I think vandalism is capable of being violence in and of itself, and also potentially a prelude to greater violence. I don't think that means it's the same kind of violence as shooting someone, but then again I didn't realise that I'd need to spell out these kinds of natural inferences.
Then why compare it to the Troubles? Again are you genuinely this ignorant?
I didn't compare vandalising a building with the Troubles, I was making the point that normalising violence as a political tactic tends to create an escalatory spiral that, if left unimpeded, results in uncontrolled inter-communal violence like the Troubles.
That was extremely apparent in my original tweet, but I realise we're in the Bad Faith corner of Bluesky, where ignoring natural and obvious inferences is par for the course.
Buddy there's only one guy arguing in bad faith here, and it isn't me. You heavily implied the Troubles was tit-for-tat violence, or occurred because of tit-for-tat violence, which is as a minimum incredibly ignorant, so I can tell you're English
The Troubles is a paradigmatic example of tit-for-tat violence. You're eliding the causes of the Troubles with the nature of the conflict once it got underway.
Of course just silly little children, those Irish aren't they? Really showing your arse here, pal
Also incredibly ironic you would bang on about bad faith like anything that was done to oppose Policy Exchange would be taken in good faith by the famously reasonable British media, which seems to be your big concern
I'm sure the Telegraph are beyond reason, but that doesn't mean every media outlet is.
You think Policy Exchange have only been platformed by the Telegraph?