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

[First Time Poster]

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.

Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020

Preliminary analysis of key trends from May to August.

acleddata.com

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.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Because I assume you aren't an butt crevasse, that's why. If the choice is to make someone's day a little better by doing one small thing that costs you nothing or to make a big deal about it, the non-butt crevasse thing to do is to make the tiny little change.

Yet... here you are arguing. And not just arguing, but deciding that someone else giving a valid reason to maybe make that tiny change isn't worth 60 seconds of your day. Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?

 

[TaylorB]

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.

Sometimes I think the analysis isn't just whether a word choice consciously offends someone, but also whether it has a reductive effect that impacts perceptions of anyone who reads / hears the word, often subconsciously. I think about this all the time when trying to persuade judges and juries -- I'm trying to show someone suffered a "traumatic brain injury"; defense lawyer would rather say they "got their bell rung." Those phrases can describe the exact same event, but the perception of each is completely different. I know this analogy isn't perfect, but I think even smaller / subtler distinctions can be a big deal in how they influence perception. The jury probably would never notice the difference, or be offended by one or the other, but we often spend a great deal of energy fighting over vernacular because we think it matters, whether the listeners realize it or not.

I don't think I'd ever consciously considered that "female" can be reductive when used in the wrong context, but having read Brandon's explanation, I get why the distinction matters in terms of perception. We can, and should, be better about using more accurate terms going forward, especially when the distinction and why it matters is laid out in clear terms. It's not that burdensome to understand the distinction and make a minor adjustment, and it's a gesture that demonstrates a level of respect that can often be absent from our dialogue.

 

[Farb]

Because I assume you aren't an butt crevasse, that's why. If the choice is to make someone's day a little better by doing one small thing that costs you nothing or to make a big deal about it, the non-butt crevasse thing to do is to make the tiny little change.

Yet... here you are arguing. And not just arguing, but deciding that someone else giving a valid reason to maybe make that tiny change isn't worth 60 seconds of your day. Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?

Can the same not be said by the offended? Why can the person that is offended just carry on with their day and allow me to have a good day without being corrected on the use of a word that has no negative connotation at all? So who exactly making a big deal over a word? Is the offended being a butt crevasse by imposing how I should act or speech over something so insignificant as the word 'female'. Yes, they are.

Outside opinions and thoughts? These same thoughts that decided a few weeks ago that 'mother' is problematic because a dude in a dress might be offended by that term because that implies only females can give birth? Now 'female' is 'problematic'? Yeah, I not the one asking everyone else to change their values and behavior based on what exactly? Someone self entitled thought of being a victim? Nah. I won't be doing that.

female
noun
Definition of female
1a: a female person : a woman or a girl
b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

 

[bdb13]

Because I assume you aren't an butt crevasse, that's why. If the choice is to make someone's day a little better by doing one small thing that costs you nothing or to make a big deal about it, the non-butt crevasse thing to do is to make the tiny little change.

Yet... here you are arguing. And not just arguing, but deciding that someone else giving a valid reason to maybe make that tiny change isn't worth 60 seconds of your day. Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?

It's really kind of up to us as individuals to make the determination on what's a reasonable thing to be offended by and what isn't with something like this right? We've all known that stuff like the N-word and racial epithets are bad and offensive, and I know that you could say "female" with a certain tone or in a certain way and it could be rightfully taken as an offense..

But if someone told me I had offended them during the course of normal a conversation because I referred to a woman as a female interchangeably instead of using woman/girl/ lady/whatever else.. I think I would have taken it as just that one person's hang up and not that the term itself is broadly offensive as I've never previously heard of this issue nor do I believe I've seen a woman react negatively toward the use of the word female when nothing else negative was meant or implied by it.

But to the idea that if something you say or do offends somebody you should just change what you're saying or doing... So if a Christian walks up to a Muslim acquaintance with a beard and says "that makes you look like a terrorist you need to shave that off I'm offended by it".. you're essentially saying that that Muslim should comply or you're going to carve out an exception and say the situation is different because the request by the Christian is ridiculous.

So I guess that would be what I was trying to say really, I don't want to genuinely offend anybody either who doesn't deserve it, but for Farb I can see why the female thing doesn't come off as a genuine or reasonable thing that he would see someone be offended by, that for him it would be like that Christian asking the Muslim to shave off the beard.

Anyway, whatever.

 

[B4YOU]

You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”

I think the above sums it up well. @Farb

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.

I think there is a segment of the US population that mirrors the Ferengi, a very small population that has Vulcan-like standards, and a small majority just trying to be human.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It's really kind of up to us as individuals to make the determination on what's a reasonable thing to be offended by and what isn't with something like this right? We've all known that stuff like the N-word and racial epithets are bad and offensive, and I know that you could say "female" with a certain tone or in a certain way and it could be rightfully taken as an offense..

But if someone told me I had offended them during the course of normal a conversation because I referred to a woman as a female interchangeably instead of using woman/girl/ lady/whatever else.. I think I would have taken it as just that one person's hang up and not that the term itself is broadly offensive as I've never previously heard of this issue nor do I believe I've seen a woman react negatively toward the use of the word female when nothing else negative was meant or implied by it.

But to the idea that if something you say or do offends somebody you should just change what you're saying or doing... So if a Christian walks up to a Muslim acquaintance with a beard and says "that makes you look like a terrorist you need to shave that off I'm offended by it".. you're essentially saying that that Muslim should comply or you're going to carve out an exception and say the situation is different because the request by the Christian is ridiculous.

So I guess that would be what I was trying to say really, I don't want to genuinely offend anybody either who doesn't deserve it, but for Farb I can see why the female thing doesn't come off as a genuine or reasonable thing that he would see someone be offended by, that for him it would be like that Christian asking the Muslim to shave off the beard.

Anyway, whatever.

That's not what I'm saying at all. My point towards Farb is that he says he sees no reason for it, yet a very good reason was articulated and he refuses to acknowledge it. It's not just the desire to not change, but the willful avoidance of the reasonable answer that was given. Farb has not approached this in good faith and that should be clear to all.

Also, there's a world of difference between someone being offended by the way a certain word is used and someone changing their own appearance because the small-minded idiot called them a terrorist.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Can the same not be said by the offended? Why can the person that is offended just carry on with their day and allow me to have a good day without being corrected on the use of a word that has no negative connotation at all? So who exactly making a big deal over a word? Is the offended being a butt crevasse by imposing how I should act or speech over something so insignificant as the word 'female'. Yes, they are.

Outside opinions and thoughts? These same thoughts that decided a few weeks ago that 'mother' is problematic because a dude in a dress might be offended by that term because that implies only females can give birth? Now 'female' is 'problematic'? Yeah, I not the one asking everyone else to change their values and behavior based on what exactly? Someone self entitled thought of being a victim? Nah. I won't be doing that.

female
noun
Definition of female
1a: a female person : a woman or a girl
b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

Once more, someone articulated a perfectly reasonable way in which the word can have a negative connotation and you have made it clear that you don't want to hear it. Much like you are making clear that if someone tells you, "Hey, that word used in that context bothers me, could you please not use it that way", you would ignore them because how dare they upset you for pointing out calmly how you have upset them. Your feelings aren't the only ones that matter and if you can't take the mildest of criticism, that's nobody's fault but your own.

The only way people grow and learn is to listen to each other and try to empathize. That means listening to people's concerns. Dismissing them out of hand doesn't make you the offended party. It makes you a dick.

 

[bdb13]

That's not what I'm saying at all. My point towards Farb is that he says he sees no reason for it, yet a very good reason was articulated and he refuses to acknowledge it. It's not just the desire to not change, but the willful avoidance of the reasonable answer that was given. Farb has not approached this in good faith and that should be clear to all.

Also, there's a world of difference between someone being offended by the way a certain word is used and someone changing their own appearance because the small-minded idiot called them a terrorist.

It's a little different for sure, but was the first thing that popped in my head in regards to changing what you're doing because someone's offended by it.. I'm sure I come up with a more apples-to-apples scenario but it doesn't matter.

And maybe I'm wrong but in reality I think the majority of women out there would not be offended by the usage of the term female in normal conversation unless there was an inflection on the word or something that made it obvious it was being used to offend, (I'm possibly ignorant for thinking that but that's just been my experience with women as I'm sure I've used female interchangeably in conversation before absent any malice and it has never been a thing) while I'm certain that the vast majority of black people would be offended if I used the n-word in normal conversation in reference to a black person... So I think that's part of it as well for people who then go, "who out there is this actually offending?"

I can get the point that y'all are making and at the same time get that Farb's lived reality tells him that this is made up PC garbage by the libs... I get it,I don't think I'm able to bridge that gap though LOL.

 

[Farb]

Once more, someone articulated a perfectly reasonable way in which the word can have a negative connotation and you have made it clear that you don't want to hear it. Much like you are making clear that if someone tells you, "Hey, that word used in that context bothers me, could you please not use it that way", you would ignore them because how dare they upset you for pointing out calmly how you have upset them. Your feelings aren't the only ones that matter and if you can't take the mildest of criticism, that's nobody's fault but your own.

The only way people grow and learn is to listen to each other and try to empathize. That means listening to people's concerns. Dismissing them out of hand doesn't make you the offended party. It makes you a dick.

This is just silly. If someone is offended by the term 'female' then that is really on them and they should seek some type of help. How did they ever make it through a biology text book without counseling?

The 'articulate and perfectly reasonable way', I find still incorrect and silly so why would I agree with it?

Is the term 'male' offensive too, or are we only offended for the sake of 'birthing people'.

Also, this is a better discussion for the language thread.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is just silly. If someone is offended by the term 'female' then that is really on them and they should seek some type of help. How did they ever make it through a biology text book without counseling?

The 'articulate and perfectly reasonable way', I find still incorrect and silly so why would I agree with it?

Is the term 'male' offensive too, or are we only offended for the sake of 'birthing people'.

Also, this is a better discussion for the language thread.

Based on the things you have said, I was under the impression that you didn't read it. Am I mistaken in that assumption?

 

[V Chip]

Why are you so dead set against outside opinions and thoughts?

He’s a conservative Republican. They have no empathy.

 

[V Chip]

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?

There’s no way you’re actually misunderstanding the point. You’ve got to be trolling.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Based on the things you have said, I was under the impression that you didn't read it. Am I mistaken in that assumption?

He has brandon on ignore, which is allowed by the forum.

I'm pretty sure @Farb doesn't care at this point, but generally when you refer to someone as the female, or the male, it's used as a clinical way that can often be intended to be dehumanizing. Reducing someone to merely their anatomical traits, versus the more common term of man or woman which conveys a sense of personhood, in general.

I can't think of a time I've referred to a woman as "the female", or a group of women as "females" outside of some sort of demographic trait. It might have happened, but it seems an odd choice. Like I've never referred to a man as "the male". But apparently some people do... so whatever.

I did a quick search of a few members posts to see if they've ever used the term "male" to refer to a single person or a group of people, and I can't find an example (it's only been used to talk about demographics not a specific person), but they have referred to people as the man or whatever. So, using the term "the male" or "the female", is probably a deliberate choice vs. "the man" or "the woman".

Too much trying to divine intent from a stranger on the internet..... not worth the trouble, IMO.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

He has brandon on ignore, which is allowed by the forum.

I'm pretty sure @Farb doesn't care at this point, but generally when you refer to someone as the female, or the male, it's used as a clinical way that can often be intended to be dehumanizing. Reducing someone to merely their anatomical traits, versus the more common term of man or woman which conveys a sense of personhood, in general.

I can't think of a time I've referred to a woman as "the female", or a group of women as "females" outside of some sort of demographic trait. It might have happened, but it seems an odd choice. Like I've never referred to a man as "the male". But apparently some people do... so whatever.

I did a quick search of a few members posts to see if they've ever used the term "male" to refer to a single person or a group of people, and I can't find an example (it's only been used to talk about demographics not a specific person), but they have referred to people as the man or whatever. So, using the term "the male" or "the female", is probably a deliberate choice vs. "the man" or "the woman".

Too much trying to divine intent from a stranger on the internet..... not worth the trouble, IMO.

Yep. I just wanted to highlight the fact that he dismissed an argument as "incorrect and silly" without actually reading it. Dismissed it while boasting about actively ignoring it, even.

 

[bdb13]

He has brandon on ignore, which is allowed by the forum.

I'm pretty sure @Farb doesn't care at this point, but generally when you refer to someone as the female, or the male, it's used as a clinical way that can often be intended to be dehumanizing. Reducing someone to merely their anatomical traits, versus the more common term of man or woman which conveys a sense of personhood, in general.

I can't think of a time I've referred to a woman as "the female", or a group of women as "females" outside of some sort of demographic trait. It might have happened, but it seems an odd choice. Like I've never referred to a man as "the male". But apparently some people do... so whatever.

I did a quick search of a few members posts to see if they've ever used the term "male" to refer to a single person or a group of people, and I can't find an example (it's only been used to talk about demographics not a specific person), but they have referred to people as the man or whatever. So, using the term "the male" or "the female", is probably a deliberate choice vs. "the man" or "the woman".

Maybe I'm thinking about it in a more clinical way because in my head I'm playing this out like I'm pointing out someone from across the road and I'm like "the female over there", or "the male over there".. doesn't seem odd to me like that.. I dunno.

I asked my wife about it and didn't know what she was going to say but she basically had the same point of view as me, said she thinks the female thing would only bother her if it was said by someone who knew her name and used "female" instead (but then that same thing would be true if they called her 'woman' in that scenario as well lol, so I don't think that was unique to the term female).

Anyways.. I'm going to scroll up to even remember what thread this is again, sorry for my contribution to that.

 

[RobF]

And maybe I'm wrong but in reality I think the majority of women out there would not be offended by the usage of the term female in normal conversation unless there was an inflection on the word or something that made it obvious it was being used to offend

Thing is, 'in normal conversation' implies 'female' is being used in a normal context (like @UncleTrvlingJim described).

As with many terms, it's its usage outside its typical context that can be dubious; where it's being used instead of another, more common term, and where the switch is towards a more objectifying and/or reductive sense, or to a term with different, negative, connotations.

In normal conversation, when referring to crimes against women, the phrases "crimes against women", and "violence against women", are overwhelmingly the typical ones. As @UncleTrvlingJim and @brandon have both observed, 'female' tends to be used in a clinical, or biological sense; in this particular context, the much less common phrase "crimes against females" is mostly just used in a context of statistical analysis, where data sets are classified by male and female.

We tend to use 'women' rather than 'females' conversationally, because 'females' is a different term, used in that different context, and using it outside of that context can be dehumanising accordingly; as @brandon observed earlier, 'You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”'

In my experience, most conversations about this generally tend to break down accordingly:

"Hey, why would you use <word> in this context? It's pretty offensive."
"No, <word> isn't offensive, it's used all the time, like in this (different) context."

The context tends to be deliberately ignored by the accused, but it's the context that matters. We're not robots. Different words might have similar, or even essentially identical, meanings, or be used to refer to the same thing, but the context we associate with them can differ, and invoking the words invokes those contexts. Our choice of language can reveal our underlying thinking, or be used to frame a conversation accordingly (for example, if in a conversation about squirrels, one person calls them 'squirrels' and another calls them 'vermin', that gives you a pretty good idea of how the second person views squirrels and how they wish to frame the conversation).

And this does have bearing on this topic as well; the descriptive language choices relating to BLM are an essential part of the topic, from the crudely blunt ("peaceful" versus "violent", or "rioter" or even "thug" versus "protester") to the more subtle (consider where the term "force" is used and where the term "violence" is used, or think about "peaceful" versus "non-violent"). @RebSaint touched on this in the fourth post:

I don't post much anymore, but I just wanted to jot down a random collection of thoughts that have a lot to do with the current political climate and race relations. I figured this thread would be the best place.

Associating or connecting black protest with violence and/or criminality is nothing new to the right, and has been very much a part of the southern strategy, which is largely the reason we have Trump. Much of the right has doubled down on stoking white anger, fear, and loathing of minorities pointing out the perpetuation of institutionalized oppression in the present day. Painting BLM with the broadest "violent" and "radical" brush is reminiscent of Nixon supporters clamoring for "law and order" while ignoring the continuation of Jim Crow policies, practices, and institutionalized racism. In many ways, we're seeing history repeat itself and as usual, there will be many on the wrong "side" of history on lots of these issues.

The most ridiculous allegation I've seen is that BLM favors the destruction of the nuclear family because they support Marxism. Yes, this claim has historical dimensions going back to the proslavery argument before the Civil War.

The focus tends to be on whether the accusations made to associate or connect black protest with violence and/or criminality are false, or inaccurate, but beyond that, choice of language is also a crucial part of this.

 

[brandon]

No need to repost whoever's post, they are ignore for a reason.

My pronouns are “he/him”.

 

[bdb13]

Thing is, 'in normal conversation' implies 'female' is being used in a normal context (like @UncleTrvlingJim described).

As with many terms, it's its usage outside its typical context that can be dubious; where it's being used instead of another, more common term, and where the switch is towards a more objectifying and/or reductive sense, or to a term with different, negative, connotations.

In normal conversation, when referring to crimes against women, the phrases "crimes against women", and "violence against women", are overwhelmingly the typical ones. As @UncleTrvlingJim and @brandon have both observed, 'female' tends to be used in a clinical, or biological sense; in this particular context, the much less common phrase "crimes against females" is mostly just used in a context of statistical analysis, where data sets are classified by male and female.

We tend to use 'women' rather than 'females' conversationally, because 'females' is a different term, used in that different context, and using it outside of that context can be dehumanising accordingly; as @brandon observed earlier, 'You’ll note that animals can also be “females,” but they can’t be “women.”'

In my experience, most conversations about this generally tend to break down accordingly:

"Hey, why would you use <word> in this context? It's pretty offensive."
"No, <word> isn't offensive, it's used all the time, like in this (different) context."

The context tends to be deliberately ignored by the accused, but it's the context that matters. We're not robots. Different words might have similar, or even essentially identical, meanings, or be used to refer to the same thing, but the context we associate with them can differ, and invoking the words invokes those contexts. Our choice of language can reveal our underlying thinking, or be used to frame a conversation accordingly (for example, if in a conversation about squirrels, one person calls them 'squirrels' and another calls them 'vermin', that gives you a pretty good idea of how the second person views squirrels and how they wish to frame the conversation).

And this does have bearing on this topic as well; the descriptive language choices relating to BLM are an essential part of the topic, from the crudely blunt ("peaceful" versus "violent", or "rioter" or even "thug" versus "protester") to the more subtle (consider where the term "force" is used and where the term "violence" is used, or think about "peaceful" versus "non-violent"). @RebSaint touched on this in the fourth post:



The focus tends to be on whether the accusations made to associate or connect black protest with violence and/or criminality are false, or inaccurate, but beyond that, choice of language is also a crucial part of this.

Good post, thanks. I get it.