Over 93% of BLM demonstrations are non-violent (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    278
    Reaction score
    1,424
    Age
    42
    Location
    Louisiana, Georgia, Texas
    Offline
    So, rather than burying this subject in an already broad thread I felt this topic, and the study it is based on, deserved its own thread. A debate about whether the protests have been mostly violent or not has been had multiple times in multiple threads so when I saw this analysis it piqued my interest.

    A few key points: It characterizes the BLM movement as "an overwhelmingly peaceful movement." Most of the violent demonstrations were surrounding Confederate monuments. To this mostly non-violent movement, the government has responded violently, and disproportionately so, to BLM than other demonstrations, including a militarized federal response. The media has, also, been targeted by this violent government response. There is a high rate of non-state actor involvement in BLM demonstrations. Lastly, there is a rising number of counter-protest that turn violent. I shouldn't say lastly because there is, also, a lot of data relating to Covid too.

    The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) begin tracking BLM demonstrations since this summer, the week of George Floyd's killing. I am linking the entire study for all to read. I am highlighting excerpts I personally found interesting.


    The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city (CNN, 1 September 2020).

    Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

    Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020). Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).

    Despite the fact that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement have been overwhelmingly peaceful, more than 9% — or nearly one in 10 — have been met with government intervention, compared to 3% of all other demonstrations. This also marks a general increase in intervention rates relative to this time last year. In July 2019, authorities intervened in under 2% of all demonstrations — fewer than 30 events — relative to July 2020, when they intervened in 9% of all demonstrations — or over 170 events.

    Authorities have used force — such as firing less-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray or beating demonstrators with batons — in over 54% of the demonstrations in which they have engaged. This too is a significant increase relative to one year ago. In July 2019, government personnel used force in just three documented demonstrations, compared to July 2020, when they used force against demonstrators in at least 65 events. Over 5% of all events linked to the BLM movement have been met with force by authorities, compared to under 1% of all other demonstrations.

    Non-state groups are becoming more active and assertive. Since May, ACLED records over 100 events in which non-state actors engaged in demonstrations (including counter-demonstrations) — the vast majority of which were in response to demonstrations associated with the BLM movement. These non-state actors include groups and militias from both the left and right side of the political spectrum, such as Antifa, the Not forking Around Coalition, the New Mexico Civil Guard, the Patriot Front, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, and the Ku Klux Klan, among others (see map below).3

    Between 24 May and 22 August, over 360 counter-protests were recorded around the country, accounting for nearly 5% of all demonstrations. Of these, 43 — nearly 12% — turned violent, with clashes between pro-police demonstrators and demonstrators associated with the BLM movement, for example. In July alone, ACLED records over 160 counter-protests, or more than 8% of all demonstrations. Of these, 18 turned violent. This is a significant increase relative to July 2019, when only 17 counter-protests were reported around the country, or approximately 1% of all demonstrations, and only one of these allegedly turned violent.
     
    Rittenhouse is one of these degenerate incels who buy into the strawman argument propped up by the far right that 'we need to combat woke culture before white people are erased' and similar doggerel.
    Yeah, it is crazy to think that a citizen would carry a weapon for self defense. From what happened, it turned out he actually needed that weapon for self defense. The idiots chased him...they literally chased him and attacked him. No one would have been killed if they didn't decide to show how virtuous they were by attacking an armed man. They were stupid and got exactly what was deserved.
     
    Do you not conflate protesters on 1.6 as insurrectionists? You do. (not you in particular, but you probably do to, as that appears to be the norm on this board).
    Do you not conflate any racist as a white supremacy and in turn conflate all conservatives and right wingers as domestic terrorists? You do. So does the politicians and the media.
    BLM led protests that turned into violence and destruction. People were murdered. A black retired officer was murdered and filmed as he bled out on the street. Funny how I didn't see BLM stand up for him, apparently they only stand for criminals. Why do they not spend their war chest (millions) on combating the real the threat to the lives of black people in some of the democrat controlled cities? Because there is no racial club to use to further their agenda.
    BLM is a racist political organization just like the proud boy or whatever bogeyman the talking heads have you scared to death about.
    BLM does nothing regarding the epidemic of murders (to include children) in black neighborhoods. They are a political organization that seeks socialism through revolution (hence defund law enforcement). There is no capital in helping the disenfranchised in the big cities of America.
     
    Yeah, it is crazy to think that a citizen would carry a weapon for self defense. From what happened, it turned out he actually needed that weapon for self defense. The idiots chased him...they literally chased him and attacked him. No one would have been killed if they didn't decide to show how virtuous they were by attacking an armed man. They were stupid and got exactly what was deserved.

    Chased him and attacked him after he murdered a man armed with a plastic bag.
     
    I must be misremembering because I thought that happened after the chase started, not before.

    I will have to look it up again, but my recollection is that Rittenhouse was running, the guy chasing him threw a bag, someone fired a warning shot into the air (stupid move), and Rittenhouse turned back to start shooting. They struggled over the gun, Rittenhouse killed him. Then he was chased down and attacked, hit with a skateboard, etc.
     
    I will have to look it up again, but my recollection is that Rittenhouse was running, the guy chasing him threw a bag, someone fired a warning shot into the air (stupid move), and Rittenhouse turned back to start shooting. They struggled over the gun, Rittenhouse killed him. Then he was chased down and attacked, hit with a skateboard, etc.

    Yeah, that sounds like what I've read before. It's been several months since I last read it. I thought there was a bunch of stuff that happened prior to him killing someone. That said, I don't think he's innocent at all in this, and I'd probably say manslaughter is what he should be charged with.

    Maybe there's more to the story though.
     
    Yea, sorry, I'm not buying "I needed to carry a rifle for self defense"
    If shirt's so bad you have to carry a rifle to walk down the street, you probably shouldn't be on the street.
    Either the big tough alpha just can't walk down the street without being armed, or he was looking for trouble.
     
    Yea, sorry, I'm not buying "I needed to carry a rifle for self defense"
    If shirt's so bad you have to carry a rifle to walk down the street, you probably shouldn't be on the street.
    Either the big tough alpha just can't walk down the street without being armed, or he was looking for trouble.
    I'll take went out looking for trouble for $2000, Alex.
     
    I'll take went out looking for trouble for $2000, Alex.
    Who was going to cause trouble with him? You mean the idiots that were already out there causing trouble? So only one side is excused for 'causing trouble'?
     
    Yeah, it is crazy to think that a citizen would carry a weapon for self defense. From what happened, it turned out he actually needed that weapon for self defense. The idiots chased him...they literally chased him and attacked him. No one would have been killed if they didn't decide to show how virtuous they were by attacking an armed man. They were stupid and got exactly what was deserved.
    I am not against self defense, but he had no business being there with a weapon unless he was hired as security.
    Who was going to cause trouble with him? You mean the idiots that were already out there causing trouble? So only one side is excused for 'causing trouble'?
    A white dude that is not BLM and more of a pro gun type has no business going there with a firearm.
     
    I'll take went out looking for trouble for $2000, Alex.
    Trick question, it’s both. Being so scared of the world you have to be constantly armed in no way equals being a tough alpha. Then on top of that, this dude has to carry a rifle? What a joke.
     
    Trick question, it’s both. Being so scared of the world you have to be constantly armed in no way equals being a tough alpha. Then on top of that, this dude has to carry a rifle? What a joke.
    I know what you mean, with a rifle he should have been much more accurate than he was. Bad form and more range time needed.

    David Dorn had a pistol one him when he was shot and killed....what a beta!
     
    Trick question, it’s both. Being so scared of the world you have to be constantly armed in no way equals being a tough alpha. Then on top of that, this dude has to carry a rifle? What a joke.
    311 had it right in one of their early records. Guns are for p**sies. (Edited because the filter didn't and I don't feel like arguing over a word with anyone.)
     
    So could the people burning, looting and attacking private property? They were there and they got shot. Maybe they should have stayed home? Derp?
    This crosses the line into libel @Farb. You should withdraw it.

    (That is, it's a false statement, about specific identifiable people, one of whom is alive).
     
    This crosses the line into libel @Farb. You should withdraw it.

    (That is, it's a false statement, about specific identifiable people, one of whom is alive).
    What is false?

    What makes this libel and not 'he went looking for trouble'? Wrong side?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom