TO THOSE CLAIMING THE RIOTS AND LOOTING AREN’T AN AUTHENTIC EXPRESSION OF THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT, NOTE THAT ACADEMICS ARE COMING FORWARD TO CLAIM THE OPPOSITE: Vicky Osterweil’s “In Defense of Looting” makes the case that looting isn’t a betrayal of protests for Black lives, but a vital aspect of the movement.

Of course, there’s no action so vile that you can’t find an academic to defend it, particularly if it’s undertaken by someone who can be characterized as oppressed.

Related: “I don’t know if other people in ‘the movement’ are happy to see that idea spoken aloud. I’ve been hearing that there are 2 groups of people — the peaceful protesters and these mysterious other people, who, I’ve noted, the journalists don’t seem to care to identify and investigate. Osterweil is saying these are not 2 different groups. It’s one movement, and it’s been going on for a long time.”

Plus: “Osterweil’s looting is a switch from making the argument against property in words and to speak with actions — the destruction of property. But that doesn’t make the argument more convincing! It’s a nasty tantrum thrown because you can’t convince people with your ideas. Ironically, fortunately, it makes the argument for the other side.”

If the Black Lives Matter movement were being run by Roger Stone as a vote-getter for Trump, what exactly would it be doing differently at this point? As the saying goes, Oft evil will shall evil mar.