I agree with Ansel that there's some seriously selective editing going on in the Puget Sound Anarchists' "riot porn" video. (Which is a bit ironic given the annual post-May Day concerns that activists raise about the Seattle police putting out selectively edited May Day video.)

If you haven't seen the Puget Sound Anarchists' video yet, it's worth noting that at its beginning it encourages people to use May Day 2016 as a time for "riotous play, attacks on property, and attacks on lackeys of the ruling order." By the end, the video's call to action goes even further: "Let's take steps toward destroying our enemies and actualizing our desires."

I just want to add a few more observations about the Puget Sound Anarchists' self-described "agitprop" and the ongoing debates to which that propaganda is connected:

• The video and its accompanying post are a reminder that "anticapitalist" is too narrow a definition for what the Puget Sound Anarchists are promoting. As the post states, typos included: "If your reading this an wondering why capitalism and the state are undesirable suffice to say that all forms or rulership are undesirable." Democracy: undesirable. Socialism: undesirable. The rule of law: undesirable.

I get why describing this brand of anarchy as merely "anticapitalist" might be good marketing at this messed up moment in American history, when people all across the political spectrum—and particularly younger Americans—are rightly disgusted by the way our economic system is working.

But in reality, this brand of anarchy is against a lot more than just one economic system or another.

The end of the Puget Sound Anarchists' post sums it up well: "Down with the state and its trappings!" (And, by extension: Down with light rail! Down with Obamacare! Down with Social Security! Down with the Department of Health! Down with tickets for drivers who park in bike lanes! Down with the Constitution!)

• The difference between the type of rioting this video is encouraging and the two other riots Ansel cites as admirable—the 1969 Stonewall Riots and the more recent riots in Baltimore after the killing of Freddie Gray—is not just a difference of scale.

There is also a fundamental difference in the demand being articulated. Broadly speaking, both Stonewall and Baltimore represented demands for equal justice under the law. The annual skirmishes between anarchists and police on May Day represent a rejection of the rule of law. (Because, quoting the PSA again: "All forms of rulership are undesirable.")

• I agree with Ansel that this whole ritual is getting a bit stale. So is the argument over whether the actions anarchists engage in on May Day are properly described as "property destruction" or "violence" or both. But since Ansel raised that old argument, here's Brendan Kiley (formerly of The Stranger, now at the Seattle Times) arguing for "targeted property destruction."

Here's me arguing that violence is sometimes the right word to use in describing targeted property destruction, and here's Brendan's response to my agrument, and... it felt like it went on forever, but maybe that's it?

Anyway, my perspective, in brief, is that acts of property destruction can very often imply—and foreshadow—violence. Don't believe it? Here's a recent act of property destruction at Seattle's Africatown that Ansel reported on. It clearly implied violence and made the activist who runs the center feel unsafe. Here's another act of property destruction that Ansel reported on recently, one that left a woman feeling like she had to take additional measures to protect herself.

In the past, Slog commenters have pointed out that, obviously, cross burnings and Kristalnacht are easy examples to draw on in a debate over whether property destruction can imply (and encourage) violence.

So: Why do we carve out exceptions, and suggest speech codes, when it comes to describing the destructive actions of Puget Sound anarchists who, as the video says, want to "take steps toward destroying our enemies and actualizing our desires"?

I personally prefer the even application of the law to a world in which random people take it upon themselves to decide when a destructive act is warranted—and how I'm allowed to describe that destruction. (And yes, absolutely, the ideal of even application of the law is very far from fully realized in this country. To me that's a reason to improve the rule of law, not a reason to abandon the rule of law.)

• Finally, the dubstep track playing under the video's images of anarchists attacking a media van (very pro-First Amendment) and breaking windows on a federal courthouse? It's called "Legends." (We will be legends... We gonna live forever...) As marketing, it struck me as a bit reminiscent of this much-hated-on Seattle Jägermeister ad campaign that also appealed to the "legendary" impulse of a certain demographic.

Here's another anarchist-related track, from the Seattle band Tacocat: