Over 93% of BLM demonstrations are non-violent (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    First Time Poster

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 8, 2019
    Messages
    278
    Reaction score
    1,424
    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.
     
    It's your claim:


    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:


    But heck, you can't even respond to a direct question about it:

    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.
    Yeah. Sure. Nice touch on using admins in your reply. Always shows a strong position. Maybe they should consider having you around for legal council.

    Deflect all you want, you came to me about what I said as libel. Prove it is all I ask (the burden usually falls on the those making the accusation, correct?). You can't. But yet you ask me to prove my stance that you, and only you had the legal knowledge as a prosecutor barrister to imply it.

    My advise, report my post and let the magistrate have a look at it. Otherwise, you look like a child who got their feeling hurt because your snark reply was seen for what it was. Snark and biased.
     
    Yeah. Sure. Nice touch on using admins in your reply. Always shows a strong position. Maybe they should consider having you around for legal council.

    Deflect all you want, you came to me about what I said as libel. Prove it is all I ask (the burden usually falls on the those making the accusation, correct?). You can't. But yet you ask me to prove my stance that you, and only you had the legal knowledge as a prosecutor barrister to imply it.

    My advise, report my post and let the magistrate have a look at it. Otherwise, you look like a child who got their feeling hurt because your snark reply was seen for what it was. Snark and biased.
    Let's see... we've got actual snark - yes, the guidelines for the board are written by the admins, that's kind of how that works - another attempt to reverse the burden of proof, even more snark, and is that a call for the censors to get involved? Bit weird for someone shouting 'censorship!' And then some personal attacks thrown in for good measure, all of which amounts to whole pile of deflection.

    Because there's certainly nothing showing that your original statement isn't false, not even an acknowledgement of the pertinent question:
    Ok, let me put it this way: was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was there, and got shot, "burning, looting, and attacking private property"?

    You know, if you're not willing to stand by your original claim...
    So could the people burning, looting and attacking private property? They were there and they got shot.
    ...you could just say so, instead of feeling you have to demonstrate it by repeatedly and very obviously avoiding doing so. It'd save a lot of time.
     
    Let's see... we've got actual snark - yes, the guidelines for the board are written by the admins, that's kind of how that works - another attempt to reverse the burden of proof, even more snark, and is that a call for the censors to get involved? Bit weird for someone shouting 'censorship!' And then some personal attacks thrown in for good measure, all of which amounts to whole pile of deflection.

    Because there's certainly nothing showing that your original statement isn't false, not even an acknowledgement of the pertinent question:


    You know, if you're not willing to stand by your original claim...

    ...you could just say so, instead of feeling you have to demonstrate it by repeatedly and very obviously avoiding doing so. It'd save a lot of time.
    Oh no. I completely stand by my claim your honor. I also think you are being petty and silly when calling 'libel' and being a white knight moderator want to be.

    Maybe next time you want to discuss something, tossing around litigation probably isn't the best way to do it on a political message board. Can you show me where you have done this in the past to someone in your tribe? You said you did, I want to see. Show me the receipts.

    Did you remind the teacher when she forgot to give out homework assignments too? I bet you were a hoot as a kid.

    I think all the idiots, and that includes the 3 thugs, there went looking for trouble. They went to loot, burn and attack private property. That is my stance and that is how I saw and still see that situation. You can run and tattle as much as you like but you look like a goof.
     
    Oh no. I completely stand by my claim your honor. I also think you are being petty and silly when calling 'libel' and being a white knight moderator want to be.
    When you say something that's false in a discussion, it's normal for other people to say, "Hey, that's false," or even, "Hey, that seems libelous. Maybe not?"

    This 'only moderators can point out that something is false' thing you're trying to push isn't a thing.
    Maybe next time you want to discuss something, tossing around litigation probably isn't the best way to do it on a political message board. Can you show me where you have done this in the past to someone in your tribe? You said you did, I want to see. Show me the receipts.
    No. I said you should think about why I haven't, as you originally put it, "lectured or white knighted anyone else on here about the consequences of 'saying false stuff about people'"

    And you should think about it. The answer is kind of obvious. As I suspect you realise, given that you revised 'anyone else on here' to 'in your tribe'; maybe it occurred to you that if I haven't said it to anyone else in your 'tribe', it's not a tribe thing...
    I think all the idiots, and that includes the 3 thugs, there went looking for trouble. They went to loot, burn and attack private property. That is my stance and that is how I saw and still see that situation. You can run and tattle as much as you like but you look like a goof.
    And to get to the point, OK. That seems like a really long-winded and roundabout way to say that, according to you, the answer to the question, 'was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was there, and got shot, "burning, looting, and attacking private property"?', is 'yes'. But great.

    So that brings us back to the bit where you have to back it up. So go on. Back it up.
     
    Cool. Why was did he have a drawn gun in his hand while he was chasing that dude with the rifle? Was he going to plant flowers in the local park during the riot?
     
    Cool. Why was did he have a drawn gun in his hand while he was chasing that dude with the rifle? Was he going to plant flowers in the local park during the riot?
    Well, first, your question answers itself.

    Second, you seem to be trying to suggest that the only two things anyone could have been doing there are "planting flowers" and "burning, looting, and attacking private property," with the implication that anyone who wasn't planting flowers must have been doing the latter. But since that is really obviously a remarkably weak false framing, no, that does not back up your false claims.

    Seems fairly safe to say you don't have any actual proof of your false statement at this point?
     
    Well, since guy with the gun was not planting flowers and chasing another a guy with a gun that was also not planting flowers, I think my assumption and statement were correct.
     
    Well, since guy with the gun was not planting flowers and chasing another a guy with a gun that was also not planting flowers, I think my assumption and statement were correct.
    No.

    For one thing, by that argument Rittenhouse was 'burning, looting, and attacking private property' since your argument depends on those being the only two possibilities.

    But your argument is very obviously wrong, so, no.

    And given the complete lack of any proof, or even evidence, you've offered for your claim that Gaige Grosskreutz, and the other two who were shot, were "burning, looting, and attacking private property", it's safe to conclude you don't have any, and your claim is false.

    It's just a shame you don't have the integrity to acknowledge that.
     
    Yes
    No.

    For one thing, by that argument Rittenhouse was 'burning, looting, and attacking private property' since your argument depends on those being the only two possibilities.

    But your argument is very obviously wrong, so, no.

    And given the complete lack of any proof, or even evidence, you've offered for your claim that Gaige Grosskreutz, and the other two who were shot, were "burning, looting, and attacking private property", it's safe to conclude you don't have any, and your claim is false.

    It's just a shame you don't have the integrity to acknowledge that.
    Yes. See you in court prosecutor.
     
    Rather than starting a new thread or bumping an old one from last year I'll just post this here. Yet another shooting that was covered at nauseum that didn't accurately describe crucial aspects of the story. Similar to hands up don't shoot. I guess it doesn't matter as long as it advanced the agenda right?








    Where are all disinformation police on the left now?
     

    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