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
    305
    Reaction score
    1,556
    Age
    43
    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.
     
    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?
    This post is pre-rebutted by the FTP post it's responding to. It's like watching a Tarantino movie where the scenes are out of order.
     
    Any specific reforms you support?
    I'd bet they come from a simple google search of easily implemented police reforms.

    Institute Community Policing
    Demilitarize
    Appoint Independent Prosecutors
    Set Up Civilian Complaint Review Boards
    Provide Racial Bias Training

    He may go get his from a different site though.
     
    Yeah but you said you watch MSNBC.
    Yeah, and I watch Fox News too. Do I have to be limited to seeing what one side of the situation is pushing?

    I'm watching the US Open on ESPN right now. Does that mean I can't watch the Saints when they play on Fox?
     
    What is the BLM goal? Besides the Marxist leaders goals, we know what those are. What do the normal BLM supporters on the ground hope to accomplish with the protests? I hear a lot of the approved platitudes: "Equality for all"....'diversity is our strength'... 'Justice for ____________!"..."defund the police" ect.... Every thing I hear is broad, over generalization with no real plan or basis in the real world or logic. Again, hard to get normal people to back your play when you can't really say what that that is.

    Looting is bad. Its called stealing by violence. Every culture in the world is against stealing of any kind. Sexual assault is bad too.
    Now because a person committed sexual assault on a female, had an active warrant and the police were called by that women becasue the criminal came back to her house to harass her while he brought his kids along, gets shot after fighting off the police, a taser didn't work and he walked around his vehicle and began to reach in for what turned out to be a knife allegedly was shot, stealing Nike, iphones and burning private owned business in Kenosha is OK? Why again? To get our attention? If you get attention and it is not the attention you were seeking, then maybe, just maybe your messaging is off.

    But that can't be the case becasue no one is responsible for their own actions anymore, its all the bogey man of systemic racism in 2020.

    For a movement that wants and needs broad support, BLM sure does pick the worse possible people to lionize.
     
    This post is pre-rebutted by the FTP post it's responding to. It's like watching a Tarantino movie where the scenes are out of order.

    If the poster had read my post in sincerity, instead of reading to mount a defense, they would have seen who I was speaking to in the first sentence.

    White America's legacy

    I don't remember calling out any specific poster or political demographic in the post. If you are white, an American and fit into the mindset I was speaking of, then it was meant for you. But, again, some sincerity is required.
     
    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?

    If you can't comprehend who I was speaking to, which was made clear in the first sentence, why should I devote time to responding? I would like to but you seem intent on making this a personal fight. It is personal but not between specific posters.
     
    Pretty much everyone of your ilk who's since been banned.

    If they've been banned, then they've been banned. If there's specific reference to something SFL has said, then include it. But let's not start generalizing people who are still posting here with others who have been cut off from the site. This very thread has touched on the 'guilt by association' perils on the topic, would like to extend that to the posters as well.
     
    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.

    Facebook, specifically, is dominated by right-wing outlets. Except for the NYT, which was the lone non-right source in the Top 10 Most Viewed. Breitbart was on there. Ben Shapiro was on there a couple of times. FOX News was on there a couple of times.

    The depiction of protests and violence on other mainstream social media sites is also heavily influenced by the same sources and the same people peddling them. Ian Miles Cheong, Tim Pool, Andy Ngo. And scrolling through timelines, you'll see the same video repeated and re-posted and re-tweeted.

    It provides a distorted reality of what is actually happening. And I'm totally fine with property criminals and violent criminals and anyone else violating the law or presenting a danger to society being held accountable.

    But I also think there's definitely a place in the discursive landscape to push back on the distortion being sold by these grifters. I mean, Andy and Ian regularly beg for money across all their platforms.

    Recently, one of them said something to the effect of "Send me money so I can buy a coffee because I'm all night dropping truth bombs."

    Those liars don't deserve to have their manufactured narrative propped up without critique or examination.


    edit: I just checked into Twitter and saw that Trump re-tweeted Andy Ngo and Tim Pool in back to back re-tweets.

    These scam artists have found out how profitable it is. Tim, in particular, has changed quite a bit over the last couple of years and has become a lapdog for Trump. Those two dudes, thanks to Trump, are going to get more coverage than an academic publication from Harvard could probably hope to get on this topic.
     
