Over 93% of BLM demonstrations are non-violent (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    305
    Reaction score
    1,556
    Age
    43
    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.
     
    I think I posted a thread when Sessions got rid of the consent decree program - but it had been successful in some instances and was better than nothing. Looks like Garland is bringing it back.

     
    Did you even read the article you posted?

    she had made $120,000 TOTAL from 2013 to 2019.

    As a non profit, they are prohibited from purchasing houses, cars, etc for their execs.

    Oh and her money? She wrote a New York Best Seller, unlike Trump who had someone else write his.
     
    Did you even read the article you posted?

    she had made $120,000 TOTAL from 2013 to 2019.

    As a non profit, they are prohibited from purchasing houses, cars, etc for their execs.

    Oh and her money? She wrote a New York Best Seller, unlike Trump who had someone else write his.
    What was that book about?
     
    When you’re shown the truth about your propagandist posts; do you ignore them, forget you were shown the truth, or just repost in bad faith?
    Are we not told 'truth' is subjective now? I just play the rules you guys have laid out for everyone.
     
    Are we not told 'truth' is subjective now? I just play the rules you guys have laid out for everyone.

    Could you highlight the rules that were laid out? I don't recall seeing any arguments made that imply what you are saying, but I also don't read everything on here. It's generally better to stick to arguments that you actually believe in rather than trying to be clever by subverting arguments made by others that you probably misunderstand.
     
    Could you highlight the rules that were laid out? I don't recall seeing any arguments made that imply what you are saying, but I also don't read everything on here. It's generally better to stick to arguments that you actually believe in rather than trying to be clever by subverting arguments made by others that you probably misunderstand.
    That is great advise for the board. I hope everyone heeds that advise.
     
    Could you highlight the rules that were laid out? I don't recall seeing any arguments made that imply what you are saying, but I also don't read everything on here. It's generally better to stick to arguments that you actually believe in rather than trying to be clever by subverting arguments made by others that you probably misunderstand.
    Probably?
     
    Did you even read the article you posted?

    she had made $120,000 TOTAL from 2013 to 2019.

    As a non profit, they are prohibited from purchasing houses, cars, etc for their execs.

    Oh and her money? She wrote a New York Best Seller, unlike Trump who had someone else write his.
    Ann Coulter has also written more then a few New York Times bestsellers and I think most, rational sensible people would agree she's a far-right nutter who predates Trump's psuedo-populist "America First" rants by over 20 years. She has a personal, invective, maniacal vendetta against liberals and Democrats owing to her being a lawyer for one of Bill Clinton's accusers who said he sexually harassed her as Arkansas Gov. and hated how supposedly Hillary forgave her two-timing, cheating husband (who kept on doing it, BTW, "because he could") and how liberals in the 1990's and beyond still tend to kiss his arse, despite his moral/ethical failings and apparent hypocrisies. Coulter's blinkered hatred, IIRC, began there.

    A lot of right-wing, and left-wing columnists, politicians, commentators have written multiple New York Times bestsellers. Their writing mostly to an emerging, substantial political base who sympathize or share similar beliefs that they do. That still doesn't take into account whether some of these books and the info, details explained, or ideas or concepts expounded upon aren't full of crap, self-righteous, smug elitist gibberish then intellectually thought-provoking or entertaining, or funny.

    Also, just because non-profits aren't supposed to allow their founders, high-ranking execs to buy cars, houses, or money doesn't mean it hasn't happened or that less-then-honest, creative accounting practices haven't been used by Wounded Warrior execs who were accused of using funds sent to the non-profit for personal use. I believe one of Jimmy Carter's oldest friends got into trouble for misusing or misappropriating funds (as well as charges of sexual harassment) as part of his non-profit Habitat for Humanity home-building projects about a dozen or so years ago.
     
    Last edited:
    Ok?

    The point was who gives a shirt what she wrote to make her money. She wrote a book and people bought it. That is not at all a problem.

    I have no idea why you brought up that Coulter. He is just an opportunist and peddles hate to the world. But each has made a bunch of money selling books. I have no issues with it though, no matter how prescient or stupid the ideas are.

    And if you have any specific proof that there is malfeasance within the BLM management structure, please share it. Otherwise, your point about another org misusing funds is just odd.

    I get you are tacitly saying she didn’t earn her money by earnest means. What I don’t get is why you felt the need to do so.
     
    Ok?

    The point was who gives a shirt what she wrote to make her money. She wrote a book and people bought it. That is not at all a problem.

    I have no idea why you brought up that Coulter. He is just an opportunist and peddles hate to the world. But each has made a bunch of money selling books. I have no issues with it though, no matter how prescient or stupid the ideas are.

    And if you have any specific proof that there is malfeasance within the BLM management structure, please share it. Otherwise, your point about another org misusing funds is just odd.

    I get you are tacitly saying she didn’t earn her money by earnest means. What I don’t get is why you felt the need to do so.
    I don't care how she made her money, I have a feeling that book she is also a 'an opportunist and peddles to the world' as well. It is funny how your view of writing a book and people buying varies on who and why the book was written. Not to judge because I can be hypocritical despite my best efforts not to be.

    I think the fact that she had to step down from a very obviously lucrative scam such as BLM says enough about how they even viewed her 'spending habits'.
     
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...looting-dumpster-fire-marshal-police-shooting

    'Rioters in Minneapolis were seen looting and setting a dumpster ablaze Thursday night after agents with the U.S. Marshals Service fatally shot a suspect.

    At around 2:10 p.m., law enforcement tried to apprehend a suspect who was wanted for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The individual was shot dead after he allegedly refused to obey commands and drew a handgun.

    Protesters gathered in the area hours after the encounter and were observed putting up barricades and lighting a dumpster on fire at around 10 p.m.'


    That fact that BLM uses the worst possible 'deaths' to prove their point of systemic racism actually shows that the demand for injustice is actually far out pacing the supply of actual, real injustice in this country.

    One thing I heard recently and never thought about it, all the BLM martyrs have past violent crimes against women but they are held up on a pedestal by this racist and evil religion.
     
    One thing I heard recently and never thought about it, all the BLM martyrs have past violent crimes against women but they are held up on a pedestal by this racist and evil religion.

    All of them? Trayvon Martin? Tamir Rice? Sandra Bland? Amadou Diallo? Jordan Davis? Emitt Till?

    Maybe you mean less than 10% of them. Or maybe you are obsessed with discrediting BLM for some reason...

    Could you list all of the ones who had past violent crimes against women?
     
    All of them? Trayvon Martin? Tamir Rice? Sandra Bland? Amadou Diallo? Jordan Davis? Emitt Till?

    Maybe you mean less than 10% of them. Or maybe you are obsessed with discrediting BLM for some reason...

    Could you list all of the ones who had past violent crimes against women?

    Does it really matter to him if it was "all" of them? All he needs is one of them to have done it, then i justifies his characterization. Forget about the fact that is has nothing to do with the police interaction that got those victims killed.

    I'm sure Breonna Taylor would be surprised that she was allegedly beating women.

    This consistent obsession by the far right on fears of BLM and CRT (and whatever other acronym is out there) has all the classic underpinnings of inflaming white fragility/fear in order to drive voter turnout for their cause. What's extremely sad is that no matter how much progress we make, it seems that this will always be a fruitful and rewarding attack for the far right. Which means that instead of addressing systemic racial problems in this country, they will continue to persist in perpetuity because there is no benefit to their side to address them.
     
    Last edited:

    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.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom