Do you REALLY think that 15-26,000,000 protestors wouldn't get ANY kind of lookin' from the news?
Of course they would. And if there had not been any violence, they couldn't have shown it. But unfortunately there was. In spades.
Well color me impressed that you actually had a source for your claim. Kudos to you, good sir. My apologies for insinuating that your number was made up.
Interestingly enough, that source also says that there were violent demonstrations at ~220 locations. Sadly, there is a smattering of orange dots representing violent demonstrations all across our great nation.
There were EXAMPLES of the news media saying that. Of course there are MANY more examples of them NOT saying that.
I don't really care what the media did or did not say. The violent demonstrations greatly overshadowed any of the 93% of peaceful protests not because of media coverage, but because there were enough violent protestors all across the nation to tarnish any good.
But of course, the BLM protests WERE mostly peaceful.
See, this is an interesting statement, because from a sheerly mathematical perspective in comparing the
number of "peaceful" demonstrations to the violent ones, you are correct. However, I'm once again skeptical of the relative numbers. Allow me to demonstrate why.
Let's say there were 10 demonstrations at various locations categorized thusly:
- 3 protestors, peaceful
- 10 protestors, peaceful
- 8 protestors, peaceful
- 100 protestors, peaceful
- 53 protestors, peaceful
- 96 protestors, peaceful
- 253 protestors, peaceful
- 28 protestors, peaceful
- 37 protestors, peaceful
- 7,500 protestors, violent
10 demonstrations. 9 of them were peaceful, only 1 violent. If looking at the number of protests instead of the number of protestors, mathematically you could say that 90% of the above hypothetical demonstrations were peaceful. But can you accurately classify this overall as being "mostly peaceful"? I would hope not.
Do you see my hesitation to call demonstrations that cost 17 lives and $1 BILLION in damages "mostly peaceful"?
And there were ones where there was violence.
Yes, and as the map shows, larger demonstrations were correlated with violent demonstrations.
False. As indicated, there is evidence that far right actors were ENCOURAGED to go stoke the flames. There are examples in the articles I quoted.
There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison to J6 where anti-fa was blamed for participating with no convincing evidence. 0. Nothing. Certainly no anti-fa charged and no evidence of them participating.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence one way or the other. Your biased article notwithstanding, there is no hard evidence of either. They are simply unproven theories.
Were there "far-right" actors at demonstrations that responded violently? Yes. Were they the primary perpetrators of the violence and damage that resulted from the protests? There simply is no evidence that suggests that is the case.
Not saying it did; just giving an example. And so I included the article...with several examples....which should not be ignored.
I didn't ignore it. I read the whole thing. I was not convinced that any "evidence" was presented. Just speculation.
What impact do those two words have on the argument in your mind?
You're trying to make the case that it was the far right that was causing the violence. But your chosen news article doesn't say that. It draws a distinction between average young adults and "highly organized" leftist extremists. It only makes an unquantifiable passing mention that some "far-right" people had been arrested also.
I suppose if you want to cling to the idea that the far-right is responsible for the violence in the BLM protests without any compelling evidence, that is certainly your prerogative.
That is an incorrect presumption of the meaning of the word "if". I mean, the writer just spent a whole essay providing evidence of exactly that.
I'm not entirely sure you understand what the word "evidence" means, since you keep repeatedly misusing it.