authorities should respect civil liberties, distinguish peaceful protestors from people committing crimes, and avoid using isolated incidents to justify collective punishment.
Accountability should be proportionate. It should be based on evidence. And it should apply to the people actually responsible.
That’s what a fair society should strive for.
And we need to stop treating accountability as something that only matters when it benefits our side.
If we want to criticize authoritarianism, we should oppose authoritarianism.
If we want to criticize injustice, we should oppose injustice.
If we want to defend people’s rights, we should defend people’s rights.
And if we want to build better communities, then we need to stop making excuses for people who deliberately damage those communities.
It’s really not that fucking complicated.
Final Thoughts: You Can’t Build a Better World by Destroying Everyone Else’s
Look, I understand that people are angry.
I understand that people are frustrated with their governments, their institutions, and the circumstances of their lives.
I understand that people want change.
And I’m not telling anybody to sit down, shut up, and accept whatever happens to them.
Protest. Speak out. Organize. Boycott. Challenge those in power. Demand accountability. Fight for the changes you believe in.
There are plenty of ways to make your voice heard.
But if your method of protest involves destroying the places where other people live, work, shop, and earn a living, then I think you need to take a long, hard look at what you’re actually accomplishing.
Because the people you’re hurting might not be your enemies.
They might be your neighbors.
They might be people who agree with you. They might be people who disagree with you. They might be people who have never even thought about the issue you’re protesting.
Regardless, they’re still human beings. They still have lives. They still have responsibilities. And they still deserve to be treated as people whose well-being matters.
That’s something I wish more people would remember.
You don’t have to be a capitalist to recognize that businesses support livelihoods. You don’t have to be a conservative to oppose rioting. You don’t have to support the government to believe that people should be held accountable for destroying property.
And you certainly don’t have to blame migrants to acknowledge that violence and destruction are serious problems.
We can reject scapegoating, oppose authoritarianism, recognize legitimate grievances, and still condemn the people who choose to harm their own communities.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
And frankly, I’m tired of people acting like they are.
Your community doesn’t stop being your community just because you disagree with the people in it. Your neighbors don’t stop deserving consideration just because you’re angry. And your actions don’t stop having consequences just because you believe your cause is righteous.
If you want a better world, then start by thinking about the world you’re helping to create.
Because if we normalize destroying shit whenever we’re angry, then we’re creating a world where everybody has to wonder whether their home, their livelihood, or their neighborhood might become the next target.
And if you think that kind of world is going to be better for any of us, I’ve got some serious questions for you.
I don’t want that world.
I want a world where people can stand up for what they believe in without deliberately making life harder for everyone around them.
I want a world where we can challenge injustice without creating more unnecessary suffering.
I want a world where accountability doesn’t depend on whose side you’re on.
And I want a world where we can disagree, protest, and demand change without treating our communities as disposable.
So to the people out there smashing shit up, whether in France, Italy, the United States, or anywhere else:
Sit the fuck down and think about what you’re doing.
Your anger might be real. Your grievances might be legitimate. Your desire for change might be understandable.
But none of that gives you the right to treat everyone else’s lives and livelihoods as collateral damage.
And if you genuinely care about building a better future, then maybe it’s time to stop destroying the communities you’re supposedly fighting for.
Because you cannot build a better world by making the world around you worse.
And you sure as hell cannot claim to care about people while refusing to give a damn about the people your actions hurt.
That’s my take.
Agree or disagree, I don’t give a damn. But at least let’s have an honest conversation about it.
Because this is a problem, and pretending otherwise isn’t going to make it go away.
What do you think? Can we condemn the destruction of communities while still recognizing legitimate grievances and protecting the right to peaceful protest? I’d like to hear your thoughts.