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
    280
    Reaction score
    1,434
    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.
     
    I suppose that would be a decent analogy if there was one person we were tracking on this subject who was responsible for the property damage and looting.

    But when we have to consider several different groups of people with very different agendas and belief systems, it becomes problematic. At least that’s how I would see it.
     
    When the media reports on serial killers why are the serial killers' lives distilled down to murdering when 99.9% or more of their time on earth they were not engaged in murder?
    Because murder and protest are the same thing.
     
    When the media reports on serial killers why are the serial killers' lives distilled down to murdering when 99.9% or more of their time on earth they were not engaged in murder?

    This is not a fair comparison, nor is it conducive to discussion. You are talking about an individual who murders people and comparing it to a movement where millions of people participate peacefully and comparatively very few violently (and the nature of the altercation and who is involved isn't even always clear), but in your comparison would be complicit in the violence.

    A murderer killing people doesn't somehow implicate people on the other side of the country or town or world or wherever by association. That's not how this works. Not to mention, we're talking about serial killing. It's a sensationalistic comparison whereby important distinctions don't seem to matter.

    If you want to make a comment about the integrity of the argument in the OP, then just make it. Is there a point that merits discussion, like the majority of people involved in the movement could or should be more vocal condemning violence or looting or rioting? Perhaps. That seems closer to what you are talking about or seeking to talk about, if I am understanding you correctly. It would also invite more discussion. Were I a staunch BLM supporter, I wouldn't care for the comparison, in the same way I would not appreciate someone, for example, saying I was a white supremacist or a member of the KKK because I was a Republican.

    All of that said, there is still no tolerance here for namecalling, even as a rhetorical question to another poster. We're only on page 2 of a worthwhile topic and we haven't exhausted the topic just yet.
     
    This is not a fair comparison, nor is it conducive to discussion. You are talking about an individual who murders people and comparing it to a movement where millions of people participate peacefully and comparatively very few violently (and the nature of the altercation and who is involved isn't even always clear), but in your comparison would be complicit in the violence.

    A murderer killing people doesn't somehow implicate people on the other side of the country or town or world or wherever by association. That's not how this works. Not to mention, we're talking about serial killing. It's a sensationalistic comparison whereby important distinctions don't seem to matter.

    If you want to make a comment about the integrity of the argument in the OP, then just make it. Is there a point that merits discussion, like the majority of people involved in the movement could or should be more vocal condemning violence or looting or rioting? Perhaps. That seems closer to what you are talking about or seeking to talk about, if I am understanding you correctly. It would also invite more discussion. Were I a staunch BLM supporter, I wouldn't care for the comparison, in the same way I would not appreciate someone, for example, saying I was a white supremacist or a member of the KKK because I was a Republican.

    All of that said, there is still no tolerance here for namecalling, even as a rhetorical question to another poster. We're only on page 2 of a worthwhile topic and we haven't exhausted the topic just yet.
    I don't think you have made a good case for saying my comment is not conducive to discussion. The point I am making is comparing how someone reports or describes - not comparing a movement or whatever with a serial killer.
    I am reading the OP and it seems clear that the intent was a criticism of how the protests are described or not described - hence my comment is directed to how a serial killer is described. You can make such a comparison about a large number of subjects.
    Surely the lack of conduciveness to the discussion does not hinge on my example being about an individual as opposed to a group. If so, then let's make a comparison to Nazi rallies. The majority of Nazi rallies did not result in the killing of Jews - should that be part of the description of Nazi rallies and or the Nazi movement?
    The idea of a reporter standing in front of some Cambodian killing fields and making the point that most Khmer Rouge members did not murder educated urbanites is absurd and quite frankly would be a really stupid point to try and make

    What do we remember (and perhaps more to the point, how do we describe) the events in Charlottesville? Do we need a Princeton study to tell us that that 99.99%+ of demonstrators did not kill?
     
    I don't think you have made a good case for saying my comment is not conducive to discussion. The point I am making is comparing how someone reports or describes - not comparing a movement or whatever with a serial killer.
    I am reading the OP and it seems clear that the intent was a criticism of how the protests are described or not described - hence my comment is directed to how a serial killer is described. You can make such a comparison about a large number of subjects.
    Surely the lack of conduciveness to the discussion does not hinge on my example being about an individual as opposed to a group. If so, then let's make a comparison to Nazi rallies. The majority of Nazi rallies did not result in the killing of Jews - should that be part of the description of Nazi rallies and or the Nazi movement?
    The idea of a reporter standing in front of some Cambodian killing fields and making the point that most Khmer Rouge members did not murder educated urbanites is absurd and quite frankly would be a really stupid point to try and make

    What do we remember (and perhaps more to the point, how do we describe) the events in Charlottesville? Do we need a Princeton study to tell us that that 99.99%+ of demonstrators did not kill?
    The Nazi agenda was to kill Jews and all inferior and undesirables. Is the claim that the BLM leadership promotes an agenda to incite vandalism and violence?

    If so, please provide something that supports that the BLM leadership is promoting vandalism and violence to support the rather absurd comparison between BLM and the German Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.

    I find it absurd that anyone would use either of those groups in any comparison to the reporting on the BLM movement, leadership and protests.

    Regarding the description of events in Charlottesville, I've never heard it reported as a riot. I've only heard it reported as a clash between protestors.

    Using the logic in the post quoted above, we should report the Charlottesville rally, and all of those being organized by those on the "right," as "white nationalist murder rallies." After all, a white nationalist committed murder at a rally organized by the "right." Therefore, all rallies by the "right" should be reported as "white nationalist murder rallies."

    By the logic above, even the slightest percentage of occurrence of the worst behavior during a rally/protest organized by a group, justifies everyone and every action by that group being reported on in terms of that worst behavior.

    But we don't report on what happened in Charlottesville or other "right" organized rallies as "white nationalist murder rallies." We also shouldn't default to reporting on BLM movement as violent and its protests as riots. All of that would be inaccurate, disrespectful and unfair to the vast majority of the people participating in all of those rallies/protests.

    I hope you will reevaluate and reconsider your logic and the examples that you chose to make your point. Even though you didn't equate BLM to the Nazis and Khmer Rouge, you made an association by comparison, intentional or not.
     
    Last edited:
    I don't think you have made a good case for saying my comment is not conducive to discussion. The point I am making is comparing how someone reports or describes - not comparing a movement or whatever with a serial killer.
    I am reading the OP and it seems clear that the intent was a criticism of how the protests are described or not described - hence my comment is directed to how a serial killer is described. You can make such a comparison about a large number of subjects.
    Surely the lack of conduciveness to the discussion does not hinge on my example being about an individual as opposed to a group. If so, then let's make a comparison to Nazi rallies. The majority of Nazi rallies did not result in the killing of Jews - should that be part of the description of Nazi rallies and or the Nazi movement?
    The idea of a reporter standing in front of some Cambodian killing fields and making the point that most Khmer Rouge members did not murder educated urbanites is absurd and quite frankly would be a really stupid point to try and make

    What do we remember (and perhaps more to the point, how do we describe) the events in Charlottesville? Do we need a Princeton study to tell us that that 99.99%+ of demonstrators did not kill?

    When you use the analogy you used, it seems like you are saying that all the people involved in protesting are of a single mind and purpose, like a serial killer. How does that do justice to the majority of people involved who have never destroyed property or committed any crime?

    There is a somewhat alarming new trend in right wing media to improperly label all people who are participating in riots or looting as BLM supporters, without any evidence. This is a smear, IMO, quite possibly deliberate. It’s definitely not in good faith.
     
    I don't think you have made a good case for saying my comment is not conducive to discussion.

    There was a report for this thread, but note that I did not moderate or edit your post. I'm fine seeing where it goes and being proven wrong. My hope is that this thread becomes productive, and I don't think comparisons to serial killers is going to get us very far. That's more me trying to steer the discussion in a better direction than it seems to have gotten off before we even get past the first page.

    You had a couple of lines of a post making a statistical point about serial killers. There's really not that much there. Then we add comparisons to Nazis or the Khmer Rouge on top of that, now.

    Maybe those will turn out to be illustrative cases that lead to productive discussion, after all.
     
    The serial killer example was used because it is easy to clarify the point: a killer generally only kills in an extremely small time of his life.

    But okay, let us use police: is it fair to talk about police violence when the overwhelming majority of police interactions do not result in violence? The emphasis, imo, is rightly put on the violent acts - more so when the bad acts occur with relative frequency: even though they don't even come close to matching 7% of police interactions.
     
    The serial killer example was used because it is easy to clarify the point: a killer generally only kills in an extremely small time of his life.
    Dude, the most prolific serial killers spent the majority (or at least a good portion) of their lives killing. You don't manage to kill upwards of 10, 20, 30 - and some with claims into the 100's - by not spending most of your time preparing for it and then doing the actual killing, and then dealing with disposal. I'd say it's close to a full time job.

    And that's only once they move onto humans. What about the time they spent starting fires and torturing/killing animals as children?

    Yeah, I'd say they spend way more than 0.01% of their lives actively being serial killers.
     
    The serial killer example was used because it is easy to clarify the point: a killer generally only kills in an extremely small time of his life.

    But okay, let us use police: is it fair to talk about police violence when the overwhelming majority of police interactions do not result in violence? The emphasis, imo, is rightly put on the violent acts - more so when the bad acts occur with relative frequency: even though they don't even come close to matching 7% of police interactions.
    What does every reporter say in regards to instances of bad cops and police brutality? Most cops are not bad.

    The study and reporters are saying most protestors and protests are peaceful. What exactly is inconsistent or a problematic about pointing that out? It's the truth, so when did reporting the truth become a problem for people?
     
    Last edited:
    What does every reporter say in regards to instances of bad cops and police brutality? Most cops are not bad.

    The study and reporters are saying most protestors and protests are peaceful. Why exactly is inconsistent or a problem about pointing that out? It's the truth, so when did reporting the truth become a problem for people?

    This is it exactly. To make any other argument is just silly.

    Yes bad apples not the whole harvest. Yes we need to separate the bad apples from the force and the protesting.

    The whole problem is the way the minorities are treated in comparison. I would expect anyone rolling around shooting people with paintball guns and using bear spray on the public to be incarcerated yet they are not.
     
    I don't think you have made a good case for saying my comment is not conducive to discussion. The point I am making is comparing how someone reports or describes - not comparing a movement or whatever with a serial killer.
    I am reading the OP and it seems clear that the intent was a criticism of how the protests are described or not described - hence my comment is directed to how a serial killer is described. You can make such a comparison about a large number of subjects.
    Surely the lack of conduciveness to the discussion does not hinge on my example being about an individual as opposed to a group. If so, then let's make a comparison to Nazi rallies. The majority of Nazi rallies did not result in the killing of Jews - should that be part of the description of Nazi rallies and or the Nazi movement?
    The idea of a reporter standing in front of some Cambodian killing fields and making the point that most Khmer Rouge members did not murder educated urbanites is absurd and quite frankly would be a really stupid point to try and make

    What do we remember (and perhaps more to the point, how do we describe) the events in Charlottesville? Do we need a Princeton study to tell us that that 99.99%+ of demonstrators did not kill?
    It is pure political opportunism to insist on tying the entire BLM movement to violence on the fringes of the protests, to demand the media do the same, and to draw comparisons to coverage of serial killers and genocide. The Nazis were a white grievance party which blamed Jews and other non-whites for their economic hardships, and who started putting people in gas chambers and ovens to exterminate them. No one talks about their fiscal policy because they committed mass genocide and started a world war.

    The Princeton study is at least a useful tool to respond to repeated assaults on the legitimacy of the movement by folks on the right who insist on falsely accusing the media of disproportionate coverage, or who ignore the extent to which acts of violence are being perpetrated by non-BLM members, or who draw inflammatory comparisons with BLM to movements whose premises were themselves illegitimate, like the Nazis, or even to serial killers who generally murder people indiscriminately and not in the furtherance of some greater public good.

    There was a path for the center-right to take which embraced the ideals of the BLM movement, while insisting on orderly administration of justice for *anyone* involved in violence in the protests to the extent laws were broken. Instead, it's this constant barrage of complaints echoing Trump and the RNC about the violence and the media's coverage of it, as if the media isn't covering it at all (it is), or as if there's nothing else going on in the movement of any importance (there is). The pattern is rather familiar at this point -- a token acknowledgment of the problem of police brutality, followed by intense focus on everything but the problem of police brutality.
     
    The serial killer example was used because it is easy to clarify the point: a killer generally only kills in an extremely small time of his life.

    But okay, let us use police: is it fair to talk about police violence when the overwhelming majority of police interactions do not result in violence? The emphasis, imo, is rightly put on the violent acts - more so when the bad acts occur with relative frequency: even though they don't even come close to matching 7% of police interactions.

    Police brutality, harassment, profiling, etc of Blacks is systemic and historic. We aren't talking about bad actors. We are talking about much more than that. Or are you making the argument that there isn't historic, systemic racist mistreatment of blacks in the law enforcement and legal systems?

    You've cited Nazis and Pol Pot, genocidal despots. Systemic elimination of an 'other' on exponential scales, even judging by despotic leaders. Is BLM that systemically violent? Homocidal? Genocidal?

    Is BLM comparable to the police in its historic, systemic abuses of power?

    You keep reaching for these analogies, but I don't think any of them have worked and this latest one doesn't either. You did it in another thread a while back, too. You kept moving ground finding something else to compare it to rather than simply talking about the matter at hand.

    Why not do it here? If the issue is with BLM and you think it's not fair to dismiss the 'violence' as you think the OP suggests you do (acc to you), then just argue that. I don't get what you are trying to do with these comparisons, except to poke a hornet's nest.

    I've seen the systemic abuses, up close, and I can tell you that eliminating a bad actor here and a bad actor there doesn't fix the problem. In fact, I think it might actually serve to give us a false sense of accomplishment in terms of targeting trees and not even looking at the forest.

    We didn't get mass incarceration on a historically racist and disproportionate scale because of a bad cop here and there. It's the system. Laws, for example, need to be targeted but these aren't people. Okay, so people put them into law? Why did they? Political expediency. Appeasing racist constituents. Fundraising. Kickbacks. Contracts with for profit penal institutions. And so on.

    It's bigger than that and saying we should simply isolate the few bad actors and be contented with that is to miss the point entirely.

    And if your primary point for one half of your comparison falls short, I don't think that establishes much validity for your position.

    As I said in the other thread, I think you're better off just talking about the topic at hand rather than trying to make and then legitimate one analogy after another.

    They might be clever and appealing, but we end up talking about the analogies and not the topic itself.
     
    The serial killer example was used because it is easy to clarify the point: a killer generally only kills in an extremely small time of his life.

    But okay, let us use police: is it fair to talk about police violence when the overwhelming majority of police interactions do not result in violence? The emphasis, imo, is rightly put on the violent acts - more so when the bad acts occur with relative frequency: even though they don't even come close to matching 7% of police interactions.
    I think the point the OP was making is that the opinions on BLM don't seem to match up with reality. That they are over blown. I can't get it to load, but it seems like an academic paper.

    Is your stance, that all bad situations are just slivers of time, and the importance is to be perfect all the time? That one failure is enough to forever ruin a movement, group, or person?

    EDIT: I wanted to add.. or are you rejecting the notion that the way the BLM is portrayed is overblown? (i.e. you'd consider it fully accurate).
     
    Last edited:
    This is not a fair comparison, nor is it conducive to discussion. You are talking about an individual who murders people and comparing it to a movement where millions of people participate peacefully and comparatively very few violently (and the nature of the altercation and who is involved isn't even always clear), but in your comparison would be complicit in the violence.

    A murderer killing people doesn't somehow implicate people on the other side of the country or town or world or wherever by association. That's not how this works. Not to mention, we're talking about serial killing. It's a sensationalistic comparison whereby important distinctions don't seem to matter.

    If you want to make a comment about the integrity of the argument in the OP, then just make it. Is there a point that merits discussion, like the majority of people involved in the movement could or should be more vocal condemning violence or looting or rioting? Perhaps. That seems closer to what you are talking about or seeking to talk about, if I am understanding you correctly. It would also invite more discussion. Were I a staunch BLM supporter, I wouldn't care for the comparison, in the same way I would not appreciate someone, for example, saying I was a white supremacist or a member of the KKK because I was a Republican.

    All of that said, there is still no tolerance here for namecalling, even as a rhetorical question to another poster. We're only on page 2 of a worthwhile topic and we haven't exhausted the topic just yet.
    It seemed quite obvious to me that he was making a statistical comparison. He wasn't comparing the actions of BLM to serial killers.

    Quite a few people on the MCB have used the comparison of OJ to Trump when they were talking alleged crimes. I knew they weren't saying that Trump was a murderer.
     
    Last edited:
    "I support your cause, but..." unfortunately seems to be White America's legacy when it comes social/racial injustice. The bite never quite meets the bark. Four years ago, when Kaepernick and other athletes began kneeling silently in protest, the pushback then was: "I support your cause, but...don't protest during the anthem, but...don't disrespect the military, but...not during sports, but...not on the football field, but...not that Kaepernick guy."

    Now, fast forward, post-George Floyd, when the societal winds have shifted and those things have been debunked or are more palatable it then became: "I will support your cause, but...looting is immoral, but...rioting and violence are a turnoff, but...you are disorganized, but...defund the police (misconstrued as "getting rid of cops) is a non-starter."

    So, here we are with data showing the overwhelming majority of demonstrations of this movement are peaceful, have been mischaracterized as violent, when it is violent it isn't widespread but normally contained and the violent occurences seem to be heavily instigated by outside agitators and/or heavy-handed, disproportionate federal retaliation and the response to that is more goalposts moving. More, "I support your cause, but..."

    So, what is it now? What is the new reason that being subjected to an Ahmaud Arbery assassination is a possibility that I just have to live with because I'm black? What is the current "Yeah, but" that justifies being murdered like Breonna Taylor is something that I just have to accept in life? The talk has become so damn cheap. Is it any wonder, that in four years, it has escalated from silent protesting to not so silent? Oh my bad! Turns out, it hasn't truly escalated. We are still overwhelmingly peacefully asking, begging, for equality.

    I wonder what will happen when we truly turn violent and stop asking peacefully?
     
    "I support your cause, but..." unfortunately seems to be White America's legacy when it comes social/racial injustice. The bite never quite meets the bark. Four years ago, when Kaepernick and other athletes began kneeling silently in protest, the pushback then was: "I support your cause, but...don't protest during the anthem, but...don't disrespect the military, but...not during sports, but...not on the football field, but...not that Kaepernick guy."

    Now, fast forward, post-George Floyd, when the societal winds have shifted and those things have been debunked or are more palatable it then became: "I will support your cause, but...looting is immoral, but...rioting and violence are a turnoff, but...you are disorganized, but...defund the police (misconstrued as "getting rid of cops) is a non-starter."

    So, here we are with data showing the overwhelming majority of demonstrations of this movement are peaceful, have been mischaracterized as violent, when it is violent it isn't widespread but normally contained and the violent occurences seem to be heavily instigated by outside agitators and/or heavy-handed, disproportionate federal retaliation and the response to that is more goalposts moving. More, "I support your cause, but..."

    So, what is it now? What is the new reason that being subjected to an Ahmaud Arbery assassination is a possibility that I just have to live with because I'm black? What is the current "Yeah, but" that justifies being murdered like Breonna Taylor is something that I just have to accept in life? The talk has become so damn cheap. Is it any wonder, that in four years, it has escalated from silent protesting to not so silent? Oh my bad! Turns out, it hasn't truly escalated. We are still overwhelmingly peacefully asking, begging, for equality.

    I wonder what will happen when we truly turn violent and stop asking peacefully?
    You are either ignoring our previous posts or just acting like we all didn't say previously that we support police reform. Do you think its possible to support police reform and also be concerned about the violence? Should we just ignore the violence and the people's businesses that are destroyed?

    We all have also said we know most of the protestors are peaceful. There is also a lot of violence. To act as is its just a few people who are destroying property and business or that most of the violence is due to the Proud Boy is disingenuous.

    In regards to you 4th paragraph, who has said that here?
     

    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