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

< Previous | Next >

First Time Poster

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
243
Reaction score
1,170
Age
39
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.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
k, so i was able to watch this - all of the tv report
i am curious what your rational person take away is vis a vis context and clarity
what did you see & hear (i'm curious if it's what was actually reported)
You were able to watch the 23 mins video? If so, what was your take away on this?

I saw racist people with BLM signs, flags and shirts harassing innocent people walking across the street onto a street corner to go into a building on that corner based on the color of their skin.
I didn't get the feeling they were protesting cheerleading, but if so, why bring race into it?
 

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
1,449
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
You were able to watch the 23 mins video? If so, what was your take away on this?

I saw racist people with BLM signs, flags and shirts harassing innocent people walking across the street onto a street corner to go into a building on that corner based on the color of their skin.
I didn't get the feeling they were protesting cheerleading, but if so, why bring race into it?
what i got
- the protesters are out there everyday protesting the Breona murder, et al
- cheer competition happened to be in the same place they were protesting
- protesters told the cheerleaders that while the girls are in their protected bubble, black people are getting killed for being black (not the most nuanced message, but if there was an ax throwing convention the week before, my guess is the 'protest' would have been targeted for that group in a similar way
- then there's something about some guys who were 'helping' the girls get across the street and maybe that's where the vulgar language came from
- everyone involved in the protest that was on camera disavowed the vulgarity except for the last guy who was trying to bring in some perspective, but it was lost in the interview)
- the vulgarity was reported by the aggrieved white parents (who even hid behind 'white tears' which has become a meme at this point in the cultural discussion)
- the story was picked up by all the white grievance sites who know that people like you will clutch white pearls and amplify white grievance
- meanwhile breonna taylor's murders remain free

that's what i saw (well i added the editorial comment at the end)
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
what i got
- the protesters are out there everyday protesting the Breona murder, et al
- cheer competition happened to be in the same place they were protesting
- protesters told the cheerleaders that while the girls are in their protected bubble, black people are getting killed for being black (not the most nuanced message, but if there was an ax throwing convention the week before, my guess is the 'protest' would have been targeted for that group in a similar way
- then there's something about some guys who were 'helping' the girls get across the street and maybe that's where the vulgar language came from
- everyone involved in the protest that was on camera disavowed the vulgarity except for the last guy who was trying to bring in some perspective, but it was lost in the interview)
- the vulgarity was reported by the aggrieved white parents (who even hid behind 'white tears' which has become a meme at this point in the cultural discussion)
- the story was picked up by all the white grievance sites who know that people like you will clutch white pearls and amplify white grievance
- meanwhile breonna taylor's murders remain free

that's what i saw (well i added the editorial comment at the end)
It never occurred to you that when you type 'white' and 'black' so many times describing a video, there might be something underneath your thoughts?

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears to me that you are apparently 'OK' with blatant racism but draw a line at vulgarity. Odd take but not surprising.
 

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
1,449
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
It never occurred to you that when you type 'white' and 'black' so many times describing a video, there might be something underneath your thoughts?

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears to me that you are apparently 'OK' with blatant racism but draw a line at vulgarity. Odd take but not surprising.
i am ok with publicly stating that you are one of the last people that should be harumphing about racism - it's been demonstrated many times that you don't know what it is and do not care to learn
if you have specific questions about what i wrote you can ask them specifically but like so many things, you have no authority to frame questions about the broader concept of racism
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
i am ok with publicly stating that you are one of the last people that should be harumphing about racism - it's been demonstrated many times that you don't know what it is and do not care to learn
if you have specific questions about what i wrote you can ask them specifically but like so many things, you have no authority to frame questions about the broader concept of racism
I know you don't have any problems publicly stating anything and that is fine with me. You can call me a racist if you like, no offense taken.

Was I wrong in calling the actions of the BLM protestors in this specific video and instance racist?
 

