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

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    278
    Reaction score
    1,421
    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.
     
    What is false?

    What makes this libel and not 'he went looking for trouble'? Wrong side?
    No, @Farb , I literally just told you. Rittenhouse shot three specific people, who you've just claimed were "burning, looting, and attacking private property".

    Do you have evidence that those three specific people - and in particular the one who wasn't killed - committed those specific acts?

    Because if not - and AFAIK you don't, because there isn't any - that would be libel. You're falsely stating those three people did those things. And you don't know they did. Which would make the statement libelous.
     
    Last edited:
    No, @Farb , I literally just told you. Rittenhouse shot three specific people, who you've just claimed were "burning, looting, and attacking private property".

    Do you have evidence that those three specific people - and in particular the one who wasn't killed - committed those specific acts?

    Because if not - and AFAIK you don't, because there isn't any - that would be libel. You're falsely stating those three people did those things. And you don't know they did. Which would make the statement libelous.
    Not that I'm disagreeing, but doesn't libel involve some sort of injury to another person? He might be making it up, but what he's saying doesn't really impact them in any way that I can see. I'd say that if he's making stuff up that he's lying, but I wouldn't call it libel unless he intends to injure them in some way.
     
    Not that I'm disagreeing, but doesn't libel involve some sort of injury to another person? He might be making it up, but what he's saying doesn't really impact them in any way that I can see. I'd say that if he's making stuff up that he's lying, but I wouldn't call it libel unless he intends to injure them in some way.
    I'd think it varies by nation according to the applicable legislation. Libel doesn't require intent in at least some places.

    According to Wikipedia, "In the United States, a person must prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. This is for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, one must prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth, which is usually specifically referred to as "actual malice".

    Wouldn't think shooting victims count as celebrities, so that would suggest intent isn't required.

    And yes, harm is another aspect, and presumably varies by legislation as well, but it's clear that publishing false statements claiming someone was committing crimes they weren't committing has that potential.

    That said, I think whether it could be successfully prosecuted is moot; "don't say potentially libelous stuff" is generally a pretty basic rule of most message boards. As well as basic decency.
     
    I'd think it varies by nation according to the applicable legislation. Libel doesn't require intent in at least some places.

    According to Wikipedia, "In the United States, a person must prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. This is for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, one must prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth, which is usually specifically referred to as "actual malice".

    Wouldn't think shooting victims count as celebrities, so that would suggest intent isn't required.

    And yes, harm is another aspect, and presumably varies by legislation as well, but it's clear that publishing false statements claiming someone was committing crimes they weren't committing has that potential.

    That said, I think whether it could be successfully prosecuted is moot; "don't say potentially libelous stuff" is generally a pretty basic rule of most message boards. As well as basic decency.
    Maybe, I don't know. I've seen a lot of people make shirt up on discussion boards like this and I can't remember anyone ever being charged with libel for it. I can see it if a comment gets widespread visibility. But on a message board with a few dozen readers? I wouldn't think so. I dunno, I'd just say he's making shirt up. But that's me.
     
    Maybe, I don't know. I've seen a lot of people make shirt up on discussion boards like this and I can't remember anyone ever being charged with libel for it. I can see it if a comment gets widespread visibility. But on a message board with a few dozen readers? I wouldn't think so. I dunno, I'd just say he's making shirt up. But that's me.
    People have definitely been sued, sometimes successfully, about false statements on message boards going way back. You also see libel being acted on with regard to twitter posts, for example, even when the poster has very few followers. The impression I have is this is usually more in the form of a, "This is libel, take it down and apologise or I'll sue," type response, rather than actually suing, because of the expense involved, but the basic principle of it being a false statement about someone that is potentially harmful is there nonetheless. And there are definitely differences in UK and US law about this (I believe it's an easier to successfully sue in the UK, which resulted in 'libel tourism' and new laws being passed in response to that).

    But that said, I'm not sure what the argument is here, really. I'm not saying that anyone is going to successfully sue anyone and get massive damages over that post. The fundamental point is that it's a false statement about specific people - which would be against the TOS of the site - and you seem to agree with that?

    I would add there's a lot of stuff said which might look similar but isn't, since it's expressed as an opinion, or it's not about specific people.
     
    Yeah, thanks for you concern Mother Hen but, no, I will keep it up. Unless the Mods here say something to me about it.

    Again, it appears to just to be the wrong side, as I am pretty sure the shooter is famous, the dead people and the wounded attacker, I don't care to know their names. Hence the 'he went looking for trouble' is just as slanderous.

    Careful, your biases are comically showing.
     
    Yeah, thanks for you concern Mother Hen but, no, I will keep it up. Unless the Mods here say something to me about it.

    Again, it appears to just to be the wrong side, as I am pretty sure the shooter is famous, the dead people and the wounded attacker, I don't care to know their names. Hence the 'he went looking for trouble' is just as slanderous.

    Careful, your biases are comically showing.
    From a wildly biased position, such as yours, objectivity appears biased.

    And no. The statements are fundamentally dissimilar. It's reasonable for someone to take the view that someone arming themselves and travelling to another state to 'protect businesses' is looking for trouble. As, for example, this Chicago Tribune opinion column does, to give one of many examples. Which is clearly the case; even by his own account he was looking for trouble, supposedly in order to 'protect businesses' from it.

    Whereas stating that someone was taking part in specific criminal acts which they were not is simply false. It's a statement, not a point of view, it's false, and it's defamatory.

    If you weren't so blinded by your own bias, you'd be able to see that. And I'd like to say it's comic, but at this point it isn't: it's just tragic.
     
    The mouth breather Rittenhour drove from Illinois. He drove hundreds of miles with a loaded weapon.

    That is the definition of “looking for trouble.”

    At least he will be introduced to a lifetime of hell in the state pen. He will make someone a very nice bride.
     
    Last edited:
    People have definitely been sued, sometimes successfully, about false statements on message boards going way back. You also see libel being acted on with regard to twitter posts, for example, even when the poster has very few followers. The impression I have is this is usually more in the form of a, "This is libel, take it down and apologise or I'll sue," type response, rather than actually suing, because of the expense involved, but the basic principle of it being a false statement about someone that is potentially harmful is there nonetheless. And there are definitely differences in UK and US law about this (I believe it's an easier to successfully sue in the UK, which resulted in 'libel tourism' and new laws being passed in response to that).

    But that said, I'm not sure what the argument is here, really. I'm not saying that anyone is going to successfully sue anyone and get massive damages over that post. The fundamental point is that it's a false statement about specific people - which would be against the TOS of the site - and you seem to agree with that?

    I would add there's a lot of stuff said which might look similar but isn't, since it's expressed as an opinion, or it's not about specific people.
    Well, he didn't specifically name someone. So I'm not sure that would apply in this case. Even though you narrow it down to a handful of people, it's still generic enough of a statement. Not that I agree with it. I'm just saying I'm not so sure this fits the bill.

    Anyway, Rittenhouse should get charged with manslaughter and go away for a while. Looks like that's what's going to happen. I don't feel any sympathy for him. He made his bed and now he gets to sleep in it.
     
    Well, he didn't specifically name someone. So I'm not sure that would apply in this case. Even though you narrow it down to a handful of people, it's still generic enough of a statement. Not that I agree with it. I'm just saying I'm not so sure this fits the bill.
    You don't have to name someone for them to be identifiable. "They got shot" refers to three specific people, and he falsely said they were "the people burning, looting, and attacking private property." That applies specifically to those people. It's not generic.

    Now if he'd said something like, "There were people burning, looting, and attacking private property, and as a result some people got shot", for example, that wouldn't be specific, since it doesn't specifically state the people who got shot were the people committing those crimes. But he didn't.

    Anyway, Rittenhouse should get charged with manslaughter and go away for a while. Looks like that's what's going to happen. I don't feel any sympathy for him. He made his bed and now he gets to sleep in it.
    I think his charges include first-degree intentional homicide, rather than manslaughter. Could go away for life in theory.

    Of course, a lot of people thought Zimmerman would be going away for a long while as well, so, who knows.
     
    You don't have to name someone for them to be identifiable. "They got shot" refers to three specific people, and he falsely said they were "the people burning, looting, and attacking private property." That applies specifically to those people. It's not generic.

    Now if he'd said something like, "There were people burning, looting, and attacking private property, and as a result some people got shot", for example, that wouldn't be specific, since it doesn't specifically state the people who got shot were the people committing those crimes. But he didn't.


    I think his charges include first-degree intentional homicide, rather than manslaughter. Could go away for life in theory.

    Of course, a lot of people thought Zimmerman would be going away for a long while as well, so, who knows.
    Fair enough.
     
    No he’ll go to jail.

    He killed white people. That was his biggest mistake.

    If he would have just stuck to the script and shot Black people he would probably would have gotten the Medal of Freedom from Trump
     
    You don't have to name someone for them to be identifiable. "They got shot" refers to three specific people, and he falsely said they were "the people burning, looting, and attacking private property." That applies specifically to those people. It's not generic.

    Now if he'd said something like, "There were people burning, looting, and attacking private property, and as a result some people got shot", for example, that wouldn't be specific, since it doesn't specifically state the people who got shot were the people committing those crimes. But he didn't.


    I think his charges include first-degree intentional homicide, rather than manslaughter. Could go away for life in theory.

    Of course, a lot of people thought Zimmerman would be going away for a long while as well, so, who knows.
    Sure. I wonder if you have ever given someone else on this site legal advise due to a post?
    Buy yeah man. Keep up the attempts at censorship. The crown thanks you.
     
    Sure. I wonder if you have ever given someone else on this site legal advise due to a post?
    Buy yeah man. Keep up the attempts at censorship. The crown thanks you.
    Ok, let me put it this way: was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was there, and got shot, "burning, looting, and attacking private property"?

    As for censorship, what? Society has rules. Forums have more rules. Not saying false stuff about people is a pretty basic one. If you think that's unacceptable censorship, you're free to go ahead regardless, but you're not free from the consequences of doing so.
     
    Ok, let me put it this way: was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was there, and got shot, "burning, looting, and attacking private property"?

    As for censorship, what? Society has rules. Forums have more rules. Not saying false stuff about people is a pretty basic one. If you think that's unacceptable censorship, you're free to go ahead regardless, but you're not free from the consequences of doing so.
    So you have lectured or white knighted anyone else on here about the consequences of 'saying false stuff about people'? No. You haven't. I wonder why?

    You would carry a little credibility if you had, but I don't recall anyone at all bring up libel on this board. Good job for censorship creativity. They are training you well across the pond.

    So I do hope you can see how this has failed to have any, much less the desired, effect because everyone sees it for it is. A comical attempt to virtue signal and attempt to shut down a public conversation that you don't like.
     
    So you have lectured or white knighted anyone else on here about the consequences of 'saying false stuff about people'? No. You haven't. I wonder why?
    Yes, you should think about why that might be.
    You would carry a little credibility if you had, but I don't recall anyone at all bring up libel on this board. Good job for censorship creativity. They are training you well across the pond.

    So I do hope you can see how this has failed to have any, much less the desired, effect because everyone sees it for it is. A comical attempt to virtue signal and attempt to shut down a public conversation that you don't like.
    There you go again. You said something false about someone. I responded pointing out that it was false, suggested you should withdraw it, and said why. And you cry, 'Censorship!'

    You're not looking for a public conversation when you do that. You're looking to say false things without anyone embarrassing you by pointing out they're false. Observing that something is false, and that making false statements about people is generally frowned upon and has potential consequences, that's not censorship. That's reality.

    And that's what I've done; pointed out that it's false, and observed that making false statements about people isn't OK, and has consequences. What have you done? Cried censorship, complained about bias, and very obviously avoided the direct question about whether it's true or not.

    So I suspect most people do see what's going on here. Because it's not exactly subtle.
     
    So you have lectured or white knighted anyone else on here about the consequences of 'saying false stuff about people'? No. You haven't. I wonder why?

    You would carry a little credibility if you had, but I don't recall anyone at all bring up libel on this board. Good job for censorship creativity. They are training you well across the pond.

    So I do hope you can see how this has failed to have any, much less the desired, effect because everyone sees it for it is. A comical attempt to virtue signal and attempt to shut down a public conversation that you don't like.

    Given your post history, you wouldn't recognize credibility if it continued to log into RobF's account and accurately point out your outright lies and inability to discuss anything in good faith.
     
    Given your post history, you wouldn't recognize credibility if it continued to log into RobF's account and accurately point out your outright lies and inability to discuss anything in good faith.
    Those on the left tend to be pragmatic. If a lie helps the cause so be it----------------the end justifies the means.
     

    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