    Last edited:
    If you can't comprehend who I was speaking to, which was made clear in the first sentence, why should I devote time to responding? I would like to but you seem intent on making this a personal fight. It is personal but not between specific posters.
    You said white america. I'm white. Yeah thats crazy for me to think you might have been talking about me. You complained about people being concerned about the violence which I had said.

    You were busy trying to downplay the violence. It's 93% peaceful! If 93% of flights never crashed, why would anyone worry about the 7% that crashed? If Covid has a 3% mortality rate does that mean the other 97% of the virus is nothing to be concerned about?

    How much property damage is acceptable to you? 50 million?
     
    "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?
    If it ever turns truly violent and vengeful as a movement, then I as a white person will probably be punished for the actions of the white people who refused to play nice. As I previously mentioned in this thread, getting punished for the bad behavior of others really ticks me off.

    My primary reason for wanting full equality of everything for everyone is because I think it's the right and best way for us all to treat each other. It's definitely the way I want everyone else to treat me and I don't ask others to do for me what I'm not willing to do for them. It's also the fundamental tenant in the holy scriptures of all of the major religions. It's also to most ignored, violated and grossly distorted tenant by large numbers of people in all of the major religions.

    A secondary reason I care so much is purely for self-preservation. I implore all white people who are resistant to the push for equality for marginalized and abused groups to do just a tiny bit of historical research. Almost every mass murder, a.k.a. genocide, in human history was a result of backlash against previous abusers who would not end their abuse and make amends voluntarily.

    When people are abused they desire freedom and relief from their abuse. The longer they are kept trapped in that abuse, the more they start to desire to extract revenge and retribution from their abusers.

    I don't ever want to be abused just for being white, so can we please all join together to actively bring an end to people being abused just for not being white?

    The greatest control we all have is over our own actions. Start there. As a community of individuals, the most control we have over making change happen is with our vote.

    Only vote for those who speak and act towards the BLM movement in a way that acknowledges and legitimatizes them without any "yeah, buts" or "if, onlys." Only vote for people that acknowledge that it's a movement in which the vast majority of supporters have been non-violent and restrained. Only vote for people who lay blame for the destruction and violence at the feet of the specific individuals engaged in those acts, instead of painting everyone in the movement as destructive and violent.

    And let me make this very clear, all of us who are white need to take the first step. We need to reach out a sincere helping and supportive hand to them. We need to hear their grievances and honor them by acknowledging the truth of their grievances. We need to stop making excuses for and minimizing their collective and individual pain and suffering.

    We should no more care about the color of anyone's skin, than we should about the type of their blood. Having different skin colors doesn't make us different races, just like having different blood types doesn't. Also, none of us here in the US are purebreds. We are all a mix of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis, at the very least.

    How we gonna treat each other differently and fight over racial and genetic purity or superiority when we're all part of the same mixed breed species?
     
    Last edited:
    What is the BLM goal? Besides the Marxist leaders goals, we know what those are. What do the normal BLM supporters on the ground hope to accomplish with the protests? I hear a lot of the approved platitudes: "Equality for all"....'diversity is our strength'... 'Justice for ____________!"..."defund the police" ect.... Every thing I hear is broad, over generalization with no real plan or basis in the real world or logic. Again, hard to get normal people to back your play when you can't really say what that that is.
    I see this statement as tragically biased and self-contradictory. I'll make a statement that employs the a counter bias and the same logical flaws as an example. I don't believe there is any substance to statement below or the statement above.

    What are the Trump supporters goals? Besides the white nationalist goal of their leader, we know what those are. What do the normal Trump supporters on the ground hope to accomplish with their counter-protests? I hear a lot of the approval platitudes: "Law and order" .... "European heritage is our strength" ... "this is our country" ... "defund social programs" ect.... Everything I hear is broad, over generalization with no real plan or basis in the real world or logic. Again, hard to get normal people to back your play when you can't really say what that that is.

    Both of those statements say a whole lot of nothing while presenting a whole lot of bias.

    Both statements are useless broad over-generalizations, while they both take exception with broad, over generalizations.

    Both statements are indicative of having a biased and closed mind on the issue being discussed.

    Open mindedness would require dismissing both statements out of hand as partisan bias.

    The worst part is that they both subtley insinuate that normal supporters are not "normal people," whether it is intentional or not.
     
    Last edited:

    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.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom