Didn't you just tell me to:
So let's do that. A small number of individuals at J6 were violent. The majority were not.
Now you're not going to like that I get into numbers and facts and stuff because that gets tough to address on your side.
J6
How many people were at the protest outside the Capitol? Numbers I've seen are around 2500. I've seen psychos put that number at 100,000 so forget that nonsense...even seen some dreamers say 10,000 But 2500 seems to be a VERY reasonable guess for the number of people around the actual Capitol building.
Of that, 1100 were arrested.
That is 44% charged. Wow!
That's a lot of lawbreakers.
The number of people violent towards a copy is at 284 (according to USA Today) (with 315 charged with violent entry but we won't count them....)
That's 11%
So 11% of those protestors were violent or disruptive to the police.
BLM
The number of individuals participating in BLM protests across the country is estimated to be between 15,000,000 and 26,000,000.
If BLM had the SAME proportion of violence toward cops as at J6, we would have seen 1,600,000-2,500,000 people arrested for VIOLENCE or obstruction of justice against police.
There were 14,000 were arrested associated with those protests nationwide.
Now, many of those were charged with things like breaking curfew...those charges were dropped (the major urban centres dropped, like 90% of charges in some cases but ALL cities dropped a lot of charges).
But, what the heck, let's say all 14,000 were for dangerous offences (spoiler.....that isn't even close to being considered true....).
That is between 0.05% - 0.1%.
Whoa. So VIOLENCE charges at J6 against ALL charges at BLM protests already occurred at a rate 110x greater.
But in actually, The Department of Justice said 300 people were charged with violent offences stemming from those protests....
That means, of ALL the participants at BLM protests, only 0,00018% people were charged with violence.
I'm pretty good at math and I can see that 11% is a lot more than 0,00018%. I want to believe you can see it too.
You keep kvetching that I am burdenned with a false narrative? Well, there is that MATH that proves my point and disproves your point.
Someone here admitted there were 9,000 of them. 7% of 9,000 is 630. That's quite a bit of violence. Yet you can't get over an event that was just 1. But 630, no problem!
Well, one out of one IS 100%.
And that's why it's illogical to compare "the number of violent protests". Because though my percentage is higher, your number is higher as there were more opportunities for violence.
I'm not saying there was no violence at BLM. That's silly. I'm saying that comparing BLM protests and the J6 protest
1) The individuals at the J6 protests were exponentially more violent. EXPONENTIALLY moreso (61,000x more so in fact)
2) They were more violent because many were trying to overthrow the government even if they were
3) Makes no sense to compare "violent protests" given the desparity in the number of protests.
4) Makes a LOT of sense to compare the
individuals and the charges of the individuals attending these protests.
7% IS less than 100% no matter how you spin it.
I just read 7,750 of them. So that number is smaller, but really, it's of no real significant different to either of our arguments.
It was 1 for 1. That is hitting 100%. That means if there were 9000 attempts to overthrow an election, 9000 would be violent. People [Edit:be kind] watched it all fall hilliariously (albeit dangerously flat) should have recognized that their false god wasn't going to rescue them and frankly, really didn't actually give a damn about them.
Ps...you trot the 2billion in damage figure out for BLM?
Spread out of 7700 protests that's about 260,000$/protest.
2,870,000$/protest for J6
Boy...I...I guess that means that the far right is far more violent, destructive and filled with more hatred towards police than, you know, the protests against police brutality.
I'm excited to read a smackdown of my data