Perhaps I haven't seen part of what Fuller wrote? I looked around and the excerpts I saw were not abhorrent. Basically it looked like he was...
(a.) making a distinction between, on the one hand, principled protestors against police brutality, who protested peaceably, and, on the other hand, opportunistic looters who
use the protests as cover for smashing (often black-owned) storefronts and walking away with merchandise;
(b.) approving of the protestors while disapproving of the looters; and,
(c.) stating that anyone who claimed that the protestors were
all looters, or
no better than the looters, was thereby being racist against the protestors.
Now, perhaps I missed something else he said that was abhorrent; or perhaps there's something in the excerpt I saw that's abhorrent in a way that isn't obvious to me. Or perhaps I'm reading what he wrote in a more-innocent way than he intended it.
Can someone please clarify?
NOTE: I realized, after saving the
original version of this post, that when I asked
@FractalAudio to comment in reply, I was potentially putting him in a bind. He's a business owner, and we live in a very Maoist Cultural Revolution kind of moment:
Whatever he said in reply, some might use as an excuse to digitally lynch him
pour le encourage les autres. And I don't wish that on him or anyone else.
So, I've edited this post to make it more general, inviting "someone" to "please clarify." But if there's anyone who has good reason to fear retaliation for replying, then: I wish you well, and by all means, exercise prudence.