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
    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 don't know how many times we have to have the connotation vs. denotation discussion in this forum.

    Calling a woman a "female" often has a negative connotation except when a scientific discussion related to sex, as it subtly reduces her value to her literal sex.

    I expect Farb to go apeshit about this.

    I honestly never knew calling a woman a female was a negative connotation. Where did that come from? How does it reduce her value?

    I've never really thought about it or discussed it with someone, so I'm a little stumped. I mean, I'm a male, so maybe I'm missing something.
     
    Just FTR, non-profits can own vehicles and provide them to their execs. The exec just has to keep mileage logs and report all personal mileage to the IRS (which is then taxed as income at the IRS mileage rate). And 501(c)(3) executive pay can be high if its reasonable in the context of the organization's overall receipts and value received from the executive.
     
    I honestly never knew calling a woman a female was a negative connotation. Where did that come from? How does it reduce her value?

    I've never really thought about it or discussed it with someone, so I'm a little stumped. I mean, I'm a male, so maybe I'm missing something.
    Context matters in this discussion, but as a general rule, if the conversation has to do with sex and/or gender, male/female is appropriate.

    The words male/female discuss biological and physiological traits that define humans sexually. They are primarily words associated with sex and reproduction.

    When talking about women in just about any other context, “female” is a reductive term for people who are much more than their sex organs. Typically, the context surrounding calling a woman a “female” when not related to a biological discussion carries sexist undertones and is almost never depicting the woman in a positive light.

    In the case of @Farb’s discussion of “crimes against females,” it’s actually much worse.

    There’s a dehumanizing undertone, presumably because the victims are black, and therefore subconsciously he likely doesn’t view them as women at all, but as sub-human “females.” You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”
     
    Last edited:
    Context matters in this discussion, but as a general rule, if the conversation has to do with sex and/or gender, male/female is appropriate.

    The words male/female discuss biological and physiological traits that define humans sexually. They are primarily words associated with sex and reproduction.

    When talking about women in just about any other context, “female” is a reductive term for people who are much more than their sex organs. Typically, the context surrounding calling a woman a “female” when not related to a biological discussion carries sexist undertones and is almost never depicting the woman in a positive light.

    In the case of @Farb’s discussion of “crimes against females,” it’s actually much worse.

    There’s a dehumanizing undertone, presumably because the victims are black, and therefore subconsciously he likely doesn’t view them as women at all, but as sub-human “females.” You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”

    Interesting. Hadn't really thought of it like that. Ordinarily I'd say "crimes against women" regardless of race, and if I would have said female, I thought it would have the same meaning. I was just having a hard time understanding what was derogatory about female. But I think I understand what you're getting at. But I hadn't ever been told it was an offensive term in some contexts.

    As with a lot of things though, I do think intent matters. I'm not sure a lot of people are even aware of the distinction. I mean, if I hadn't been in this discussion, I might not ever know it.
     
    It
    Interesting. Hadn't really thought of it like that. Ordinarily I'd say "crimes against women" regardless of race, and if I would have said female, I thought it would have the same meaning. I was just having a hard time understanding what was derogatory about female. But I think I understand what you're getting at. But I hadn't ever been told it was an offensive term in some contexts.

    As with a lot of things though, I do think intent matters. I'm not sure a lot of people are even aware of the distinction. I mean, if I hadn't been in this discussion, I might not ever know it.
    is not offensive to anyone. And to say it is just stupid. It is another attempt to change the conversation by changing meaning and intent of words.
     
    It

    is not offensive to anyone. And to say it is just stupid. It is another attempt to change the conversation by changing meaning and intent of words.
    The meaning of intent and words is almost always the conversation in these racism threads.
     
    It

    is not offensive to anyone. And to say it is just stupid. It is another attempt to change the conversation by changing meaning and intent of words.

    If someone were to come to you and say that they find it offensive, would you still think it's stupid to say it's offensive?
     
    What’s it like having such hubris to believe you know how everyone in the world thinks and feels?

    Or better yet, what’s it like to be so delusional that you think you know better?
     
    This conversations make me think of Quark and the Ferengi from Deep Space 9. They always drew it out, "The Feee-male" and it was definitely always derogatory and reductive.
     
    Do you find the word 'female' offensive?

    I asked you a question to clarify your position. Anything I say is irrelevant as it would be coming from a place of not understanding your point. Can you please answer my question in order to help me understand?
     
    I asked you a question to clarify your position. Anything I say is irrelevant as it would be coming from a place of not understanding your point. Can you please answer my question in order to help me understand?
    This was fun.
    No one has ever come up to me and said anything like that and I have never heard the word 'female' was offensive so I don't know what I would say, I have a feeling my facial expressions would give away my thoughts. But to answer your question, I would think it is stupid. I don't know why it would be offensive.
    Maybe you can help me understand why the word is offensive and do you find it personally offensive?
     
    Last edited:
    This was fun.
    No one has ever come up to me and said anything like that and I have never heard the word 'female' was offensive so I don't know what I would say, I have a feeling my facial expressions would give away my thoughts. But to answer your question, I would think it is stupid. I don't know why it would be offensive.
    Maybe you can help me understand why the word is offensive and do you find it personally offensive?
    Already answered.
     
    This was fun.
    No one has ever come up to me and said anything like that and I have never heard the word 'female' was offensive so I don't know what I would say, I have a feeling my facial expressions would give away my thoughts. But to answer your question, I would think it is stupid. I don't know why it would be offensive.
    Maybe you can help me understand why the word is offensive and do you find it personally offensive?

    Brandon already made a nice post on the topic of female vs woman. If you have him on ignore and didn't see it, I would be happy to repost it for you (with his permission).

    As for the bolded, why do you need to know why it's offensive? If someone says, "Hey, I find that offensive, could you please not do it", shouldn't the default position be to honor that request?
     
    Brandon already made a nice post on the topic of female vs woman. If you have him on ignore and didn't see it, I would be happy to repost it for you (with his permission).

    As for the bolded, why do you need to know why it's offensive? If someone says, "Hey, I find that offensive, could you please not do it", shouldn't the default position be to honor that request?
    Why is it on me to alter my speech just because someone is so ill adjusted to survive in the real world especially as something so stupid as taking offense to the words 'female' and 'male' that was up until 5 mins ago was a completely benign word?

    No need to repost whoever's post, they are ignore for a reason.
     
    Why is it on me to alter my speech just because someone is so ill adjusted to survive in the real world especially as something so stupid as taking offense to the words 'female' and 'male' that was up until 5 mins ago was a completely benign word?

    No need to repost whoever's post, they are ignore for a reason.
    Anyone can feel free to use any of my posts, past, present, and future, and present them as their own, when answering @Farb.
     

    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