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
1,449
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
I know you don't have any problems publicly stating anything and that is fine with me. You can call me a racist if you like, no offense taken.

Was I wrong in calling the actions of the BLM protestors in this specific video and instance racist?
Yes, I think it stands to reason that if you don’t know/don’t care what racism is, you have no credibility in calling it out
- you might stumble on it in a blind squirrel kinda way but that is no credit to your insight

Also why are you calling them BLM protesters
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
1,839
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
Yes, I think it stands to reason that if you don’t know/don’t care what racism is, you have no credibility in calling it out
- you might stumble on it in a blind squirrel kinda way but that is no credit to your insight

Also why are you calling them BLM protesters
I'm guessing because the articles calls them/her that. I've read her quotes a few times and while see seems to be an advocate, she doesn't say specifically that she's a BLM activist.

I suppose it's splitting hairs, but it doesn't really matter to me whether she is or not. Harassing kids on their way to a competition doesn't help her cause imo.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
Yes, I think it stands to reason that if you don’t know/don’t care what racism is, you have no credibility in calling it out
- you might stumble on it in a blind squirrel kinda way but that is no credit to your insight

Also why are you calling them BLM protesters
What do you recommend that I call them?
 

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
2,550
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
Do you have a link to that? I cannot find any interview where someone claims to be from BLM.
Unless I misunderstood or misread it the line, it was in one of the articles linked. I don't have time to go read them again right now.
 

V Chip

Truth Addict
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
857
Reaction score
1,506
Age
53
Location
Outside Atlanta
Offline
Unless I misunderstood or misread it the line, it was in one of the articles linked. I don't have time to go read them again right now.
I didn’t read any article or video where anyone claims to be from BLM. Articles call them that, but that’s also Breitbart and Daily Wire, both right-wing propaganda arms (they quote Ian Miles Cheong multiple times for goodness sake). News sites just say protestors, and the lady who claims she organized the protest never once mentions BLM. Except for the chants of the protestors, there’s nothing specifically tying them to BLM in any way. That’s why I was asking why those “news” sources called them BLM protestors.
 
Last edited:

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
7,135
Location
Midwest
Online
If you call them BLM, it gets more attention and more traffic to these horrible sites. And for a double bonus, it also gets to discredit an organization that these sites have chosen as a bogeyman. Win-win for the propagandists who run these sites.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,508
Location
Virginia
Offline
I've seen BLM used interchangeably between the main organization, affiliated organizations and unaffiliated protestors who happen to be espousing the belief that black lives matter. It seems to be a bit of hairsplitting to spend a lot of time whether this person is actually part of the BLM organization, or someone who is just trying to convince others that black lives matter.

The concern that @Farb is expressing is that racial justice advocates are going to start targeting white people just for being white. The evidence he is using is a racial justice protestor harassing white children going to a cheer leader competition.

There's a saying that hurt people hurt people. That's how the cycle continues, so it is always something to watch out for.

HOWEVER, I also think it's important to take a look what happened here - you had about a dozen protestors, one of them started yelling at the girls. That's what happened. No one was killed, or prevented from doing what they wanted to do, or economically harmed. It was certainly harassment, and I think wrong to do, but I also think this is meant to be a distraction so that some conservatives can feel justified in not actually working on solutions, but to instead focus on the mean people on the other side of the equation. "See, they aren't perfect, they are mean, so we don't need to work on correcting racial imbalances."

I don't know that that is @Farb's purpose, but it does seem to me that he's more concerned with protestors not behaving perfectly than say the police behaving perfectly. Or anyone else for that matter. @Farb I think this focus is going to be as ineffective at protecting what you value (which I assume is to prevent persecution of conservatives) as the protestor was at convincing those cheerleaders that she's in the right. The more you push back, the harder the backlash is going to be. That's just reality. If you want to make sure that people aren't accusing others of being racist, or canceled, or persecuted for being white, or whatever -- then your best bet is to make sure that the law is actually applied equally. That every race has a truly equal chance at succeeding. True, equality of opportunity is impossible, but we need to move closer to that.

Only when everyone truly feels like they have just as good a shot at succeeding (not just surviving), will the underlying tensions that drive what you fear go away.
 

Saintamaniac

Rise Sons of the Gold & Purple
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
722
Reaction score
1,419
Age
51
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
I've seen BLM used interchangeably between the main organization, affiliated organizations and unaffiliated protestors who happen to be espousing the belief that black lives matter. It seems to be a bit of hairsplitting to spend a lot of time whether this person is actually part of the BLM organization, or someone who is just trying to convince others that black lives matter.

The concern that @Farb is expressing is that racial justice advocates are going to start targeting white people just for being white. The evidence he is using is a racial justice protestor harassing white children going to a cheer leader competition.

There's a saying that hurt people hurt people. That's how the cycle continues, so it is always something to watch out for.

HOWEVER, I also think it's important to take a look what happened here - you had about a dozen protestors, one of them started yelling at the girls. That's what happened. No one was killed, or prevented from doing what they wanted to do, or economically harmed. It was certainly harassment, and I think wrong to do, but I also think this is meant to be a distraction so that some conservatives can feel justified in not actually working on solutions, but to instead focus on the mean people on the other side of the equation. "See, they aren't perfect, they are mean, so we don't need to work on correcting racial imbalances."

I don't know that that is @Farb's purpose, but it does seem to me that he's more concerned with protestors not behaving perfectly than say the police behaving perfectly. Or anyone else for that matter. @Farb I think this focus is going to be as ineffective at protecting what you value (which I assume is to prevent persecution of conservatives) as the protestor was at convincing those cheerleaders that she's in the right. The more you push back, the harder the backlash is going to be. That's just reality. If you want to make sure that people aren't accusing others of being racist, or canceled, or persecuted for being white, or whatever -- then your best bet is to make sure that the law is actually applied equally. That every race has a truly equal chance at succeeding. True, equality of opportunity is impossible, but we need to move closer to that.

Only when everyone truly feels like they have just as good a shot at succeeding (not just surviving), will the underlying tensions that drive what you fear go away.
As far as @Farb and Trumplicans in general are concerned., if there are two are more people protesting something and one of them is black, it is a BLM protest especially if something negative happens.
 

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
1,449
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
I've seen BLM used interchangeably between the main organization, affiliated organizations and unaffiliated protestors who happen to be espousing the belief that black lives matter. It seems to be a bit of hairsplitting to spend a lot of time whether this person is actually part of the BLM organization, or someone who is just trying to convince others that black lives matter.

The concern that @Farb is expressing is that racial justice advocates are going to start targeting white people just for being white. The evidence he is using is a racial justice protestor harassing white children going to a cheer leader competition.
not specific to you and part rhetorical/part actual question, if a poster has a continual and repeated history of not understanding or caring to understand a topic, should that poster be given a good faith response?
 

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
2,550
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
I didn’t read any article or video where anyone claims to be from BLM. Articles call them that, but that’s also Breitbart and Daily Wire, both right-wing propaganda arms (they quote Ian Miles Cheong multiple times for goodness sake). News sites just say protestors, and the lady who claims she organized the protest never once mentions BLM. Except for the chants of the protestors, there’s nothing specifically tying them to BLM in any way. That’s why I was asking why those “news” sources called them BLM protestors.
I must have misunderstood what I read then. I speed read a lot.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
1,839
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
not specific to you and part rhetorical/part actual question, if a poster has a continual and repeated history of not understanding or caring to understand a topic, should that poster be given a good faith response?
I would argue that the good faith dialogue is as much for the rest of us as it is for the person you're responding to. I try to have good faith conversations with people until it's obvious who I'm talking with doesn't. At that point, I usually just end the discussion and move on. Basically, some people are on my mental ignore list. Heh.
 

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.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom