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
    1,423
    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.
     
    Those on the left tend to be pragmatic. If a lie helps the cause so be it----------------the end justifies the means.

    What are you talking about? Not only is this bullshirt, it's also completely irrelevant to what I said.
     
    Yes, you should think about why that might be.

    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.
    Would you characterize the censorship reaction as "victimhood"?
     
    That is a poor defense mechanism Brandon.
    Carry on!

    No, it's a great response. For someone who loves to point out logical fallacies, surely you recognize that you are engaging in some hardcore Whataboutism to the point where people can predict it, right?
     
    No, it's a great response. For someone who loves to point out logical fallacies, surely you recognize that you are engaging in some hardcore Whataboutism to the point where people can predict it, right?
    Yes, it is easy to predict the response of those that are far left and far right.

    I am sorry if i did a whataboutism. Can you quote?
     
    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.
    You love the straw man.
     
    @RobF do you know why those 3 showed up to the demonstration that everyone knew would turn into a riot?
     
    Yes, you should think about why that might be.

    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.
    Weak attempted censorship is never exactly subtle.
     
    How about you answer that?
    I am not the one that came down from tea time to lecture about saying incorrect things on a political message board. I do believe the onus to prove anything is on you, since you are the only one to bring up possible litigation.
     
    I am not the one that came down from tea time to lecture about saying incorrect things on a political message board. I do believe the onus to prove anything is on you, since you are the only one to bring up possible litigation.
    It's your claim:
    So could the people burning, looting and attacking private property? They were there and they got shot.

    So the burden of proof for that is clearly on you. None of this, "No, you have to prove a negative!" malarkey here. And I don't mean generally, I mean, specifically, that's one of those forum things too:
    News for those of you that like to present their opinions as if fact. If you make an assertion on the MCB and present it as fact, you then must be prepared to back it up. No more entire threads filled with avoiding, dancing around answering, deflecting and telling members to do their own homework when that burden of proof is on the person making the assertion

    But heck, you can't even respond to a direct question about it:
    Ok, let me put it this way: was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was there, and got shot, "burning, looting, and attacking private property"?
    Presumably because you know it's false.

    And if you can't show otherwise, that is the proof of my claim: because my claim is that your statement is false. The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. You can't? Case closed.
     

    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