06-08-2024, 11:40 AM
(06-07-2024, 09:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Source for your "incorrect" claim, please. Referencing someone's "entire posting history" won't do. Cite name, thread and post.
No, I don't really care to search for examples, but I will surprise you. I'm also referencing people who don't believe 01/06 was a bad thing. Also, I see you dodged the whole committing arson on an occupied police precinct rather than actually address it. Probably the smart move on your part.
Quote:This source says only 6% of the +1,000 protests involved arrests, including non-violent protestors. 96.7% involved no property damage. So probably less than 6% involved violence. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0708/BLM-and-Floyd-protests-were-largely-peaceful-data-confirms
This source says 93% involved no violence. That would make 7% not peaceful. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html
I found this whole thing very interesting. Every single major news outlet ran with this data and treated it as gospel. I didn't find any real investigation into the source's claims or any explanation of their methodology. Contrast that to counter claims that are more critical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/19/ron-johnsons-misleading-citation-data-back-his-concern-about-blm-protestors/
Notice the great pains they go to to attempt to debunk these claims? Unfortunately, for your point, I cannot agree with your source as I can say, solely from personal experience, that their numbers cannot be accurate. Let's start off with a small point, but an odd one. How did they get the oddly specific number of 2,938,406 protestors? Then let us move on to the oddly phrased "police officers injured" statistic. What's odd about that, you may ask. Why so specific? Why injured instead of assaulted? We all know a person can be assaulted but suffer no injury of consequence. A thinking person may come to the conclusion that they use injured as their metric as the number would be far smaller than officers assaulted. As I can personally attest, I witnessed hundreds of officers being assaulted in just a month period. And that was in a specific area of Los Angeles. That being the case one can only logically conclude that the numbers for Los Angeles County as a whole would be higher, as it would for the entire state, as it would for the entire country. Also, what constitutes being "injured"? A cut to your arm? A broken bone" An injury that requires medical attention? Some specificity would be welcome, and it's odd it's not included.
Another small, but odd, fact about this source, it says police officers injured, not law enforcement officers. Why is that significant? Because sheriff's deputies are not "police officers". If a person was trying to manipulate data to make these protests seem less violent than they actually were they could truthfully omit all injuries to sheriff's deputies, or other LEO's not considered police officers, and still correctly claim to present factual, albeit misleading, data.
Now let's move on to the non police officer's injured. Again, my personal experience makes me rather skeptical of a total number, for the entire country of 372 total "injuries" caused during BLM protests. But we don't want to use SSF's anecdotal evidence for this, heavens no. So, completely off the top of my head, let's count some "injuries". Retired LEO killed in Philly, that's one. Two killed and one injured in the Rittenhouse incident, four total if you count Kyle who was assaulted multiple times, but was he "injured"? Which again makes one question what qualifies as an "injury" for this source? Four people were murdered, and dozens of assaults, including rapes, were reported in the CHAZ/CHOP protest area in Seattle.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/chop-chaz-cleared-violence-explained
One would think that area alone would account for a large number of "injuries". So, again, I would be very interested in a deep dive of these numbers and how they were concluded, because from my personal experience alone, coupled with the above, I find the claim to be far fetched at the very least.
Quote:Deflection, but I'm fine with acknowledging that people who committed violence at those riots were "shitty." That includes ANTIFA and various right wing groups who see every riot as an opportunity.
My sincere kudos for doing so.
Quote:Shitty also is any attempt to conflate all protestors with them. I was happy to be one of those "morally bankrupt" protestors in my town who called for basic justice and recognition of common humanity, regardless of race. 15-25 million Americans were moved to protest Floyd's murder, not to mention more millions in other countries.
All of them? No. More than you'd like to acknowledge? Absolutely. As I've said for the past four years, I've never heard more virulent racism than from white liberals, especially the women for some reason, directed at LEO's who were not White. It's not violent, it's not assault and it's certainly protected by the 1st amendment, but it definitely makes the person uttering them a shitty person.
Quote:You are still measuring broken windows, figuratively speaking, adapting the previous Capitol/BLM false equivalence to the current round of Trump-inspired violence, which your "ideological fellow" would obscure with claims like the right is on a "mission to be peaceful." Maybe a new figure will help.
In terms of the body politic, comparing the Floyd riots to the Capitol riots by # of people killed is rather like claiming a broken arm was more dangerous than a stroke because more tissue was destroyed. Making tissue the measure wholly misses the scale of threat to the total organism.
I'm sure your ideological distinction is a tremendous comfort to the families and friends of those who were murdered. The point rather being that the level of violence on 01/06 was on par, if not less, than numerous BLM riots.
Quote:"The left's own standards" center on the fact that the Capitol riot originated in, and was led from, the highest office in the land--a direct threat to democracy from and to the executive center of our political system. So many essential differences here: Biden did not call all the protesters together and give them a target, then call the violent protestors "patriots" and consider pardoning those who received prison sentences, thus affirming his continuing connection to them and legitimation of lawless behavior.
And the threat to democracy is still there, as the disinformation machine which set the capitol riot in motion is still running full throttle. Bels' thread here is an attempt to address one aspect of that machine in the most careful and systematic terms. It will be interesting to see how that works out. The false equivalences will continue to come, to normalize and legitimate an anti-democratic politics.
Yes, we understand your position here as well as your desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the 01/06 riot. I can only reiterate the fact that what Dill finds to be more important doesn't negate facts. Facts such as the billions in property damage, the many people "injured" and the people killed during these protests.
An interesting aside, more from the other thread on the Capitol Hill police officers. One of those "honored" retired as a result of the riot, claiming, and I'm paraphrasing, that he did not want to retire, the rioters made him retire. While I wouldn't want to minimize the man's experience, and we all have different mental thresholds, I did find it a curious statement to make. Seeing as I know hundreds of officers who went through days like 01/06 and did it for months at a time. Some days were better, some were worse, but they lasted for months. Yet I don't know a single one of them who retired because of those days. Sadly, I know hundreds who have retired within the past four years because they are sick of Democratic politicians, including our DA, destroying their profession. Maybe that doesn't strike you as important? Just thought I'd add it as a bit of a cherry on top.
